Re: Belzer, Baker, And Oswald

[David Von Pein]

http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html

I have added a few new entries to my "Kennedy Catalog" (linked above),
including a book written by Richard Belzer and David Wayne, entitled
"Dead Wrong: Straight Facts On The Country's Most Controversial Cover-
Ups" [Skyhorse Publishing; 528 pages]....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616086734?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1616086734&linkCode=xm2&tag=dvsre-20

You can read some sections of "Dead Wrong" at Amazon.com for free,
including Mr. Belzer's very weak argument behind this bold claim
(which Belzer does put in all capital letters in the book's Intro):

"IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR OSWALD TO HAVE SHOT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY!!! THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT!"

The main reason, Belzer says, to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald could
not have physically murdered JFK is because the reconstructions of the
alleged movements of Oswald and the known movements of Dallas
policeman Marrion Baker were "rigged" by the Warren Commission,
permitting Baker to arrive in the second-floor lunchroom of the
Depository at just about the same time as Oswald would have arrived
there.

But what Belzer never mentions in his book's brief Introduction is the
fact that the man performing the Oswald portion of the reconstruction
(Secret Service agent John Howlett) did not run or trot at all in any
of the tests. He merely walked at two different speeds (normal and a
fast walk) when attempting to duplicate Oswald's movements from the
sixth floor to the lunchroom.

Quite obviously, therefore, if Oswald had been moving any faster than
Agent Howlett (and he probably was moving faster), it means that
Oswald could have easily gotten down to the second-floor lunchroom
sooner than Howlett did in the WC re-creations.

In addition, Belzer points to Commission Exhibit 3076, which is the
statement signed by Officer Baker in September of 1964 with the famous
"drinking a Coke" portion of the statement crossed out and initialed
by Baker.

Belzer, like almost all other conspiracy theorists, wants to believe
that BAKER HIMSELF wrote the words "drinking a Coke" on that document
we see in CE3076, when, in fact, it's clear from the handwriting that
Baker only initialed and signed that document. He did not write
anything else in it.

Somebody else (probably an FBI man) wrote the statement, and then
Baker corrected the incorrect things in the document--such as
"drinking a Coke". And Baker was quite clear in his WC testimony (as
was Roy Truly) that he did not see anything in Lee Oswald's hands when
Baker encountered him on 11/22/63.

Yeah, that's some great proof you've got there for Oswald's total
innocence, Mr. Belzer -- a set of reconstructions done by Baker and
Howlett (as you ignore the important point about Howlett moving at a
snail's pace during those tests) and a document which was obviously
not even written by Marrion L. Baker at all.

If the rest of the book is anything like that weak-sister Intro I read
on Amazon's website, then I have a feeling that the title of Mr.
Belzer's book would more aptly apply to his own conclusions (when it
comes to the JFK case anyway) -- "Dead Wrong".

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

[David Von Pein]

Addendum:

There's also the fact that Marrion Baker told the Warren Commission
that it likely took him LONGER on 11/22/63 to do the things that he
was re-creating for the Commission in March '64. And yet author
Richard Belzer thinks Baker's re-creation test was rigged to
intentionally slow him down, and yet Officer Baker said that the re-
creations were done too QUICKLY. Go figure.

[timstter]

On Aug 16, 7:54 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html
>
> I have added a few new entries to my "Kennedy Catalog" (linked above),
> including a book written by Richard Belzer and David Wayne, entitled
> "Dead Wrong: Straight Facts On The Country's Most Controversial Cover-
> Ups" [Skyhorse Publishing; 528 pages]....
>

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616086734?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativ...

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-...

Hi David,

Skyhorse published Mark Lane's latest book, Last Word, his supposed
*indictment* of the CIA in JFK's murder.

It is a very unworthy tome, in my view.

