"Occipital" vs. "Frontal"

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Since we know without a doubt that there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP in
the "occipital" region of JFK's head, I'm wondering if Dr. Humes really
meant to say "somewhat into the temporal and FRONTAL regions" when he
wrote this paragraph of President Kennedy's autopsy report....

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence
of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
in greatest diameter."

If the word "occipital" is replaced with the word "frontal" in the above
paragraph, it becomes a much more accurate paragraph (based on the autopsy
photographs and X-rays, plus a look at the Zapruder Film as well)....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N8qLfNk-5hY/VhRD_qSOzRI/AAAAAAABHio/nwmGzdYQ8Gc/s700/JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vnqprpvPSco/VhFrzSZFlSI/AAAAAAABHg8/f6fjsSoW_So/s700/Human-Skull.jpg

I'll also provide the following excerpts from the 1996 ARRB testimony of
two of JFK's autopsy surgeons, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton
Boswell, which is testimony that most certainly indicates that these two
autopsy physicians KNEW that there was no missing bone or scalp in the
OCCIPITAL portion of the President's head:

QUESTION -- "Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the
occipital bone?"

DR. HUMES -- "No. No."

QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"

DR. HUMES -- "No."

QUESTION -- "There were tears, however, over the temporal--"

DR. HUMES -- "Temporal and parietal."

----------------

QUESTION -- "Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone
from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?"

DR. HUMES -- "There basically wasn't any. It was just a hole. Not a
significant missing bone."

QUESTION -- "So a puncture hole--"

DR. HUMES -- "Puncture hole."

QUESTION -- "And no bone missing--"

DR. HUMES -- "No."

QUESTION -- "Anywhere in the occipital?"

DR. HUMES -- "No, no. Unless maybe--you know, these drawings are always
strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I don't
think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal."

----------------

DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."

QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal
and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal
there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where
this space is here."


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Now you finally admit that Dr. Humes *DID* write "occipital".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When did I ever deny that?

Answer -- Never.

Why on Earth would I deny that Dr. James Humes wrote a word that I can see
for myself in the autopsy report?

I suspect he SHOULD have written "FRONTAL" there, however. And the
Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm
correct in that assumption, with Dr. Boswell even using that very word --
"FRONTAL" -- to describe one of the missing areas of JFK's head as he
looks at an X-ray during his ARRB session. And guess what word he DIDN'T
use in that testimony? Answer -- "Occipital". ....

DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal,
temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I am still looking for an LNer explanation as to how one can determine a
piece of evidence is real or planted to frame someone. Clearly you guys
have some kind of technique because you are quite sure that certain
disputed items are real evidence. I have offered my criteria, but all I
have from the LN side is:

1) Common sense.

and...

2) Any item of evidence can be challenged.

Neither of these answers explains anything. 1) is simply stupid and 2)
totally avoids the question.

So please tell us, LNers, how does one determine that evidence is genuine?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In my opinion, a big thing that indicates NONE of the evidence is fake is
the fact that there are multiple pieces of evidence collected by MULTIPLE
organizations and in MULTIPLE locations (TSBD, Parkland Hospital, the
limousine, 10th & Patton, the parking lot behind the Texaco station, the
Texas Theater, Ruth Paine's garage, and Bethesda Naval Hospital).

If all that is fake evidence, it was a heck of a coordinated effort.

Plus, it would appear as if the various alleged evidence-fakers got the
person they were framing to cooperate with them as well, because Mr.
Oswald acted like anything BUT an "innocent patsy" immediately after the
assassination.

My question for conspiracy theorists would be --- Why would you think any
of the Oswald-incriminating evidence is fake when Lee Harvey Oswald
himself was acting so much like a guilty person on November 22, 1963?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

And *ALL* of it went through just two places... the FBI, or the Secret
Service.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The DPD doesn't count at all, eh? They only collected all of the TSBD
evidence.

Most of the evidence also ended up being handled by the FBI, that's true
enough. (Probably all of it, in fact.) But the Dallas Police Department
did a lot of work with the evidence BEFORE the FBI ever got involved with
it. Take the Oswald palmprint on the rifle, for example. And the trigger
guard prints on the rifle. And the paraffin tests administered to Oswald.

And then there are the two "non-Poe" bullet shells at the Tippit murder
scene (the ones that were initially found by witnesses Barbara Davis and
Virginia Davis), which have the shortest chain of custody possible ---
from Davis to Dhority for one of them; and from Davis to Doughty for the
other....with each officer marking their respective shell. So HOW are
THOSE chains NOT complete and bona fide?

The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is another piece of evidence that has the
shortest (or smallest) possible chain --- from Lieutenant J.C. Day of the
Dallas Police Department ... to .... NOBODY ELSE. Day is essentially THE
entire chain. (The entire chain that really matters, I mean.)

I.E., Lieutenant Day took possession of the rifle in the TSBD; he did not
hand it off to anybody else before he marked it; Day etched his name into
the butt of the gun [see photo below]; and Day retained possession of that
rifle all throughout Day 1 until the FBI took it at 11:45 PM CST on
November 22nd.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xQ5f41GAWuE/VhSj3wHb-YI/AAAAAAABHi4/VKKUp-7RBGQ/s1600/JC-Day-Mark-On-C2766-Carcano-Rifle.jpg

So, REGARDLESS of who handled the C2766 rifle at the FBI, the gun is still
going to trace back to the FIRST PERSON who handled it---Lt. J.C. Day of
the DPD. So I can't really see why CTers think the Carcano rifle has a
poor chain of custody either....because it clearly does not have a poor
chain, because Lieutenant Day marked the gun on November 22 before he ever
turned it over to anybody else. Ergo, no matter who else handled the rifle
after J.C. Day, the C2766 rifle will forever still PROVABLY be the rifle
Lieutenant Day picked up off the floor of the TSBD's sixth floor on
11/22/63.

And I'm quite certain that the same kind of "one-man chain" can apply to
other pieces of evidence connected to the JFK case, too.

As Vincent Bugliosi told me in a letter in 2009 when we were discussing
the courtroom admissibility of Bullet CE399:

"The whole purpose behind the chain of possession requirement is to insure
that the item being offered into evidence by the prosecution or defense is
what they claim it to be." -- Vince Bugliosi; Letter to DVP; 8/22/09

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html


"NICKNAME" SAID:

And what is "acting guilty?"


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't think pulling a gun and trying to shoot a cop inside a movie
theater constitutes "acting guilty"?

You think such activity is more in line with "acting innocent"?


"NICKNAME" SAID:

There is no testimony to support a gun was drawn and no evidence that is
was.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Horse manure!

Johnny Brewer verifies it....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html

Conspiracy theorists will do and say anything to keep Oswald blameless.
Don't CTers realize how utterly desperate they look when they keep pulling
this same "Fake Evidence / Lying Cops" trick out of their empty bag of
evidence?

At some point, don't you have to eventually TRUST SOMEBODY?

[bigdog]

Based on what little we have seen of the photos and x-rays, I wouldn't be
willing to go so far as to say Humes miswrote what he meant to say. I only
know of the one photo of the BOH. My understanding is that the scalp was
pulled up for that shot so it may well have been concealing missing bone.
If the drawings we that were produced are accurate so to is Humes
description of the defect.

It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos
and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and
extent of the wounds but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We
will have to rely on the original AR as well as the findngs of the review
panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:12:46 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Since we know without a doubt that there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP in
> the "occipital" region of JFK's head, I'm wondering if Dr. Humes really
> meant to say "somewhat into the temporal and FRONTAL regions" when he
> wrote this paragraph of President Kennedy's autopsy report....
>

Ridiculous! Check into your testimonies of doctors at Parkland
hospital. There was a 'large hole' at the BOH of JFK, and the occipital
region was mentioned by many of those physicians. As well, there is a
list of 40+ witnesses top the 'large hole' in the BOH.

> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence
> of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
> in greatest diameter."
>
> If the word "occipital" is replaced with the word "frontal" in the above
> paragraph, it becomes a much more accurate paragraph (based on the autopsy
> photographs and X-rays, plus a look at the Zapruder Film as well)....
>

In your fight for "accuracty" you have nasmed the two most opposite
areas of the skull. Frontal being indeed in the dfront, and Occipital
being at the lower rear of the skull. And you're going to try to get away
with a statement that a person got the 2 mised up, particularly a
physician! Just plain ridiculous!



> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N8qLfNk-5hY/VhRD_qSOzRI/AAAAAAABHio/nwmGzdYQ8Gc/s700/JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png
>


Show me where the bullet hole is in the above photo on the left.
Remember to use the spot where Humes said it was...:)



> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vnqprpvPSco/VhFrzSZFlSI/AAAAAAABHg8/f6fjsSoW_So/s700/Human-Skull.jpg
>


Thank you, this skull shows how wild you claim is, since you've named
the 2 areas of the skull that are the farthest apart.

Hmm. Here's the way it looks in the record of testimony:

"Q. In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital--
A. Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and to
some extent occipital, but primarily parietal."

From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
> ----------------
>
> DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."
>
> QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal
> and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"
>
> DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal
> there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where
> this space is here."
>

Hmm. Something wrong there. Here's a quote from the testimony of
Boswell:

"Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer
read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left
posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?
A. Yes. [posterior = rear]
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. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed
from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp
actually--scalp missing."

From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm


So we have Boswell mentioning both the occipital and the 'frontal'
connected by a single wound.

I suggest you try trusting the over 40+ witnesses to a 'large hole' in
the BOH of JFK. The photo of the BOH in the autopsy photos has been
fiddled with and you were sucked in by it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, examine and verify.

[BT George]

I agree with BD's comments. The level of fracturing was massive in JFK's
skull and only so much can be told looking at the few relatively poor
quality pictures of the body and X-Rays that are in the public domain. I
also hope that wider access to the originals will be considered by the
Kennedy family as JFK's immediate family members and close associates
slowly die off and as the case slips back more and more to being of
historical interest only.

BT George

[David Von Pein]

JOHN CORBETT SAID:

My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may

well have been concealing missing bone.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Impossible, John. This X-ray proves there's not a speck of missing
occipital bone....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

Plus, check the Boswell ARRB testimony I cited earlier. He mentions
various parts of the head that were missing, but never says the word
"occipital". And there's a good reason for that---the occipital is all
present and accounted for.

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS SAID:

In your fight for "accuracy" you have named the two most opposite areas of
the skull. Frontal being indeed in the front, and Occipital being at the

lower rear of the skull. And you're going to try to get away with a

statement that a person got the 2 mixed up, particularly a physician!
Just plain ridiculous!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, it would SEEM to be kind of "ridiculous, wouldn't it? If not for
this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_fBxmWdSk4/UcpVuTy7TVI/AAAAAAAAu6o/4ziEd8x0xng/s1600/JFK-Head-Xray.jpg

....And this:

DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here. .... Actually, that looks

like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But
that's where this space is here."