His refutation of the KGB funding charges, as previously made by
Christopher Andrew et al, is truly PATHETIC!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[aeffects]

off your knees clown. Von Pein is taken, heart and soul belongs to
Bugliosi and KFC...

> His refutation of the KGB funding charges, as previously made by
> Christopher Andrew et al, is truly PATHETIC!

your envy of Mark Lane is a pure form of flattery, carry on troll!

> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

[Jason Burke]

Healy, are you HONESTLY this fucked up?

[timstter]

Hey Dave, reading Lane's truly PITIFUL refutation of the KGB funding
claims as published in Andrew's *The Sword & The Shield* book you came
away with the impression that English wasn't Lane's mother tongue.

BTW, Lane also admits getting funding from Corliss Lamont, the guy who
wrote the anti-Kennedy pamphlet The Crime Against Cuba that Oswald was
handing out on the streets of Dallas and New Orleans just a few months
before he was charged with shooting Kennedy.

Birds of a feather and all that, Dave.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2427c652dc3053d9/42388b4ab430e3cb?#42388b4ab430e3cb

DAVID EMERLING SAID:

>>> "You [Tony Marsh] criticized Von Pein for being critical of a book written by a comedian. Yet, look how this discussion is going. Those who probably claim to be legitimate researchers are probably making the same arguments that Belzer made in his book." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, yes, you're absolutely right about that, David. I didn't mean to
suggest that Richard Belzer's nonsense about the Baker/Howlett re-
creations was anything "new". Not at all. It's the same old tired junk
that CTers have tried to prop up to "prove" Oswald's innocence for
decades.

It's just that Belzer's all-caps "IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE" bunk in his book
caught my eye, so I decided to write a post about it.

BTW, that book ("Dead Wrong") is still selling amazingly well. As of
this writing, it's #46 at Amazon among all books sold there. That's
incredible, IMO.

And just think how many more people will gobble up Belzer's "OSWALD
COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT" malarkey, without even knowing about the little
tidbits concerning Howlett's snail-pace movements during his part of
the reconstruction.*

* = To be fair, I really have no idea whether Belzer (or co-writer
Wayne) have put anything in the book about Howlett's speed during the
'64 re-creations, because I have only read a small portion of the
introduction (for free) at Amazon. So it's possible that Belzer talks
about the stuff I mentioned earlier concerning Howlett's movements,
but I would kind of doubt that he does, because if he does, it would
pretty much destroy Belzer's "OSWALD HAS TO BE INNOCENT" intro piece.

And while I'm thinking of it -- I failed to note another big problem
with Belzer's theory about the Marrion Baker reconstructions:

Baker told the Warren Commission that his 1964 tests resulted in the
"minimum" time for re-creating everything he actually did on November
22:

"We simulated the shots and by the time we got there, we did
everything that I did that day, and this would be the minimum, because
I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer." -- Marrion L.
Baker; WC Testimony

In other words, Baker is saying it took him LONGER on Nov. 22 to get
to the second floor than it did during his '64 tests. But people like
Richard Belzer think the WC was deliberately slowing Baker down during
the reconstructions. And yet the man who performed those
reconstructions--Officer Baker himself--said that the tests were still
done too quickly.

I guess Belzer must think Baker himself lied to the Commission when he
uttered the quote I posted above.

[mainframetech]

On Aug 23, 4:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

It's interesting to see how popular this topic is with the folks out
there in TV land. They haven't forgotten or gone away, for sure. And
poor DVP just had it proved to him that Oswald didn't fire the kill
shot into JFK! A medical opinion as well as physical evidence, plus
Douglas Horne proving the autopsy was a fake...A bad day for poor old
DVP...:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

Chris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "DVP just had it proved to him that Oswald didn't fire the kill shot into JFK! A medical opinion as well as physical evidence, plus Douglas Horne proving the autopsy was a fake." <<<

Gee, I wonder who proved that? I sure haven't seen it.

Mainframe loves doing what most CTers do -- turn the evidence into
something it's not. Fact is, the ONLY evidence that exists indicates
that ONLY bullets from Oswald's rifle hit the President. But to the CT
gang, incredibly, since there's a large pile of "Oz Did It" evidence,
this fact must mean exactly the opposite and Oswald couldn't have done
it.

What kind of logic is that? Oliver Stone 101 class?

And I love it that Mainframe has a new hero in Mr. Douglas P. Horne,
the kook who thinks Dr. Humes rearranged JFK's wounds at Bethesda
before the autopsy.

With heroes like that, Chris, you're just one step away from embracing
the "award-winning" Mr. Andersen:

http://mygodimhit.com/

[aeffects]

On Aug 23, 3:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "DVP just had it proved to him that Oswald didn't fire the kill shot into JFK!  A medical opinion as well as physical evidence, plus Douglas Horne proving the autopsy was a fake." <<<
>
> Gee, I wonder who proved that? I sure haven't seen it.
>
> Mainframe loves doing what most CTers do -- turn the evidence into
> something it's not. Fact is, the ONLY evidence that exists indicates
> that ONLY bullets from Oswald's rifle hit the President. But to the CT
> gang, incredibly, since there's a large pile of "Oz Did It" evidence,
> this fact must mean exactly the opposite and Oswald couldn't have done
> it.
>
> What kind of logic is that? Oliver Stone 101 class?
>

envy will get you nothing, moron. be a lone nut troll, take it like
whimp.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <919c6fa4-482d-4b2a...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 23, 3:05=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "DVP just had it proved to him that Oswald didn't fire the kill shot =
>into JFK! =A0A medical opinion as well as physical evidence, plus Douglas H=

>orne proving the autopsy was a fake." <<<
>>
>> Gee, I wonder who proved that? I sure haven't seen it.
>>
>> Mainframe loves doing what most CTers do -- turn the evidence into
>> something it's not. Fact is, the ONLY evidence that exists indicates
>> that ONLY bullets from Oswald's rifle hit the President. But to the CT
>> gang, incredibly, since there's a large pile of "Oz Did It" evidence,
>> this fact must mean exactly the opposite and Oswald couldn't have done
>> it.
>>
>> What kind of logic is that? Oliver Stone 101 class?
>>
>
>envy will get you nothing, moron. be a lone nut troll, take it like
>whimp.

What I can't figure out is why anyone would think you can "prove" something to a
kook?

Look at Robby Caprio, for example... I quoted the Constitution, I quoted a
Supreme Court decision, I quoted many other authorities for the simple and
accurate statement that the President *IS* the Commander in Chief. Period.

Yet the kook fought tooth and nail to argue against this... despite his
inability to cite *ANYTHING* that would lead anyone to his kooky belief.

Kooks inhabit a different world than the rest of us. They cannot be convinced of
*ANYTHING* contrary to what they hold faith in... no matter how convincing the
proof.

DVP, for example, can't bring himself to admit that Bugliosi could not possibly
have spent over 20 years studying this case without ever running up against the
same problem that the WC had - Perry's initial descriptions of the throat wound
as one of entry at the Press Conference. Or the brouhaha over Carrico's book and
the lawsuit he won against JAMA.

It's simply not conceivable. At least, to the ordinary mind. It takes the
incredible kooky mind of a "DVP" to conceive of such improbable events.