No mention of missing "OCCIPITAL" whatsoever. Only FRONTAL, PARIETAL, and
TEMPORAL, per Boswell (and Humes' ARRB testimony too, as I quoted
earlier). Which perfectly aligns with the above X-ray.

[David Von Pein]

I guess that means you think the Zapruder Film was "fiddled with" too, eh?
Because there's certainly no huge blow-out in the OCCIPITAL here. Not even
a hint of redness...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GJVw-E45ztc/VV4R-ZLs-TI/AAAAAAABGIM/pdDgORN670w/s1600/Zapruder-Film-Frame-317.jpg

[mainframetech]

WRONG! The photo of the BOH is altered. The many witnesses to the
'large hole' in the BOH stated that the wound didn't have any skull
covering the hole. Remember too, that a piece of skull was found in the
street near Elm and sent to the autopsy to be included in their work.

> It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos
> and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and
> extent of the wounds but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We
> will have to rely on the original AR as well as the findngs of the review
> panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.

2 of the photographers that took sets of photos at the autopsy noted
that photos were missing from the sets when they got them back. They were
ordered by their Captain to sign off on a document that said ALL photos
were present. They decided to sign. And that wasn't the only set of
orders given to do with the autopsy.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Hey Davey!!! You've admitted that the Autopsy Report states that the large
wound, devoid of scalp and bone, extended "somewhat" into the occipital...
You've admitted that the occipital is in the BACK of the head... When are
you going to retract your lie and admit that the prosectors put the wound
in the back of the head?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Earth to Ben (again)----

There is NO MISSING SCALP OR BONE in JFK's occipital.

Sorry. But that's the way it is---regardless of the flawed language that
we find in the autopsy report on WCR Page 540.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Isn't it interesting that DVP thinks he can simply declare a part of the
autopsy report "flawed language?"

It's not flawed, David. It's very clear and precise. We can't help that
you don't like it, but you can't just decide it's "flawed."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh really? Please point out the "absence of scalp and bone" in the
occipital in any of these three items shown below. I await your logical
"All three of those items are fake, Davey" retort....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qdY-VZ-aCD0/VhRAybGnZzI/AAAAAAABHic/sFUSEQBd54Q/s527/JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png

~~~~~~~~~

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html

[David Von Pein]

But even though we Internet users have only seen *some* of the autopsy
photos (none of which are the originals), there are many people who HAVE
seen ALL of the ORIGINAL (higher-quality) photos and X-rays, such as Dr.
Baden of the HSCA and the Clark Panel. And here's what Baden said....

"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." -- Dr. Michael Baden

In addition, the copies of the autopsy images we DO have for Internet use
are certainly good enough to answer this question:

Was there any "absence of scalp and bone" in the occipital area of JFK's
head?

After looking at the images below, it couldn't be more obvious that the
answer to the question I just posed above is --- No.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qdY-VZ-aCD0/VhRAybGnZzI/AAAAAAABHic/sFUSEQBd54Q/s1000/JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png

[bigdog]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

Caroline is the only immediate family member left. I wonder whose call it
will be when she checks out. Not that I am hoping it will be any time soon
or expecting that it will happen before I assume room temperature.

I believe it was a serious piece of poor judgement giving the autopsy
materials to the Kennedy family to dispense as they see fit. I don't know
what the law is regarding this but I doubt it is normal for the family of
the victim to take possession of autopsy evidence. Then again it is not
normal that a family member of the the victim is the Attorney General of
the United States. I see no reason this material could not have simply
been place in the files that were sealed followng the WC investigation for
use by future historians.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The forensic pathologist Peter Cummings was given access to the originals
last year for a special on the assassination ("Cold Case") and he says
that the clarity and detail in them is far superior to the copies
circulating on the internet. He says that he himself was confused looking
at these copies.

Cummings: "I spent a lot of time rotating images and squinting my eyes,
struggling to make any valid deductions. It was obvious to me that the
publicly available photographs and x-rays were not of the quality
necessary to base a scientific opinion. In fact, very few of the photos
could be interpreted."

And: "I was privileged to have the opportunity to visit the National
Archives and examine the original medical evidence. My visit underscored
the fact that Internet research isn't enough -- nothing can replace
viewing the actual artifacts. It's through a return to these basics that
the scientific method works best. Science freed me of my preconceptions
and allowed me to approach my investigation as if it were any other
gunshot wound case: I made observations and took notes, and later after
some quiet contemplation, I reached my conclusions."

The Kennedy family has to release these.

[Herbert Blenner]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:04:06 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

Long ago, the Clark Panel discredited the only reported entry wound of the
head. In particular they cited an ill-defined zone of abrasion associated
with the scalp wound.

Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm

Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position
of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral
X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this
wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to
be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin
of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

End of quotation.


The firm substance of the skull separated from the scalp by a thin layer
of tissue produces an especially prominent abrasion surrounding an entry
wound of the head.

Further the Clark Panel described the scalp wound as a 15 mm by 6 mm
ellipse whose longer axis aligned with the longitudinal axis of the head.
These details require that the victim was nearly face down when shot in
the head.

[Anthony Marsh]

Again, maybe you know nothing about this case, but the autopsy photos
and X-rays are NOT in the public domain. Just stop saying stupid things.

> also hope that wider access to the originals will be considered by the
> Kennedy family as JFK's immediate family members and close associates
> slowly die off and as the case slips back more and more to being of
> historical interest only.
>

Never.
Caroline could do it tomorrow, but she never will.

> BT George
>

[BT George]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>
> My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may
> well have been concealing missing bone.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Impossible, John. This X-ray proves there's not a speck of missing
> occipital bone....
>

David,

I agree there is no evidence on what we see on the lateral. However, per
this image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral4.png

It can be seen that the occipital bone region---allowing that there can be
some minor variance among humans---is actually not fully visible in the
public domain copy due to cropping. (The extreme bottom of that region
and the extreme top, both appear to have been cropped off.)

Now I surely agree that missing bone at either point would not easily seem
to match Humes description, which implies it is related to the great
defect. But in looking at how far the occipital bone extends under the
rest of the skull, and that it comes upward somewhat near the ear hole
(not sure of the exact name, but the same opening seems to be visible in
both the X-ray and the image I linked), I wonder if a small amount of that
had been somehow blasted out with the nearby Parietal bone?

BT George

[Herbert Blenner]

The Zapruder film exposures itself as altered.

http://hdblenner.com/backward.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course it did. By then they had removed the brain and they had to
remove half of the skull to do that.

> If the drawings we that were produced are accurate so to is Humes
> description of the defect.
>

Why would you think ANYTHING is accurate? What are you, a WC defender?

> It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos
> and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and
> extent of the wounds but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We

Funny coming from someone who supports the cover-up.

> will have to rely on the original AR as well as the findngs of the review
> panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.
>

No, someone leaked the autopsy photos.

>

[mainframetech]

It seems you don't know too much about this case. That information has
been swirling around for many years that the Z-film was altered, and it is
proved by witness and by independent analyses.

The ORIGINAL film was seen as an 8mm film by a CIA Film Analyst, Dino
Brugione, after it was processed in Dallas. He saw it in the NPIC
Washington facility of NPIC. He had a team that helped and the work was
done on the very next day after the murder on Saturday. The very next day
(Sunday) the film was again looked at, now in 16mm format, by a completely
different team of CIA Film Analysts. In between a courier accidentally
mentioned that the film had been sent from the Rochster, NY secret CIA
film lab called "Hawekeye Works". The 2 teams were to make 'briefing
boards' for higher ups to look at, and since they saw 2 different sets of
boards from 2 different teams, it had to be to see how the alterations had
gone. This is all documented in the fourth volume of 5 of the ARRB by
Douglas Horne who spends hundreds of pageers expqlining the scasm and all
the many reasons why the alteration happened. Here's the interview of
Dino Brugione:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

And here's the independent analyses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE


Chris

The second team was headed by CIA Film Analyst Homer McMahon.

[mainframetech]

You need to look above this post and see my post showing that you're
WRONG again. There is indeed a mention of 'occipital' by Boswell in his
ARRB testimony. See above.


And showing an X-ray with dubious value won't help. The missing piece
of skull, sometimes known as the "Harper Fragment" was found in Dealey
Plaza and sent to Bethesda to be included in the autopsy.

Here is more from the testimony of Dr. Perry who treated JFK at
Parkland hospital in the early moments:

"Mr. SPECTER - Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury
which you noted in the President's head?

Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory
examination of the President's head. 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.
My examination did not go any further than that."

Looked at the "parietal occipital" area...found that both scalp and
"skull portions" were missing. Can't get more direct than that. DVP you
need to read your testimony a little more.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Another DVP 'mistake'. The word occipital is indeed mentioned by
Boswell in his ARRB testimony in the very first page of questions!!!
Here it is:

"Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer
read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left
posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?
A. Yes.

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. And what I meant was that the wound in
the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that
there was any scalp actually--scalp missing"

From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm



Of course, Boswell is mistaken about the wound as to the BOH part of
it. Many of the over 40+ witnesses to the 'large hole' in the BOH say
that the wound in the BOH had NO skull covering it, and beain could be
seen in the hole. and those were mostly medical people.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

An attempt to push it all back into history to avoid facing the
evidence that has already been found since the ole WCR failed drastically
to answer questions will fail. There is still plenty of interest
especially since more and more evidence has come out from the ARRB. Fear
ruleas those that are afraid to face what the ral evidence is showing.
There will be major changes in mental positions held for many years with
arguing and fighting and all sorts of gimmicks to keep the evidence from
surfacing.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Even the crappiest of Internet copies are good enough to determine what
I'm saying in this thread --- i.e., there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP IN
THE OCCIPITAL.

Plus, a few years ago, John Fiorentino sent me a very high-quality "BOH"
black-and-white photo. And in that picture, it's very clear that all of
JFK's scalp in the occipital is present and accounted for. No "occipital"
scalp is missing whatsoever. I can see every individual hair on JFK's head
in the occipital.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Again, maybe you know nothing about this case, but the autopsy photos
and X-rays are NOT in the public domain. Just stop saying stupid things.

You never insult anyone, do you?

[bigdog]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>
> My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may
> well have been concealing missing bone.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Impossible, John. This X-ray proves there's not a speck of missing
> occipital bone....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>

My question would be whether the Harper fragment had been replaced prior
to that x-ray being taken. I profess no expertise at reading x-rays but I
don't see where that piece is missing.

> Plus, check the Boswell ARRB testimony I cited earlier. He mentions
> various parts of the head that were missing, but never says the word
> "occipital". And there's a good reason for that---the occipital is all
> present and accounted for.

I have chastised the conspiracy hobbyists for giving more weight to what
witnesses said 30 years after the fact than what those same witnesses said
at the time. It would be hypocritical of me to do the same with Boswell's
ARRB testimony.

I'm not saying you are wrong but the evidence for your premise is less
than conclusive.

[mainframetech]

The demonstration shows it, and there are other independent analyses too
here:

[mainframetech]

LOL! Please show where the bullet wound is in that photo you showed,
and then look at the Ida Dox drawing, and suddenly it's there!!...:)

http://hdblenner.com/temps/headwounds.jpg

The fact that the Ida Dox drawing shows the bullet hole in the BOH,
whereas the autopsy photo does NOT show it, means that someone had the
drawing faked. There WAS NO bullet hole in the real photo, and that photo
is phony anywaty, since over 40+ witnesses saw the 'large hole' in the BOH
of JFK. And many of them were physicians.


Youy can find any number of reasons why Baden would state the
impossible, but that's not my job. Here's the reason that decisions wer
made that were contrary to the truth. Here's sworn testimony of Dr.
Michael Baden:

"Mr. KLEIN - What does that drawing depict?
Dr. BADEN - This is a drawing made from photographs taken at the time of
the autopsy showing the back of the President's head and showing a ruler
adjacent to an area of discoloration in the cowlick area of the back of the
head of the scalp, which the panel determined was an entrance perforation,
an entrance bullet perforation; this also shows portions of fractures of the
skull of the President caused by this gunshot wound and a fragment of dried
tissue near the hairline of the President.
Mr. KLEIN - Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately represent the
location of the wound in the back of the President's head?
Dr. BADEN - Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the panel
members."

The drawing being shown is the Ida Dox drawing above, that shows a
bullet hole in the BOH of JFK. The real photo that the drawing was
supposed to be from does NOT show any bullet hole in that same position.
That can explain Baden's mistake and that of the medical panel members.
The over 40+ witnesses contain many doctors from Parkland who saw the BOH
and know that there was an extreme hole in the scalp and skull there.
But that would make it look like a shot from the front killed JFK, and
they wanted folks to think it was done from above and behind, so this
little fakery. Which DVP fell for like many of the folks that were
fooled.

Now let's look at the drawings that were made by many witnesses to the
BOH wound:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/html/md88_0004a.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719

And here are a bunch of them all in one article:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

So it can easily be seen that medical people saw a 'large hole' at the
BOH of JFK. It was important to fool the suckers into thinking that the
shot had come from above and behind, and the flim-flam qwit the photo and
Ida Dox drawings was part of it.

Even in 1963 much could be done to a photo to make it give the desired
impression.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2015 8:10 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>>