Anyone else simply observes the obvious... Bugliosi lied.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[mainframetech]

On Aug 23, 6:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "DVP just had it proved to him that Oswald didn't fire the kill shot into JFK!  A medical opinion as well as physical evidence, plus Douglas Horne proving the autopsy was a fake." <<<
>
> Gee, I wonder who proved that? I sure haven't seen it.
>

Ah! As expected, ol' DVP just could not bring himself to actually
SEE what is put right before his eyes...:)

> Mainframe loves doing what most CTers do -- turn the evidence into
> something it's not. Fact is, the ONLY evidence that exists indicates
> that ONLY bullets from Oswald's rifle hit the President. But to the CT
> gang, incredibly, since there's a large pile of "Oz Did It" evidence,
> this fact must mean exactly the opposite and Oswald couldn't have done
> it.
>

Nope. Won't do. The evidence was taken for what it was. If a
doctor sees a wound of a type he is familiar with, and he gives the
approximate direction the bullet came from to make that wound, that's
evidence and shoud be included in making a determination of guilty
parties and methods they used to accomplish the crime. If bullets are
found in completely uninvolved places, and are shown to be from a
particular rifle, an investigation should be launched as to who put
the bullet in place, and where did they get it? When a 'magic' bullet
wacko theory is put forward and disproved physically time after time,
never mind common sense, it must be put aside and a new hypothesis
must be formed. Ol' Dave can't get away from the rattling in his
brain of the tired, old WCR. It is ragged and falling apart for all
the holes that have been shot through it. That report has even been
corrected by further panels, one of which said there probably was a
conspiracy. Well, now the government says it, so let's go with
it...:)

> What kind of logic is that? Oliver Stone 101 class?
>
> And I love it that Mainframe has a new hero in Mr. Douglas P. Horne,
> the kook who thinks Dr. Humes rearranged JFK's wounds at Bethesda
> before the autopsy.
>

Hmm. You are apparently in denial again. Horne PROVED his case,
but as usual you try to ignore evidence that says anything other than
what has been pronounced on the moneymaking website. For those that
might want a sample of Horne's work, go here:
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

> With heroes like that, Chris, you're just one step away from embracing
> the "award-winning" Mr. Andersen:
>
> http://mygodimhit.com/

Ol' Dave, I appreciate your efforts to turn the conversation to
anything but the evidence that has been presented to you over the last
few days, and which you have been unable to contest, try as you did.
But running away while making jokes won't buy you anything but a bad
reputation. Get back to the facts. As least you were able to hold
up your head in public. Of course, every semi-factual item you
dragged up was put down by true evidence, but that's how it goes in a
debate. C'mon, get back in the swing of things and prove something to
me...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

ADDENDUM

As there may be some need from DVP for 'corroboration' at times,
here's some of it for the head wound and the FACT that the bullet came
from the front. These are all Parkland staff, so there's no hint of a
problem with modification of the body, as was the case at Bethesda.
While some try to get away with saying that JFK was on his back and
the wounds couldn't be seen, most people in Trauma Room One were able
to see enough to describe the head wound very closely.

1. Dr. Charles Crenshaw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

2. Dr. Kemp Clark, Chairman of Neurosurgery

Dr. Clark reaffirmed his original statements on several occasions and
thus backed up the account of Dr. McClelland. "[T]he lower right
occipital region of the occipital region was blown out and I saw
cerebellum," he said. Furthermore, he added, "[i]n my opinion the
wound was an exit wound" (Naro).

3. Dr. M.T. Jenkins - anesthesiologist - Warren Commission testimony

Dr. JENKINS - Well, I'm afraid my description of it would not be as
accurate, of course, as that of the surgeons who were doing the
tracheotomy, because my look was a quick look before connecting up the
endotracheal tube to the apparatus to help in ventilation and
respiration for the patient, and I was aware later in the day, as I
should have put it in the report, that I thought this was a wound of
EXIT [my caps] because it was not a clean wound, and by "clean"
clearly demarcated, round, punctate wound which is the usual wound of
an entrance wound, made by a missile and at some speed.

4. Dr. Robert McClelland
"...the wound I observed did appear consistent with a shot from the
front" Consequently, he added, "...I still have a strong opinion that
the head shot come from the front" (Breo 2807).

5. Dr. Ronald Coy Jones
"Dr. JONES - With no history as to the number of times that the
President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had
been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck, and what
appeared to be an EXIT [my caps] wound in the posterior portion of the
skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this
could occur with a single wound would be that would enter the anterior
neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course
and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head."