>> My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may
>> well have been concealing missing bone.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Impossible, John. This X-ray proves there's not a speck of missing
>> occipital bone....
>>
>
> David,
>
> I agree there is no evidence on what we see on the lateral. However, per
> this image:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral4.png
>
> It can be seen that the occipital bone region---allowing that there can be
> some minor variance among humans---is actually not fully visible in the
> public domain copy due to cropping. (The extreme bottom of that region
> and the extreme top, both appear to have been cropped off.)
>

Since you can't actually show us the exhibits we can't be sure what you
mean. You may have a point, but you may not be able to articulate it.
Do you realize that it was the HSCA who cropped the X-rays to cut out
the view of the teeth?

[David Von Pein]

Again, we know Dr. Perry cannot be correct about the President's wounds
because the photos and X-rays simply do not show ANY missing occipital
SCALP or BONE.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CXyC5kQbLrw/Ut70NulaC2I/AAAAAAAAxsY/3sbbDvNKIY8/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-Side.png

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, you're right, Chris. I had *never* heard anyone even suggest the
notion of "Z-Film Fakery" prior to Oct. 2015. ~~eyeroll time~~

[David Von Pein]

It sure doesn't sound like Boswell is talking about MISSING OCCIPITAL
SCALP here....

BOSWELL -- "The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right

frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be
closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp

actually--scalp missing."

In any event, the photos and X-rays will always be the best evidence when
trying to determine if there was any MISSING scalp or MISSING skull bone
in JFK's occipital region. And the photos and X-rays (and the Z-Film
too)---in tandem with each other!---are proving that there was no such
MISSING occipital scalp or bone.

BTW, I'm not claiming there wasn't some DAMAGE done to the "OCCIPITAL"
area of JFK's head. There most certainly IS occipital damage. We can
easily see the fractures in the occipital bone in the X-ray. But what I'm
emphasizing is that there was no MISSING (or "ABSENCE OF...") scalp or
bone in the occipital area of Kennedy's head. And I think the autopsy
pictures and X-rays prove that fact very clearly (even second- or
third-generation photos).

[David Von Pein]

BIGDOG SAID:

My question would be whether the Harper fragment had been replaced prior
to that x-ray being taken.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? The Harper fragment wasn't even discovered in Dealey Plaza until
Saturday, Nov. 23. The X-rays were taken near the beginning of the autopsy
on Nov. 22.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, stop being stupid. You know nothing about bullets. The angle of the
bullet in flight is slightly nose up as it drops, as per the diagram on
the left side of this page.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg


Now for extra credit can you explain how HBF measured the wound near the
EOP as being 15x6mm which is in the wrong location and then the Clark
Panel moved the wound up to the cowlick area and it's still 15x6mm even
though it's a completely different wound? No, I didn't think you could. I
smell a rat.

[David Von Pein]

If you can't see the bullet hole (the red spot) in the autopsy photo,
you're in bad shape, Chris.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's because he is not a real researcher and never saw the complete
Fox set in person. He is just a useful idiot.

> Cummings: "I spent a lot of time rotating images and squinting my eyes,
> struggling to make any valid deductions. It was obvious to me that the
> publicly available photographs and x-rays were not of the quality
> necessary to base a scientific opinion. In fact, very few of the photos
> could be interpreted."
>

Sure, if all you have is the National Enquirer. That's not called research.

> And: "I was privileged to have the opportunity to visit the National
> Archives and examine the original medical evidence. My visit underscored
> the fact that Internet research isn't enough -- nothing can replace
> viewing the actual artifacts. It's through a return to these basics that

How about if the PUBLIC were allowed some day to see the actual
artifacts rather than having government stooges lie to us?

> the scientific method works best. Science freed me of my preconceptions
> and allowed me to approach my investigation as if it were any other
> gunshot wound case: I made observations and took notes, and later after
> some quiet contemplation, I reached my conclusions."
>

Nope.

> The Kennedy family has to release these.

Never.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You're slipping. MacDonald explained on TV how he grabbed Oswald's
revolver and the web between his thumb and forefinger prevented the
hammer from firing the primer.

And she won't. Look at how the Kennedy clan reacted to Patrick's book
admitting that Teddy was an alcoholic.

> I believe it was a serious piece of poor judgement giving the autopsy
> materials to the Kennedy family to dispense as they see fit. I don't know

How about illegal?
How about the brain?
Have you ever heard of people willing their brains to science?
Harvard for example.

> what the law is regarding this but I doubt it is normal for the family of
> the victim to take possession of autopsy evidence. Then again it is not

Remember the lawsuit over Oswald's rifle?
Ever hear of the JFK Records Act?

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html
>>>>
>>>> Conspiracy theorists will do and say anything to keep Oswald blameless.
>>>> Don't CTers realize how utterly desperate they look when they keep pulling
>>>> this same "Fake Evidence / Lying Cops" trick out of their empty bag of
>>>> evidence?
>>>>
>>>> At some point, don't you have to eventually TRUST SOMEBODY?
>>>
>>> Based on what little we have seen of the photos and x-rays, I wouldn't be
>>> willing to go so far as to say Humes miswrote what he meant to say. I only
>>> know of the one photo of the BOH. My understanding is that the scalp was
>>> pulled up for that shot so it may well have been concealing missing bone.
>>> If the drawings we that were produced are accurate so to is Humes
>>> description of the defect.
>>>
>>> It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos
>>> and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and
>>> extent of the wounds but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We
>>> will have to rely on the original AR as well as the findngs of the review
>>> panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.
>>
>> I agree with BD's comments. The level of fracturing was massive in JFK's
>> skull and only so much can be told looking at the few relatively poor
>> quality pictures of the body and X-Rays that are in the public domain. I
>> also hope that wider access to the originals will be considered by the
>> Kennedy family as JFK's immediate family members and close associates
>> slowly die off and as the case slips back more and more to being of
>> historical interest only.
>>

>> BT George
>
> But even though we Internet users have only seen *some* of the autopsy
> photos (none of which are the originals), there are many people who HAVE
> seen ALL of the ORIGINAL (higher-quality) photos and X-rays, such as Dr.
> Baden of the HSCA and the Clark Panel. And here's what Baden said....
>

Silly. I have seen ALL the FOX set in person. You haven't.
I have seen ALL of Groden's set in person. You haven't.

> "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." -- Dr. Michael Baden
>

OK. But try to explain how that entrance wound can be both in the EOP area
and the cowlick area at the same time? You have to call one of the liars.
If you want to be a WC defender then you have to call the HSCA liars. It
you want to be a HSCA then you have to call the autopsy doctors and the WC
liars. Choose one or the other. You can't choose both to be popular with
both.

[mainframetech]

Boswell mentions 'occipital' in the first page of his testimony for
the ARRB. Check it out.

Chris

[mainframetech]

It would be more true to say that you can see every hair in the
photograph you looked at. That doesn't mean the actual head showed the
same if the photo was altered, and that's possible back in 1963. The
problem you face is too large for you. When you have over 40+ witnesses
that see the 'large hole' in th BOH of JFK in actuality, and not in a
photo, you're kind of stuck with that, not with the photo. And we know
now that the Ida Dox drawing was phony because it shows a bullet hole in
the BOH that was NOT in the original photo that she drew from. And her
drawing was used in some of the medical panel decision making.

Let's not all be suckers for the scam.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2015 2:36 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Hey Davey!!! You've admitted that the Autopsy Report states that the large
> wound, devoid of scalp and bone, extended "somewhat" into the occipital...
> You've admitted that the occipital is in the BACK of the head... When are
> you going to retract your lie and admit that the prosectors put the wound
> in the back of the head?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Earth to Ben (again)----
>
> There is NO MISSING SCALP OR BONE in JFK's occipital.
>
> Sorry. But that's the way it is---regardless of the flawed language that
> we find in the autopsy report on WCR Page 540.
>
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> Isn't it interesting that DVP thinks he can simply declare a part of the
> autopsy report "flawed language?"
>
> It's not flawed, David. It's very clear and precise. We can't help that
> you don't like it, but you can't just decide it's "flawed."
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Oh really? Please point out the "absence of scalp and bone" in the

How about changing that to absence of scalp OR bone to be a little more
honest? Do you have X-ray eyes? Can you SEE if bone is missing beneath the
scalp?

> occipital in any of these three items shown below. I await your logical
> "All three of those items are fake, Davey" retort....
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qdY-VZ-aCD0/VhRAybGnZzI/AAAAAAABHic/sFUSEQBd54Q/s527/JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2015 2:29 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> WRONG! The photo of the BOH is altered. The many witnesses to the
> 'large hole' in the BOH stated that the wound didn't have any skull
> covering the hole. Remember too, that a piece of skull was found in the
> street near Elm and sent to the autopsy to be included in their work.
>

Do you mean the Harper fragment? The HSCA did not think it was occipital.
In the X-rays we can see that no bone is missing in the back of the head.

>
>
>> It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos
>> and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and
>> extent of the wounds but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We
>> will have to rely on the original AR as well as the findngs of the review
>> panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.
>
>
>

> 2 of the photographers that took sets of photos at the autopsy noted
> that photos were missing from the sets when they got them back. They were
> ordered by their Captain to sign off on a document that said ALL photos
> were present. They decided to sign. And that wasn't the only set of
> orders given to do with the autopsy.
>
> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2015 2:28 PM, David Von Pein wrote:

> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:06:16 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:12:46 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Since we know without a doubt that there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP in
>>> the "occipital" region of JFK's head, I'm wondering if Dr. Humes really
>>> meant to say "somewhat into the temporal and FRONTAL regions" when he
>>> wrote this paragraph of President Kennedy's autopsy report....
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>> Ridiculous! Check into your testimonies of doctors at Parkland
>> hospital. There was a 'large hole' at the BOH of JFK, and the occipital
>> region was mentioned by many of those physicians. As well, there is a

>> list of 40+ witnesses top the 'large hole' in the BOH.

>>
>>
>>
>>> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>>> involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
>>> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence
>>> of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
>>> in greatest diameter."
>>>
>>> If the word "occipital" is replaced with the word "frontal" in the above
>>> paragraph, it becomes a much more accurate paragraph (based on the autopsy
>>> photographs and X-rays, plus a look at the Zapruder Film as well)....
>>>
>>
>>

>> In your fight for "accuracty" you have nasmed the two most opposite
>> areas of the skull. Frontal being indeed in the dfront, and Occipital
>> being at the lower rear of the skull. And you're going to try to get away
>> with a statement that a person got the 2 mised up, particularly a
>> physician! Just plain ridiculous!
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N8qLfNk-5hY/VhRD_qSOzRI/AAAAAAABHio/nwmGzdYQ8Gc/s700/JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.png
>>>
>>
>>
>> Show me where the bullet hole is in the above photo on the left.
>> Remember to use the spot where Humes said it was...:)
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vnqprpvPSco/VhFrzSZFlSI/AAAAAAABHg8/f6fjsSoW_So/s700/Human-Skull.jpg
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you, this skull shows how wild you claim is, since you've named
>> the 2 areas of the skull that are the farthest apart.
>>
>>
>>

>> Hmm. Here's the way it looks in the record of testimony:
>>
>> "Q. In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital--
>> A. Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and to
>> some extent occipital, but primarily parietal."
>>
>> From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."
>>>
>>> QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal
>>> and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"
>>>
>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal
>>> there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where
>>> this space is here."
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>> Hmm. Something wrong there. Here's a quote from the testimony of
>> Boswell:
>>

>> "Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer
>> read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left
>> posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?

>> A. Yes. [posterior = rear]

>> 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. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed
>> from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp
>> actually--scalp missing."
>>

>> From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
>>
>>
>> So we have Boswell mentioning both the occipital and the 'frontal'
>> connected by a single wound.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>

>> I suggest you try trusting the over 40+ witnesses to a 'large hole' in
>> the BOH of JFK. The photo of the BOH in the autopsy photos has been
>> fiddled with and you were sucked in by it.
>>
>> Chris
>
> I guess that means you think the Zapruder Film was "fiddled with" too, eh?
> Because there's certainly no huge blow-out in the OCCIPITAL here. Not even
> a hint of redness...
>

Yes, he's an alterationist. He thinks all the evidence is fake.

> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GJVw-E45ztc/VV4R-ZLs-TI/AAAAAAABGIM/pdDgORN670w/s1600/Zapruder-Film-Frame-317.jpg
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2015 2:22 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>
> My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may

> well have been concealing missing bone.
>
>

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Impossible, John. This X-ray proves there's not a speck of missing
> occipital bone....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>

> Plus, check the Boswell ARRB testimony I cited earlier. He mentions
> various parts of the head that were missing, but never says the word
> "occipital". And there's a good reason for that---the occipital is all
> present and accounted for.
>

But you don't care if it's fractured, do you?

[mainframetech]

Then I must be in good shape because I can see a little red spot. I
just don't see the bullet hole that the Ida Dox drawing shows...:)


Here's our Dr. Humes saying it wasn't a bullet hole. Is his word good
enough for you? Or will you insiste top your dying day that you're right
and all rhese folks I've presented to you are wrong? Here'sd Humes:

"Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
JFK's skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting alongside him, responded: "I
don't know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we
reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect
corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that
is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it
is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance."

From:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm


Now Humes was in a position to look down at the REAL red spot and his
word should be better than your guess from a photo.

Just admit you made a mistake and go on with your stealing of members
from here.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Good point! You've just proved that the X-rays were manipulated, as
was the photo of the BOH.

Chris

[mainframetech]

> > that the wound in the BOH had NO skull covering it, and brain could be

> > seen in the hole. and those were mostly medical people.
> >
> > Chris
>
> It sure doesn't sound like Boswell is talking about MISSING OCCIPITAL
> SCALP here....
>
> BOSWELL -- "The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right
> frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be
> closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp
> actually--scalp missing."
>
> In any event, the photos and X-rays will always be the best evidence when
> trying to determine if there was any MISSING scalp or MISSING skull bone
> in JFK's occipital region. And the photos and X-rays (and the Z-Film
> too)---in tandem with each other!---are proving that there was no such
> MISSING occipital scalp or bone.
>

In actuality, since the photos and X-rays have been 'messed with', the
over 40+ witnesses to the state of the BOH of JFK is a far better
indicator of the 'large wound' in the BOH of JFK proving there was a
missing section of skull in the BOH when the body was at Parkland. The
evidence shows it over and over.

> BTW, I'm not claiming there wasn't some DAMAGE done to the "OCCIPITAL"
> area of JFK's head. There most certainly IS occipital damage. We can
> easily see the fractures in the occipital bone in the X-ray. But what I'm
> emphasizing is that there was no MISSING (or "ABSENCE OF...") scalp or
> bone in the occipital area of Kennedy's head. And I think the autopsy
> pictures and X-rays prove that fact very clearly (even second- or
> third-generation photos).

So you continue to rely on old photos and X-rays, when you have the
statements of over 40+ witnesses (many of whom were medically trained)
telling you that there was a 'large hole' in th BOH of JFK. Boswell said
so too. Many witnesses drew pictures of the wound I'm speaking of which
had NO scalp covering.

Have you ever seeen lost souls wandering the streets of NYC? They'll
tell you all kinds of things you can believe, just like altered photos and
X-rays.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You feel that single comment means something? Remember, you said that
Boswell never used the word 'occipital' in his ARRB testimony, and I show
you that he did indeed use that word in the first page of his testimony,
and you have only to say that you rolled your eyes at my comment that you
don't know the case too well. Hmm.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Thank you for supplying some of the proof that you've been suckered as
the X-rays and photos were planned to do. Thry can be easily modified and
one researcher that looked into the archives at the X-rays said they were
all copies, not an orifginal in the bunch, showing that there had been
manipulation done with them.

You must realize that even in 1963 that photos can (and were) altered
to suit a purpose, and you fell for one of them. The BOH photo you
reference doesn't match the Idea Dox drawing that was done from it. The
drawing has a bullet hole on it, and the photo doeesn't, but then it
wasn't planned for that photo to be made public.

DVP, you've been suckered and you help the plotters by furthering their
goals of faking out the public by pretending that over 40+ witnesses to
the BOH wound of JFK were all 'mistaken', the favorite whine of the LNs.
And your constant efforts to drag members away from here to your website
only makes it worse. Here there is an alternative for onlookers, there
only the one way to go.

Chris

[bigdog]

My mistake. For some reason I was under the impression that it had been
found that day and brought to the autopsy that night.

However as the x-ray shows, the skull fractures radiated out from the
entrance wound and there was a piece of skull that was seperated from the
rest of the skull, presumably still attached to the scalp. This would have
been part of the large defect that extended all along the upper right side
of the skull.

Once JFK's skull shattered, his head was no longer a fixed object. It was
a collection of loose pieces being held together by the scalp. As such
those pieces could be move into different configurations. At any given
time those flaps could be opened or closed his head would look quite a bit
different depending on how those flaps were positioned. I believe this is
the primary reason why there is such a descrepancy between Parkland's
description and Bethesda's. It might also explain why there appears to be
no defect in the BOH in the x-ray when in fact it might me that the pieces
of JFK's skull were reassembled as best that could be done prior to that
x-ray being taken. That is why I am hesitant to draw any conclusions based
on the minimal evidence we have and the minimal medical knowledge most of
us possess.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

But you don't care if it's fractured, do you?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I sure don't. Not for the sake of THIS argument, which is all about
"MISSING" occipital bone and scalp.

FRACTURED does not mean MISSING.

[Anthony Marsh]

Show us. Do you mean the one near the EOP or the one in the cowlick?
Or do you have your own favorite location?

[Anthony Marsh]

Thank you. Finally a fellow WC defender dares to correct a fellow WC
defender. Now I don't have to write 100 messages about his stupid
question. If you guys would clean up your own house then I could
concentrate on the alterationists.

[Anthony Marsh]

> If you can't find the entry wound in the Dox drawing, you're in bad shape,

Do you understand that Baden told Dox to add phony details to her
drawing to make the mark look like a wound? Try looking at the original
photo.

> Chris. It's easily visible. But it's in B&W, of course, so naturally it's
> not going to show up bright red like it does in the actual BOH autopsy
> color photo.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

OOPs, you slipped up this time and said OR instead of AND.
As I pointed out before, if you say OR you leave open a tiny window for
someone to point out that SOME bone was missing from the back of the
head. It might be only where you think there was a bullet hole, but that
little loophole can be used to validate the concept of OR.

> BTW, I'm not claiming there wasn't some DAMAGE done to the "OCCIPITAL"
> area of JFK's head. There most certainly IS occipital damage. We can
> easily see the fractures in the occipital bone in the X-ray. But what I'm

Jeez, that's exactly what I said before so why do you attack me for
saying it?

> emphasizing is that there was no MISSING (or "ABSENCE OF...") scalp or
> bone in the occipital area of Kennedy's head. And I think the autopsy
> pictures and X-rays prove that fact very clearly (even second- or
> third-generation photos).
>

Finally you say OR instead of AND.
So now that makes your claim that the bullet hole did not cause any
absence of bone. Can you explain how that bullet works?
How do you explain the apparent bullet hole WC defenders see on the
X-rays? Please say Waters Position.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/10/2015 11:12 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 12:59:01 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 2:26:20 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> CHRIS SAID:
>>>
>>> In your fight for "accuracy" you have named the two most opposite areas of
>>> the skull. Frontal being indeed in the front, and Occipital being at the
>>> lower rear of the skull. And you're going to try to get away with a
>>> statement that a person got the 2 mixed up, particularly a physician!
>>> Just plain ridiculous!
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Yes, it would SEEM to be kind of "ridiculous, wouldn't it? If not for
>>> this:
>>>
>>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_fBxmWdSk4/UcpVuTy7TVI/AAAAAAAAu6o/4ziEd8x0xng/s1600/JFK-Head-Xray.jpg
>>>
>>> ....And this:
>>>

>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here. .... Actually, that looks

>>> like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But
>>> that's where this space is here."
>>>

Something like that. But at least now you are saying scalp OR bone.
So explain how your bullet gets to the brain without blasting out bone.
Is that the one that squeezes through the suture like opening a door
without breaking it?

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."
>>>>>

>>>>> QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal
>>>>> and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"
>>>>>

>>>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal

>>>>> there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where
>>>>> this space is here."
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you finally admit that Dr. Humes *DID* write "occipital".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>>>
>>>>> When did I ever deny that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer -- Never.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why on Earth would I deny that Dr. James Humes wrote a word that I can see
>>>>> for myself in the autopsy report?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect he SHOULD have written "FRONTAL" there, however. And the
>>>>> Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm
>>>>> correct in that assumption, with Dr. Boswell even using that very word --
>>>>> "FRONTAL" -- to describe one of the missing areas of JFK's head as he
>>>>> looks at an X-ray during his ARRB session. And guess what word he DIDN'T
>>>>> use in that testimony? Answer -- "Occipital". ....
>>>>>

>>>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal,

>>>>> temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
>>>>>
>>>>>

It's not a mistake. It's a lie. Baden told Dox to add details to make it
look like a bullet wound.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/10/2015 2:51 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>>
>> My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may

>> well have been concealing missing bone.
>>
>>

>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Impossible, John. This X-ray proves there's not a speck of missing
>> occipital bone....
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>>
>

> My question would be whether the Harper fragment had been replaced prior

> to that x-ray being taken. I profess no expertise at reading x-rays but I
> don't see where that piece is missing.
>

Kinda hard to do unless you have a time machine.
The idea that the Harper fragment came from the occipital area was just
a guess. The HSCA panel thought it was NOT occipital.

>> Plus, check the Boswell ARRB testimony I cited earlier. He mentions
>> various parts of the head that were missing, but never says the word
>> "occipital". And there's a good reason for that---the occipital is all
>> present and accounted for.
>

> I have chastised the conspiracy hobbyists for giving more weight to what
> witnesses said 30 years after the fact than what those same witnesses said
> at the time. It would be hypocritical of me to do the same with Boswell's
> ARRB testimony.
>

The slight difference is that the ARRB had the power to charge people
for lying under oath so they might be able to get more truthful testimony.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Cummings CV: "Dr. Peter Cummings is a Forensic Pathologist and Staff
Medical Examiner at Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. He
is Board certified in Anatomic Pathology and Neuropathology and is the
Director of the Neuropathology Service at the OCME. Dr. Cummings has
taught at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, the Royal College
of Surgeons in Ireland and at the University of Maine. Dr. Cummings was a
NASA astronaut candidate finalist for 2009 and maintains an active
research position investigating the effects of cosmic radiation on
astrocyte activation and response of retinal glial cells to space flight.
In addition, he also conducts research investigating the forensic
implications of pediatric head trauma. Dr. Cummings was a member of the
identification teams for the World Trade Center and the SwissAir crash. "

And your forensic credentials are?

He saw the originals that are stored in the national archives. Not copies.

As he said, we must rely on science and facts.

Others can rely on fantasies.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/10/2015 2:44 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> Again, maybe you know nothing about this case, but the autopsy photos
> and X-rays are NOT in the public domain. Just stop saying stupid things.
>
>
>
> You never insult anyone, do you?
>
>


I didn't call him stupid. What's that expression?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/10/2015 1:06 PM, David Von Pein wrote:

>> Cummings: "I spent a lot of time rotating images and squinting my eyes,
>> struggling to make any valid deductions. It was obvious to me that the
>> publicly available photographs and x-rays were not of the quality
>> necessary to base a scientific opinion. In fact, very few of the photos
>> could be interpreted."
>>

>> And: "I was privileged to have the opportunity to visit the National
>> Archives and examine the original medical evidence. My visit underscored
>> the fact that Internet research isn't enough -- nothing can replace
>> viewing the actual artifacts. It's through a return to these basics that

>> the scientific method works best. Science freed me of my preconceptions
>> and allowed me to approach my investigation as if it were any other
>> gunshot wound case: I made observations and took notes, and later after
>> some quiet contemplation, I reached my conclusions."