6. Dr. Perry - Press Interview onThroat Wound
Question: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the
front in the throat?"

"The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could
have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the
head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant."

7. Dr. Gene Coleman Akin - Warren Commission testimony
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the
bullet hit his head?
Dr. AKIN. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the
exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of
the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I
didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either."

So now we have corroboration of the head wound being an exit
wound. I haven't found any Parkland doctors that feel that the wound
in the back of JFK's head was an entry wound.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Horne PROVED his case." <<<

Horne proved nothing. He's got no "proof" beyond his vivid
imagination. And nothing more.

Chris,

You actually think Horne PROVED that Humes altered JFK's wounds before
the autopsy? You ACTUALLY think that ridiculous allegation has been
PROVEN?

If you answer Yes to my last question, you should move to Fantasy
Island.

[mainframetech]

A shame you can't back up your attack on Horne. I have to assume
you haven't read much of his stuff. Throwing out a blanket rejection
of his work, given that he was much closer to the JFK evidence than
you, would be foolishness of the highest kind. But of course you have
to try desperately to keep up the excuse that your website is cogent
and up to date, which we have recently proven false with the 'Neutron
Activation Test' corrected information, right?

LOL! If I went to your website, I would be at Fantasy Island more
quickly.

Hmm. Ol' Dave has forgotten all the information given above where
so many trained medical professionals agree with each other that the
head wound was an exit wound. Since it can be shown that the head
wound and throat wound were extended dramatically between Parkland and
Bethesda at the incompetent autopsy, the only useful information comes
from the Parkland doctors, who weren't beholden to anyone and were
presented with a case that they didn't expect and couldn't prepare
for. At Bethesda it was a different story.

Instead our Dave has wandered off the subject, perhaps to get away
from the inevitable conclusion, that the head wound was indeed an exit
wound making all other possibilities in this thread moot. For DVP,
this would be a fate worse than death to contemplate because his whole
website was built on his bias that JFK was murdered by LHO, who wasn't
even in the right place to do it.

Now to tidy up an item left undone. Earlier in this thread, DVP
had it proven to him that the test made by Guinn of bullet lead and
antimony that proved that LHO was the one and only assassin of JFK,
was wrong. Work done by Randich and Grant proved Guinn was mistaken
and that you can't prove that a particular fragment in JFK's skull
matched a bullet fired by the rifle owned by LHO. DVP immediately
jumped up with a defense that there was no 'corroboration' of that and
so it was not definite that Guinn was mistaken because there was only
one detractor. As it turns out, there is indeed corroboration that
Guinn was mistaken (and therefore Bugliosi, who relied on Guinn).
Here's the story:

"In May 2007, a second paper appeared reporting on a chemical,
forensic and statistical analysis of bullets derived from the same
batch as those supposedly used by Oswald. The authors, Cliff
Spiegelman, professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in
bullet lead analysis, William A. Tobin, the FBI's former Chief
Forensic Metallurgist, William D. James, research chemist with the
Texas A&M Center for Chemical Characterization and Analysis, and
Stuart Wexler, brought considerable expertise to their study. As with
Randich and Grant, they also concluded that, "evidence used to rule
out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed." They reported that,
"many bullets within a box of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar
composition." Thus, it was not true, as Guinn had said, that such
matches are extraordinarily rare."
From: http://tinyurl.com/8h66qvb

Now there are two papers saying the same thing, that Guinn was
mistaken, and therefore DVP and Bugliosi were mistaken. DVP and Bugs
go down in flames together.

I expect ol' Dave will run away from this information again as is
his habit, otherwise he also has a tendency to change the subject or
try distraction to get off the subject of his failings in the area of
the tired, old wacky WCR theories.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "...so many trained medical professionals agree with each other that the head wound was an exit wound." <<<

Of course the large head wound was an "exit" wound, Chris. Everybody
knows that--even us lowly and foolish LNers. But there was an obvious
ENTRY wound in the head of JFK too -- in the BACK of the head near the
cowlick (as determined by both the Clark Panel and the HSCA).