>>

>> The Kennedy family has to release these.
>

> Even the crappiest of Internet copies are good enough to determine what
> I'm saying in this thread --- i.e., there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP IN
> THE OCCIPITAL.
>
> Plus, a few years ago, John Fiorentino sent me a very high-quality "BOH"
> black-and-white photo. And in that picture, it's very clear that all of
> JFK's scalp in the occipital is present and accounted for. No "occipital"
> scalp is missing whatsoever. I can see every individual hair on JFK's head
> in the occipital.
>

No, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for
you.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/10/2015 1:00 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> An attempt to push it all back into history to avoid facing the
> evidence that has already been found since the ole WCR failed drastically
> to answer questions will fail. There is still plenty of interest
> especially since more and more evidence has come out from the ARRB. Fear
> ruleas those that are afraid to face what the ral evidence is showing.
> There will be major changes in mental positions held for many years with
> arguing and fighting and all sorts of gimmicks to keep the evidence from
> surfacing.
>
> Chris
>


If you keep a cover-up going long enough the event becomes ancient
history. The CIA is still covering up things from WWI. The CIA is still
covering up things from the Peloponnesian War.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/10/2015 12:59 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 2:26:20 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> CHRIS SAID:
>>
>> In your fight for "accuracy" you have named the two most opposite areas of
>> the skull. Frontal being indeed in the front, and Occipital being at the
>> lower rear of the skull. And you're going to try to get away with a
>> statement that a person got the 2 mixed up, particularly a physician!
>> Just plain ridiculous!
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Yes, it would SEEM to be kind of "ridiculous, wouldn't it? If not for
>> this:
>>
>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_fBxmWdSk4/UcpVuTy7TVI/AAAAAAAAu6o/4ziEd8x0xng/s1600/JFK-Head-Xray.jpg
>>
>> ....And this:
>>

>> DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here. .... Actually, that looks

>> like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But
>> that's where this space is here."
>>

>> No mention of missing "OCCIPITAL" whatsoever. Only FRONTAL, PARIETAL, and
>> TEMPORAL, per Boswell (and Humes' ARRB testimony too, as I quoted
>> earlier). Which perfectly aligns with the above X-ray.
>
>
>
> You need to look above this post and see my post showing that you're
> WRONG again. There is indeed a mention of 'occipital' by Boswell in his
> ARRB testimony. See above.
>
>
> And showing an X-ray with dubious value won't help. The missing piece
> of skull, sometimes known as the "Harper Fragment" was found in Dealey
> Plaza and sent to Bethesda to be included in the autopsy.
>
> Here is more from the testimony of Dr. Perry who treated JFK at
> Parkland hospital in the early moments:
>
> "Mr. SPECTER - Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury
> which you noted in the President's head?
>
> Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory
> examination of the President's head. 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.
> My examination did not go any further than that."
>
> Looked at the "parietal occipital" area...found that both scalp and
> "skull portions" were missing. Can't get more direct than that. DVP you
> need to read your testimony a little more.
>
> Chris
>

You are conflating again. Confusing parietal with occipital.

[David Von Pein]

Why on Earth are you even involved in this discussion, Chris/MainFrame? We
all know that you are convinced that all of the autopsy pictures are fakes
anyway. So you aren't going to rely on the BOH red-spot photo for
anything, regardless of where *anybody* says the entry wound is. Right,
MainFrame?

[Herbert Blenner]

On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 11:20:47 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/9/2015 8:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:

> > Long ago, the Clark Panel discredited the only reported entry wound of the
> > head. In particular they cited an ill-defined zone of abrasion associated
> > with the scalp wound.
> >
> > Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7
> >
> > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm
> >
> > Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
> > which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
> > underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
> > scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position
> > of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral
> > X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this
> > wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to
> > be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin
> > of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.
> >
> > End of quotation.
> >
> >
> > The firm substance of the skull separated from the scalp by a thin layer
> > of tissue produces an especially prominent abrasion surrounding an entry
> > wound of the head.
> >
> > Further the Clark Panel described the scalp wound as a 15 mm by 6 mm
> > ellipse whose longer axis aligned with the longitudinal axis of the head.
> > These details require that the victim was nearly face down when shot in
> > the head.
> >
> >
>
>
> No, stop being stupid. You know nothing about bullets. The angle of the
> bullet in flight is slightly nose up as it drops, as per the diagram on
> the left side of this page.
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
>

The curvature of the trajectory of a supersonic bullet during a flight of
0.1 second is negligible.


>
> Now for extra credit can you explain how HBF measured the wound near the
> EOP as being 15x6mm which is in the wrong location and then the Clark
> Panel moved the wound up to the cowlick area and it's still 15x6mm even
> though it's a completely different wound? No, I didn't think you could. I
> smell a rat.

[Mark Florio]

I didn't think that glaring lack of logic would get past you. Mark

[mainframetech]

But of course, "Harper Fragment" does mean missing for a time.
Parkland ER doctors stated that they could see brains through the missing
piece of skull at the BOH.



Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 11:37:12 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 11:20:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BIGDOG SAID:
> >
> > My question would be whether the Harper fragment had been replaced prior
> > to that x-ray being taken.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Huh? The Harper fragment wasn't even discovered in Dealey Plaza until
> > Saturday, Nov. 23. The X-rays were taken near the beginning of the autopsy
> > on Nov. 22.
>
> My mistake. For some reason I was under the impression that it had been
> found that day and brought to the autopsy that night.
>
> However as the x-ray shows, the skull fractures radiated out from the
> entrance wound and there was a piece of skull that was seperated from the
> rest of the skull, presumably still attached to the scalp. This would have
> been part of the large defect that extended all along the upper right side
> of the skull.
>
> Once JFK's skull shattered, his head was no longer a fixed object. It was
> a collection of loose pieces being held together by the scalp. As such
> those pieces could be move into different configurations. At any given
> time those flaps could be opened or closed his head would look quite a bit
> different depending on how those flaps were positioned.

You don't see any "flaps" in any X-rays. You see cracks in the skull
with it all in place and covered by scalp. There were no "flaps" for you
to play with opening and closing.

> I believe this is
> the primary reason why there is such a descrepancy between Parkland's
> description and Bethesda's. It might also explain why there appears to be
> no defect in the BOH in the x-ray when in fact it might me that the pieces
> of JFK's skull were reassembled as best that could be done prior to that
> x-ray being taken. That is why I am hesitant to draw any conclusions based
> on the minimal evidence we have and the minimal medical knowledge most of
> us possess.

The difference between Parkland and Bethesda is due to the clandestine
'surgery' done on the body by Humes and Boswell which was witnessed by at
least 3 different people. Edward Reed, Tom Robinson and Jerrol Custer.

Chris

[BT George]

Exactly. I would even go so far as to say that even some *minor* missing
scalp was possible that could fit Humes description. Because even with a
high quality BOH photo such as Fiorentino let DVP see, the possibility
remains that a minor defect could have gone unobserved amongst JFK's thick
hair.

The reality is that the Autopsy doctors were denied the opportunity to
compare their notes against the pictures. If that had occurred, they
surely would have either corrected their notes where in error
or---assuming they observed things not readily apparent from the photos
and x-rays----they would have left better notes reconciling the
differences between the observed and the photographed.

Indeed, the lack of such corrections/clarifications probably explains why
52 years later we still have forensic pathologists and other qualified
observers who disagree on the precise entry point in the back of JFK's
head, despite their having access to the original X-rays and photos.

BT George

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

So now that makes your claim that the bullet hole did not cause any
absence of bone. Can you explain how that bullet works?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~sigh~

The ENTRY HOLE isn't what I've been referring to in this thread and you
know it, Tony.

So why pretend that the ENTRY hole can possibly be part of the large
13-cm. "large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right" that
I'm talking about in this discussion? It's not. The entry hole is NOT part
of the "absence of scalp and bone" that is referred to by the autopsists
on Page 3 (Paragraph 6) of the autopsy report.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey, I thought you changed it to missing occipital bone OR scalp.
And again you won't answer my questions.
How do you get your bullet through the occipital bone as per Humes,
Boswell, and Finck without having missing bone where the hole is?
If you have a hole on the back of the head, there has to be missing bone.
Unless you have a Magic Bullet which squeezes through the suture line
without damaging any part of the skull. Can you show me one of those
Magic Bullets? Post it on your Web page.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/11/2015 11:37 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 11:20:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> BIGDOG SAID:
>>
>> My question would be whether the Harper fragment had been replaced prior
>> to that x-ray being taken.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Huh? The Harper fragment wasn't even discovered in Dealey Plaza until
>> Saturday, Nov. 23. The X-rays were taken near the beginning of the autopsy
>> on Nov. 22.
>
> My mistake. For some reason I was under the impression that it had been
> found that day and brought to the autopsy that night.
>

No problemo. You were probably thinking of the Late Arriving Fragment.
Maybe if you knew how to use Google you could find and read the article
with that name.

For extra credit let's have a coloring book contest where each
contestant gets to color in the fragment where he or she thinks it came
from the skull.

Make sure you use The Color Purple.

> However as the x-ray shows, the skull fractures radiated out from the
> entrance wound and there was a piece of skull that was seperated from the
> rest of the skull, presumably still attached to the scalp. This would have
> been part of the large defect that extended all along the upper right side
> of the skull.
>
> Once JFK's skull shattered, his head was no longer a fixed object. It was
> a collection of loose pieces being held together by the scalp. As such
> those pieces could be move into different configurations. At any given
> time those flaps could be opened or closed his head would look quite a bit
> different depending on how those flaps were positioned. I believe this is

Exactly. I can't think of a good analogy, but it's like a jigsaw puzzle
with missing pieces and you can't be sure where the pieces fit.
Not even the top forensic pathologists could.

> the primary reason why there is such a descrepancy between Parkland's
> description and Bethesda's. It might also explain why there appears to be

Yes, plus the mattered hair and blood and extruded brain.

> no defect in the BOH in the x-ray when in fact it might me that the pieces
> of JFK's skull were reassembled as best that could be done prior to that

This is a major revelation. Can you prove it and explain who did it and
when?

This deserves its own book. How about Second Best Evidence?

> x-ray being taken. That is why I am hesitant to draw any conclusions based
> on the minimal evidence we have and the minimal medical knowledge most of
> us possess.
>

How about if some day we get to SEE all the photos and X-rays? I know, I
know, the Nazis will complain that we're not qualified to even look at
them. We're not worthy.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he didn't and Mantik has retracted his claims.
Have you ever talked to Mantik? No. I have.

> You must realize that even in 1963 that photos can (and were) altered
> to suit a purpose, and you fell for one of them. The BOH photo you
> reference doesn't match the Idea Dox drawing that was done from it. The
> drawing has a bullet hole on it, and the photo doeesn't, but then it
> wasn't planned for that photo to be made public.
>

Even in early 1900's.




Earliest-known paranormal photographer William Hope had a knack for
capturing the essence of spirits on film in the early 1900s. It?s too
bad he was a fraud.

In 1905, Hope took his first ghostly photo ? an act that launched him into
fame as something of a celebrity medium, not to mention the father of
spirit photography. The only problem? Hope was a total phony. During the
early ages of photography very little about the technology was common
knowledge, which left holes wide open for tricking the public. Hope took
pictures of the living to expose the spirits that were ?haunting? them.

So how did he pull it off pre-Photoshop? Gizmodo writes that Hope and team
were able to create ghost portraits by double exposing the silver plates
used to capture images. By doing this, Hope could layer images on top of
one another, achieving his desired paranormal effect, and one heck of a
party trick.

> DVP, you've been suckered and you help the plotters by furthering their
> goals of faking out the public by pretending that over 40+ witnesses to
> the BOH wound of JFK were all 'mistaken', the favorite whine of the LNs.
> And your constant efforts to drag members away from here to your website
> only makes it worse. Here there is an alternative for onlookers, there
> only the one way to go.
>
> Chris
>
>

BTW, the Ida Dox drawing is a hoax.
And FYIO, don't tell anyone, but the HSCA did intend to publish the
original photograph.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/11/2015 11:21 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 11:14:35 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 1:00:07 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may

>>>> well have been concealing missing bone.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>>