But you seem to believe in the fantasy that the head EXIT wound was
located at the BACK (occipital) of JFK's head. Of course, such a
location for the exit wound is proven wrong by the best possible
evidence available -- the autopsy photos and X-rays (plus the autopsy
report and the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons).

Naturally, all of the above stuff means nothing to Chris. He likes
Horne's cloak-and-dagger escapades. So, Horne's impossible version it
will be. Right, Chris?

And if you think for one minute that I've ignored the recent Grant/
Randich/Tobin/et al NAA studies, you're wrong (again).....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/head-shot-bullet-fragments-and-naa.html

And the new NAA stuff does nothing to "prove" the theory about
multiple guns being used to kill JFK. Even with the newer NAA studies,
Oswald's bullets are just exactly where they were before those
studies--in the mix of potential bullets that fired all the shots at
JFK & JBC on Nov. 22.

And, as I illustrate at the links above (which Chris won't read
because I'm so "bias" and untrustworthy), ordinary common sense--all
by itself--dictates that only Oswald's bullets struck any limo
victims, even without any NAA analysis being done.

NAA isn't needed in the slightest way to arrive at a logical and sound
conclusion about the bullets in this case -- with the only logical
conclusion, of course, being: all bullets that struck JFK & JBC came
from Oswald's Carcano rifle.

And I challenge any reasonable person to fight and defeat the "Only
Oswald's Bullets" logic I utilize in the articles above.

[mainframetech]

On Aug 24, 7:20 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "...so many trained medical professionals agree with each other that the head wound was an exit wound." <<<
>
> Of course the large head wound was an "exit" wound, Chris. Everybody
> knows that--even us lowly and foolish LNers. But there was an obvious
> ENTRY wound in the head of JFK too -- in the BACK of the head near the
> cowlick (as determined by both the Clark Panel and the HSCA).
>

Hmm. Let's take an informal look at your statement before the
formal crushing of your attempt to save your reputation. The bullet
comes in near the cowlick (high at the rear of the skull) and then
makes a U-turn and zooms out the lower right of the skull. I'm
pretending that there was a shooter at the 6th floor of the TSBD that
got a shot into JFK's skull. In Warren Commission testimony, Humes
said the bullet entered the 'occipital' portion of the skull. That is
the very lowest part of the skull before the neck. This agrees with
all the Parkland medical personnel. Humes though changed his
testimony a few times.

So a bullet coming from behind and slightly to the right would come
in to the top of the head and zoom out the bottom. Picturing that
seems like it's a foolish idea. Especially if we then look at the X-
rays showing damage all over the head and missing chunks of bone
behind the right eye and all sorts of havoc. Unless someone messed
with the head between Parkland and Bethesda. That seems to be the
case when we compare the drawings from Parkland and the autopsy photos
from Bethesda.

Now in the HSCA testimony, Humes says the entrance wound was
elsewhere:

"Dr. PETTY. Where is the point of entrance? That doesn't show
Dr. HUMES. It doesn't show. Below the external occipital
protuberance.
Dr. PETTY. It's below it?
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Not above it?
Dr. BOSWELL. No. It's to the right and inferior to the external
occipital protuberance.