>>>> Impossible, John. This X-ray proves there's not a speck of missing
>>>> occipital bone....
>>>>
>>>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>>>>

>>>> Plus, check the Boswell ARRB testimony I cited earlier. He mentions
>>>> various parts of the head that were missing, but never says the word
>>>> "occipital". And there's a good reason for that---the occipital is all
>>>> present and accounted for.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Another DVP 'mistake'. The word occipital is indeed mentioned by
>>> Boswell in his ARRB testimony in the very first page of questions!!!
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> "Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer
>>> read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left
>>> posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?
>>> A. Yes.
>>> 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. And what I meant was that the wound in
>>> the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that
>>> there was any scalp actually--scalp missing"
>>>
>>> From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, Boswell is mistaken about the wound as to the BOH part of
>>> it. Many of the over 40+ witnesses to the 'large hole' in the BOH say

>>> that the wound in the BOH had NO skull covering it, and brain could be

>>> seen in the hole. and those were mostly medical people.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> It sure doesn't sound like Boswell is talking about MISSING OCCIPITAL
>> SCALP here....
>>
>> BOSWELL -- "The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right
>> frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be
>> closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp
>> actually--scalp missing."
>>
>> In any event, the photos and X-rays will always be the best evidence when
>> trying to determine if there was any MISSING scalp or MISSING skull bone
>> in JFK's occipital region. And the photos and X-rays (and the Z-Film
>> too)---in tandem with each other!---are proving that there was no such
>> MISSING occipital scalp or bone.
>>
>
>

> In actuality, since the photos and X-rays have been 'messed with', the
> over 40+ witnesses to the state of the BOH of JFK is a far better
> indicator of the 'large wound' in the BOH of JFK proving there was a
> missing section of skull in the BOH when the body was at Parkland. The
> evidence shows it over and over.

>
>
>
>> BTW, I'm not claiming there wasn't some DAMAGE done to the "OCCIPITAL"
>> area of JFK's head. There most certainly IS occipital damage. We can
>> easily see the fractures in the occipital bone in the X-ray. But what I'm

>> emphasizing is that there was no MISSING (or "ABSENCE OF...") scalp or
>> bone in the occipital area of Kennedy's head. And I think the autopsy
>> pictures and X-rays prove that fact very clearly (even second- or
>> third-generation photos).
>
>

> So you continue to rely on old photos and X-rays, when you have the
> statements of over 40+ witnesses (many of whom were medically trained)

Never rely on witness statements. Physical evidence always trumps
eyewitness statements.

> telling you that there was a 'large hole' in th BOH of JFK. Boswell said
> so too. Many witnesses drew pictures of the wound I'm speaking of which
> had NO scalp covering.
>
> Have you ever seeen lost souls wandering the streets of NYC? They'll
> tell you all kinds of things you can believe, just like altered photos and
> X-rays.
>
You mean like the lost souls in Dealey Plaza you listen to? How come
there are no ghosts in Dealey Plaza? Because no one died there?


> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/11/2015 11:20 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 11:20:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> BIGDOG SAID:
>>
>> My question would be whether the Harper fragment had been replaced prior
>> to that x-ray being taken.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Huh? The Harper fragment wasn't even discovered in Dealey Plaza until
>> Saturday, Nov. 23. The X-rays were taken near the beginning of the autopsy
>> on Nov. 22.
>
>
>

> Good point! You've just proved that the X-rays were manipulated, as
> was the photo of the BOH.
>
> Chris
>

Just don't even talk about anything if you think it was all altered.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/11/2015 5:08 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 11:21:08 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 2:54:20 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 7:33:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

>>>> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:36:15 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

>>>>>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal
>>>>>>> and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal

>>>>>>> there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where
>>>>>>> this space is here."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now you finally admit that Dr. Humes *DID* write "occipital".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When did I ever deny that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Answer -- Never.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why on Earth would I deny that Dr. James Humes wrote a word that I can see
>>>>>>> for myself in the autopsy report?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect he SHOULD have written "FRONTAL" there, however. And the
>>>>>>> Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm
>>>>>>> correct in that assumption, with Dr. Boswell even using that very word --
>>>>>>> "FRONTAL" -- to describe one of the missing areas of JFK's head as he
>>>>>>> looks at an X-ray during his ARRB session. And guess what word he DIDN'T
>>>>>>> use in that testimony? Answer -- "Occipital". ....
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal,

>>>>>>> temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

The Ida Dox drawing is a hoax.

>
> Here's our Dr. Humes saying it wasn't a bullet hole. Is his word good
> enough for you? Or will you insiste top your dying day that you're right
> and all rhese folks I've presented to you are wrong? Here'sd Humes:
>
> "Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
> JFK's skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting alongside him, responded: "I
> don't know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we
> reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect
> corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that
> is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it
> is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance."
>

Now you know why the Nazis didn't want that to be made public.

> From:
> http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
>
>
> Now Humes was in a position to look down at the REAL red spot and his
> word should be better than your guess from a photo.
>

No, that's stupid. He couldn't even see the throat wound or the hole in
the forehead.

OIn one breath you call him God and in the next breath you call him the
Devil, depending on which axe you need to grind.

> Just admit you made a mistake and go on with your stealing of members
> from here.
>

Just admit that Humes lie and move on.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

A researcher that checked the archives saw the X-rays and has it on
good authority that every one of the X-rays in the archives were copies.
Very suggestive of fakery.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:

I would even go so far as to say that even some *minor* missing scalp was
possible that could fit Humes description. Because even with a high
quality BOH photo such as Fiorentino let DVP see, the possibility remains
that a minor defect could have gone unobserved amongst JFK's thick hair.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But let's just consider the incredible DOUBLE hunk of photographic
deception (not FAKERY, mind you, just ordinary, non-sinister DECEPTION)
that we would have to swallow in order for there to be *ANY* missing
"occipital" SCALP or SKULL BONE....

We'd have to believe that the less-than-perfect (but still pretty decent)
"Internet" Fox copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays *just happen* to
NOT show--in tandem--ANY missing occipital bone or scalp, even though (per
your suggested theory) there really is a certain amount of missing
occipital BONE **AND** SCALP.

Such a double example of photo deception (or "misinterpretation" might be
a better word) would, IMO, be truly remarkable---if not completely
impossible....or improbable beyond belief.

Plus, we can really make it a TRIPLE batch of misinterpretation if we were
to add the Zapruder Film to the mix, because the Z-Film certainly doesn't
show any missing occipital either.

In addition --- If we accept the "somewhat into the occipital" portion of
the verbiage found in the autopsy report, we'd have to almost certainly
conclude that a goodly-sized chunk of the "parietal" bone that extends
into the BACK of the head was ALSO missing. And that's because in order
for the 13-centimeter "large irregular defect" to actually have reached
ANY occipital bone and scalp, that same 13-cm. wound would have HAD to
have crossed into the PARIETAL bone that extends into the back of JFK's
head as well.

But we know from those same autopsy photos and X-rays that there also is
not a single bit of PARIETAL bone missing in the BACK part of Kennedy's
head.

So I stand by my first post in this thread --- Paragraph #6 of Page 3 of
the autopsy report (WCR, page 543) is not an entirely accurate paragraph.
The word "occipital" is inaccurate in that paragraph. It should probably
say "Front bone" instead of "Occipital" in that particular paragraph.

Again --- "IMHO".

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm

[David Von Pein]

One more (important) thought on this "Occipital vs. Frontal" subject....

After viewing several of the photos and X-rays of President Kennedy's
head, it's hard for me to believe that the autopsists would have failed to
come to the conclusion that the large "absence of scalp and bone" on the
right side of JFK's head extended into the FRONTAL BONE of the head. It
sure looks to me like some "frontal bone" is blown out, just as much as
it's clear that there is no OCCIPITAL bone or scalp missing from the
President's cranium:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WvGx6hk3Qz8/Vhx0txq_42I/AAAAAAABHpg/1SgdSw3OgmI/s1500/Frontal-Vs-Occipital.png

And yet, in the controversial paragraph on Page 3 of the autopsy report,
there is no mention whatsoever of the "Frontal Bone" or "Frontal Region"
of the head. Instead, we find this:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence
of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
in greatest diameter."

And yet, when we check out some of the later testimony given by the
autopsy doctors, including the ARRB testimony repeated below by Dr.
Boswell, we can see that the "Frontal" region is an area of the
President's head that was most *definitely* void of some skull:

[mainframetech]

Or...the obvious errors in the photos weren't seen during the medical
panel examinations of the data made available to them. And lack of
corrections can also be atttributed to lazy medical people who knew they
were being used to shut the public complaints up and put away the whole
issue of conspiracy and multiple shooters, so they just glossed over what
they should have looked at more closely.

Chris

[mainframetech]

An interesting point was brought up earlier. If the X-rays were taken
BEFORE the autopsy, or at the beginning of it (stated by many witnesses),
and the Harper fragment arrived on Nov. 23, 1963 (the next day after the
murder), then why don't the X-rays show the missing piece of bone? It had
to be missing during the autopsy. Or was there just some unclaimed piece
of skull bone thrown down in Dealey Plaza to confuse everyone? And why
did some of the ER doctors at Parkland think that a piece of skull was
missing and brains could be seen in the hole that was left, oozing slowly
out? Someone's got their facts wrong it looks like.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Hmm. I see that truth is an irritant to some folks. I'll get involved
in any discussion I feel needs correction, and yours certainly fits that
criteria. So far I've had to correct most of your posts because you've
forgotten much of what you learned over the years. And actually you're
wrong yet again. I don't think that ALL of the autopasy photos are
altered, only some of the more obvious ones. I'm surprised with your huge
database of LN thinking that you haven't caught on to the ones that have
been 'messed with'. The BOH photo is just the most obvious one of the
bunch. Have you made a comnparison yet as I suggested with that photo and
the Ida Dox Drawing that was used by some of the medical panels? Did you
find iout that even the drawinfgs were 'messed with'?

Your silly red spot was NOT considered to be a mark of anything at all
by Commander Humes, as I've quoted here for you, yet you have not
apologized to anyone for misleading them. And he was one of the
pathologists that looked at the BOH himself, including the little red
spot. When do you admit that you've gone off the reservation with your
belief that the little red spot means anything? Remember, you're in
charge of a repository of historical fact, so wouldn't you want to keep it
honest in all its facts? Time to browse your files and correct them where
you can.

Already I've also had to correct your statements right here at the very
beginning for errors. Are those errors all through your database, or are
they just mistakes you made yourself, and they don't reflect the quality
of your LN oriented data?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/12/2015 9:40 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> So now that makes your claim that the bullet hole did not cause any
> absence of bone. Can you explain how that bullet works?
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> ~sigh~
>
> The ENTRY HOLE isn't what I've been referring to in this thread and you
> know it, Tony.
>

Which entry hole? Do you mean the one in the scalp or in the skull?
Maybe you're thinking of that shot where the bullet enters the scalp at
the back of the head and skims along the outside of the skull and exits
the other side of the head through the scalp, but never penetrates the
skull. Is that the one?

> So why pretend that the ENTRY hole can possibly be part of the large
> 13-cm. "large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right" that

So now you want a 13cm entrance hole. Can you show me some of those
bullets? You are using Sophism to dodge my bullets.

> I'm talking about in this discussion? It's not. The entry hole is NOT part
> of the "absence of scalp and bone" that is referred to by the autopsists
> on Page 3 (Paragraph 6) of the autopsy report.
>

Do you know what the word tangential means? Not like the phony WC
diagram that Humes supervised. Are you ever going to break down and
simply admit that the WC lied?

[Anthony Marsh]

A BOH photo? Which one? You mean the one where the doctors had already
cut the scalp to remove the brain?

> The reality is that the Autopsy doctors were denied the opportunity to
> compare their notes against the pictures. If that had occurred, they
> surely would have either corrected their notes where in error
> or---assuming they observed things not readily apparent from the photos
> and x-rays----they would have left better notes reconciling the
> differences between the observed and the photographed.
>

You mean like a real autopsy? Go ahead and push the button to start WWIII.