The 'external occipital protuberance' is the little bump you can
feel at the lowest point of your skull, just before the neck. Now we
have a problem. DVP says it's near the cowlick, high on the back of
the head. Humes says it's way down low almost at the neck. Should we
ignore DVP's guess, since he knows much less about anatomy than Humes,
and never saw the body?
I believe Humes said this odd thing because he knew that there was NO
wound near the cowlick. Just a simple tiny red mark. Let's look at
the photos of that area near the cowlick:
http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

And here's a bigger one, but flickering:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5685.0

Looking at the photos of the back of the head, we can see the
cowlick area and we can see absoluterly NO entry wound. We can see a
little red mark, but it's not a wound and doesn't go inward.
Actually, there is NO wound that

Now let's hear the autopsists comments from their HSCA testimony on
the 'little red spot':
"In the newly declassified HSCA files, Finck argues that he had the
body right in front of him and that should be the strongest evidence.
Humes also argues that what the HSCA is now calling a bullet hole does
not even look like a wound to him. Humes said about the small red dot
that the HSCA called an entrance wound, "I just don’t know what it is,
but it certainly was not any wound of entrance."

So now we have 'corroboration' that DVP is far out in space. Of
course, all this is moot, since we have already proven to DVP that no
bullet hit JFK from behind, based on evidence. But we're humoring
him. Let's move on to his next contention, that last was easy to
disprove. For the onlooker, all this has been schooled to DVP in the
past, but he has conveniently forgotten al of it to save the
reputation of his website that gives all the wrong information.

> But you seem to believe in the fantasy that the head EXIT wound was
> located at the BACK (occipital) of JFK's head. Of course, such a
> location for the exit wound is proven wrong by the best possible
> evidence available -- the autopsy photos and X-rays (plus the autopsy
> report and the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons).
>

Nope. Won't do. The drawings of the trained medical personnel at
Parkland hospital show the large hole in the lower right rear of JFK's
head, and it was a great deal smaller than when it got to Bethesda.
It would fit perfectly if the entry wound were high on the right
forehead angling slightly down (check the Z-film for JFK's position
when the kill shot came in). As well DVP, you have seen all the
witness statements of the medical personnel and they say the right
rear was the EXIT wound. 6-7 trained people. Too much
'corroboration'. I expect that you will forget all this proof in a
day or two and go back to your old stand telling people a lot of
hogwash as usual.

> Naturally, all of the above stuff means nothing to Chris. He likes
> Horne's cloak-and-dagger escapades. So, Horne's impossible version it
> will be. Right, Chris?
>

Wrong, as usual. I've shown evidence to back up my contentions. We
haven't gotten into the fakery at the autopsy yet. But Horne, who was
in a very good position at the ARRB, would have much of the evidence
in front of him or readily avaliable whenever he wanted. He also
performed many direct interviews with people that were important to
the JFK case. You on the other hand, have to scrounge it wherever you
can find it. Horne has done a mountain of work on this case. Your
attempt to denigrate his efforts are poor sour grapes, since the only
work you do in this field is to grab a picture or a bit of text and
paste it into your site. Sort of like a parasite, right?

> And if you think for one minute that I've ignored the recent Grant/
> Randich/Tobin/et al NAA studies, you're wrong (again).....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html
>

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/head-shot-bullet-fragments-a...

>
> And the new NAA stuff does nothing to "prove" the theory about
> multiple guns being used to kill JFK. Even with the newer NAA studies,
> Oswald's bullets are just exactly where they were before those
> studies--in the mix of potential bullets that fired all the shots at
> JFK & JBC on Nov. 22.
>

Who said anything about 'multiple guns'? where are you now? And
with all the evidence failures of the FBI and others with the bullet
evidence, how can you ever prove those fragments were ever in the
limo? They did preliminary cleaning of the limo at Parkland and no
one found the fragments. They drove the limo onto the plane and off
again, and no one saw the fragfments. THEN, in the middle of the
night, with no log for chain of custody and no witnesses making
affidavits, they jump up and say they found some fragments. By that
time the FBI could have run tests on the M-C rifle and generated many
bullets and fragments. And the CE399, the famous silly-ass 'magic'
bullet that was found on an uninvolved stretcher at Parkland obviously
had nothing to do with JFK. The impossibility of it's almost pristine
nature vs. the status of the fragmented bullet is clear to any dunce.
Now let's also look at a comparison put together by the WC. Look at
F-294 on this page:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearings_Exhibits_-_p6

CE399 is the 'magic' bullet and is located on the far left of the
picture. Right next to it is CE572. Look carefully at the two
bullets and note that the both have a slight bend and also a bit of
material missing from the tail end. As far as I'm concerned, CE399 wa
a test bullet that they tried to slip onto the stretcher at Parkland
to cinch up the evidence against Oswald. Trouble is that the guy that
was suppsoed to do that made a big mistake and put the bullet on the
wrong stretcher.