> Indeed, the lack of such corrections/clarifications probably explains why
> 52 years later we still have forensic pathologists and other qualified
> observers who disagree on the precise entry point in the back of JFK's
> head, despite their having access to the original X-rays and photos.
>

Maybe because there is none.

> BT George
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Except the Devil's Flap which Jackie closed.

[Anthony Marsh]

Prove your 0.1 second. Negligible means there is SOME. I did not say a
lot. The other factor you overlooked is that an elongated wound can be
caused by the bullet hitting a curved surface. Some places on the head are
curved. Your hypothesis is a false construction.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/12/2015 4:32 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/9/2015 7:38 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 10:36:15 AM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

>>>> I agree with BD's comments. The level of fracturing was massive in JFK's
>>>> skull and only so much can be told looking at the few relatively poor
>>>> quality pictures of the body and X-Rays that are in the public domain. I
>>>> also hope that wider access to the originals will be considered by the
>>>> Kennedy family as JFK's immediate family members and close associates
>>>> slowly die off and as the case slips back more and more to being of
>>>> historical interest only.
>>>>
>>>> BT George
>>>

Not a JFK assassination researcher. Doesn't even have a researcher's card.

> And your forensic credentials are?
>

Did I say anything about forensics?

> He saw the originals that are stored in the national archives. Not copies.
>

I saw originals that had been stored in the National Archives.

Not copies.

> As he said, we must rely on science and facts.
>

I deal in science and facts.

> Others can rely on fantasies.
>
>

Like WC fantasies. Like Magic Bullets.

>
>
>
>
>

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 3:05:31 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> One more (important) thought on this "Occipital vs. Frontal" subject....
>
> After viewing several of the photos and X-rays of President Kennedy's
> head, it's hard for me to believe that the autopsists would have failed to
> come to the conclusion that the large "absence of scalp and bone" on the
> right side of JFK's head extended into the FRONTAL BONE of the head. It
> sure looks to me like some "frontal bone" is blown out, just as much as
> it's clear that there is no OCCIPITAL bone or scalp missing from the
> President's cranium:
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WvGx6hk3Qz8/Vhx0txq_42I/AAAAAAABHpg/1SgdSw3OgmI/s1500/Frontal-Vs-Occipital.png
>

You've been shown testimony from a number of witnesses, many that are
doctors, that there was a large wound in the BOH of JFK. You've been
shown the medical terminology in the AR for the wounds mentioned. They
match each other and there is NO mistake about the word'occipital' vs,
frontal.

> And yet, in the controversial paragraph on Page 3 of the autopsy report,
> there is no mention whatsoever of the "Frontal Bone" or "Frontal Region"
> of the head. Instead, we find this:
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence
> of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
> in greatest diameter."
>
> And yet, when we check out some of the later testimony given by the
> autopsy doctors, including the ARRB testimony repeated below by Dr.
> Boswell, we can see that the "Frontal" region is an area of the
> President's head that was most *definitely* void of some skull:
>
> DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal,
> temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."

And Boswell also said in testimony:

"Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer
read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left
posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
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."

Some of the 'frontal' bone is also on the side of the head.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 3:00:48 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:
>
> I would even go so far as to say that even some *minor* missing scalp was
> possible that could fit Humes description. Because even with a high
> quality BOH photo such as Fiorentino let DVP see, the possibility remains
> that a minor defect could have gone unobserved amongst JFK's thick hair.
>

Really, really flea-sized defect. The quality of the photo of the BOH
is plenty clear to see that there isn't any bullet hole in the photo
anywhere. Howver, like I said, check the Ida Dox drawing, and sure enough
a bullet hole appears right where you can tell it doesn't exist on the
photo. Scam number one.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> But let's just consider the incredible DOUBLE hunk of photographic
> deception (not FAKERY, mind you, just ordinary, non-sinister DECEPTION)
> that we would have to swallow in order for there to be *ANY* missing
> "occipital" SCALP or SKULL BONE....
>
> We'd have to believe that the less-than-perfect (but still pretty decent)
> "Internet" Fox copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays *just happen* to
> NOT show--in tandem--ANY missing occipital bone or scalp, even though (per
> your suggested theory) there really is a certain amount of missing
> occipital BONE **AND** SCALP.
>

It's not a theory, it's a fact based on large numbers of witnesses that
saw the 'large hole' in the BOH, all corroborating each other. Here's
some examples of their words:

Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was
in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum
fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound
was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of
his head (see photo).
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

Frank O'Neill - FBI agent said "...a massive wound in the right rear."
See photo:
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

Paul O'Connor - Bethesda Navy corpsman-morgue assistant. Said "[There was]
an open areas all the way across into the rear of the brain." See photo:
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

Floyd Reibe - Bethesda photographer at morgue. Said "...a big gaping hole
in the back of the head." See photo:
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron - Parkland ER nurse. WC testimony:
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "

That's just for starters, I've got many more if you need more
corroboration.

> Such a double example of photo deception (or "misinterpretation" might be
> a better word) would, IMO, be truly remarkable---if not completely
> impossible....or improbable beyond belief.
>

It was a single deception. The photo was altered to show a BOH that
wasn't the real one.

> Plus, we can really make it a TRIPLE batch of misinterpretation if we were
> to add the Zapruder Film to the mix, because the Z-Film certainly doesn't
> show any missing occipital either.
>

The Z-film has been proven to have been altered as well. There is a
witness to the ORIGINAL Z-film, that saw the current version of the film
and was "shocked" at what was left out and changed. Read the 4th volume
of 5 by Douglasd Horne on the ARRB. Hundredss of pages spent on the scam
of the altered Z-film.

> In addition --- If we accept the "somewhat into the occipital" portion of
> the verbiage found in the autopsy report, we'd have to almost certainly
> conclude that a goodly-sized chunk of the "parietal" bone that extends
> into the BACK of the head was ALSO missing. And that's because in order
> for the 13-centimeter "large irregular defect" to actually have reached
> ANY occipital bone and scalp, that same 13-cm. wound would have HAD to
> have crossed into the PARIETAL bone that extends into the back of JFK's
> head as well.
>

Actually, you're right. The original wound at the BOH was the only
wound in the head leaving Parkland, then Humes and Boswell got the body in
the Bethesda morgue at 6:35pm BEFORE the autopsy, and did some clandestine
'surgery' on the body, namely the head by extending the wound at the BOH
around to the right side and somewhat to the top.

> But we know from those same autopsy photos and X-rays that there also is
> not a single bit of PARIETAL bone missing in the BACK part of Kennedy's
> head.
>
> So I stand by my first post in this thread --- Paragraph #6 of Page 3 of
> the autopsy report (WCR, page 543) is not an entirely accurate paragraph.
> The word "occipital" is inaccurate in that paragraph. It should probably
> say "Front bone" instead of "Occipital" in that particular paragraph.
>
> Again --- "IMHO".
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm

Amazing that you have the nerve to correct pathologists, including
Pierre Finck, who was a Forensic Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert.
The final Autopsy Report (AR) says this:

"MISSILE WOUNDS:

1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right

involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence

of scalp and bone produc ing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm.
in greatest diameter."

From:
http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf

13 centimeters = over 5 inches.

Note that the AR says "absence of scalp and bone" for a 5 inch wound.
But you are going to insist that there was NO damage at all, just a little
bullet hole that no one can find on the photo. Have you any idea how
badly you've been scammed? And will you tell your readers that you bring
to your website that you made a mistake? Not a chance. You'll go on
selling the baloney as long as it's profitable. I expect you'll find some
excuse to believe as you always have, proof to the contrary not
withstanding.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

God forbid I should coach a LN how to effectively fend off a common CT
argument. But here goes....

The measurements for the head wound in the autopsy protocol were obtained
after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. It's as
simple as that. There was no hole on the back of the head in the
back-of-the-head photos. But there was shattered skull beneath the scalp.
The scalp was then peeled back, and skull fell to the table. There was now
a large wound extending into the occipital area.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pat,

Your explanation could possibly explain the "absence of BONE" verbiage
that we find in Paragraph 6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report. But your
explanation most certainly does not explain the "absence of SCALP" portion
of that paragraph. Because even the "peeled back" scalp does NOT have
anything MISSING from it in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's scalp.

Plus, there's also still that one word which is, IMO, curiously missing
from the description of the large exit wound -- "FRONTAL".

The more I look at the pictures and X-rays (and the ARRB comments made by
both Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes), the more conspicuous the absence of the
word "Frontal" becomes.

[BT George]

David,

Many of your comments are well taken, as is your attempt to reconcile the
discrepancy. Nevertheless, the most obvious weakness with the idea of it
being a mistake is that the word frontal is in no way close the word
occipital and thus can hardly have been a likely typo or brain spaz.

Regarding the trifecta of confirmations, first, I don't think that
anything seen on Z film would be clear enough to conclusively rule out the
extending "somewhat" language in the AR.

Nor would I conceive that a minor---and I do mean small---part of the
occipital bone that extends upward from the bottom near the "ear hole" I
linked to earlier in this thread could not have been fragmented by the
concussion and fallen out of place. If so, perhaps it not even really
missing at all as the possibility exists that it got mistakenly put back
into the wrong place as part of the partial skull reassembly that John
Corbett and many others suspect may have occurred in an attempt to render
the skull as completely as possible for the lateral and other X-rays.
(Speculative, yes, but the lateral X-ray is not so sharp as for me to rule
out such a scenario 100%, recalling that I am looking only at the
possibility that a very minor segment of bone that would fulfill the
"extending somewhat" language.)

In the same fashion, I would suppose that the fragmenting of the skull
could have caused a *small* part of the scalp extending "somewhat" into
the occipital area to have been torn out and thus have gone missing.
However, I am not thinking about occipital scalp extending towards the
BOH. Rather, perhaps Humes is talking about a portion of scalp that was
adjacent to that part of the occipital area that extends forward of upward
near the "ear hole" that I referred to above and in another post. Now of
course we don't see that in the X-ray, but we wouldn't be expected to in
regards to missing scalp since X-rays are intended primarily to interior
structures like bone. Nor do we see it in the BOH photo, but as nothing
there would connect in any way to great defect I don't think that in any
conceivable world that would have been the part of the occipital region he
could have been giving reference to.

Having said all that, I admit I am being very speculative in the above and
perhaps I am simply not able to envision in my mind's eye the great defect
well enough to see how there is absolutely no way that the evidence would
appear as it does, yet still find Humes description to be correct. So at
the end of the day you may well be correct.

BT George

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, MainFrame, the red spot is THE ONLY thing that even remotely
resembles a bullet hole. And a ruler is being placed pretty close to that
red spot in the BOH photo. And there IS a bullet hole SOMEWHERE on the
back of JFK's head. And the Clark Panel said there was an entry hole in
the BOH photo located about 100mm. above the EOP. And the Clark Panel also
said they had located a bullet hole on the X-ray which was also 100mm.
above the EOP. And the HSCA determined to its satisfaction that the "red
spot" was, indeed, a bullet hole and that it had the character and
definition of a bullet hole.

So, with all of that stuff staring at me, WHY would I *ever* in a billion
years think that the "red spot" was any kind of a bullet hole?

(Who's got the "GEESH" icon?)

[David Von Pein]

Why keep babbling, Tony? You know you're making no sense. So why bother?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

"A research has it on good authority."

Meaningless gibberish.

But good enough for you.

[Anthony Marsh]

What red spot? It could be wine.

[Anthony Marsh]

No sure what you mean. You mean the conspirators went around throwing
down cattle skull pieces just to confuse people?

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't suppose you've even seen the drawing that Boswell did for the
ARRB. Certainly never posted it on your Web site.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. You've never talked to Mantik. I have.

> Chris
>

[BT George]

Actually this is the link I meant to post and am referring too. It
clearly shows the portion of occipital bone that juts up higher into the
skull near the junction of the jaw bone and the "ear hole" which I now see
elsewhere is identified as the "External auditory meatus":

http://www.learnbones.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Occipital_bone.png

This is the only part of the occipital bone/region of the skull that could
conceivably be involved in Humes statement about "extending somewhat into
the occipital" language in reference to the great defect.

BT George

[David Von Pein]

Thank you for your comments, Brock.