> And, as I illustrate at the links above (which Chris won't read
> because I'm so "bias" and untrustworthy), ordinary common sense--all
> by itself--dictates that only Oswald's bullets struck any limo
> victims, even without any NAA analysis being done.
>

To continue lambasting poor ol'Dave, I went and looked at the links
he mentioned. It won't make that many hits. I saw nothing of any
great import that would prove differently than is being done right
now.

> NAA isn't needed in the slightest way to arrive at a logical and sound
> conclusion about the bullets in this case -- with the only logical
> conclusion, of course, being: all bullets that struck JFK & JBC came
> from Oswald's Carcano rifle.
>

Welp, let's use logic. That's a useful tool. DVP wants it to help
him out, but it won't. He had given up the NAA test that shows
nothing. He's back depending on his own statement that two
impossible bullets hit JFK and killed him. No logic in that. All the
proof he's had tossed in his path he has completely ignored. He can't
find any real proof that any of it is wrong either. The clear proof
has been given in this thread. JFK was NOT killed by any bullets from
any M-C rifle. Not even a 'Mauser 7.65'. Not from any rifle in the
TSBD or the Daltex building either. Logic was used all through this
thread in proving DVP wrong, but also showing the foolishness aof the
tired old WCR that aq few people are still left clinging to.

> And I challenge any reasonable person to fight and defeat the "Only
> Oswald's Bullets" logic I utilize in the articles above.

Don't be an ass! That's been done throughout this whole
discussion. It's a done deal. Let the readers (if any) look over the
text and decide.

If there are any problems you have with what's ben presented to you,
let me know. I will clear it up in a jiffy...And thank you DVP for
this opportunity to show the truth to more people...:)

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland hospital, saw entrance wounds, believes
JFK shot from front along with most other medical personnel that saw
the body.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

Chris

[David Von Pein]

I can shorten this discussion to just a few words and save some time:

There was no big exit hole in the back of JFK's head. Period. It's not
there. It never existed.

And the best evidence proves it -- the autopsy pictures/X-rays.

[mainframetech]

Lordee! You are a glutton for punishment ol' DVP...:) You must
live in a swamp far from civilization. Let's first look at some of
the autopsy photos for your first taste of failure, then we'll look at
some stuff from medically trained people.

OK, here's the site to visit to follow along with the text:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Now check out pictures labelled BE2_HI and BE6_HI. That is brain
matter hanging down, and it says there's a hole under all that
material somewhere. Nowhere is there a photo or X-ray that proves
that there was NOT a hole in the back of JFK's skull. There may be
more damage to the skull than at Parkland, but there is nothing that
can be used to prove there was not ahole. If youthink so, say so and
I'll clear it up for you. Remember Dave, we've been over all thos
befpore and you've ben instructed on all this in the past. But I
don't mind repeating myself if it gets the truth out to more folks.

Now let's see what the medicaly trained personnel have to say:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

The people in the above link are all medically trained personnel at
Parkland. I use Parkland because it was closer to the time of the
murder and no one there knew that the body was coming in. That means
less chance somewone tampered with the body. They stated that they
could see the wounds, so it is no excuse that the body was lying on
its back. There may have been a headrest, which is used in such
cases, but one way or the other, they all saw the same thing, a large
hole in the right rear of JFK's skull. Some also saw the entry wound
in the right forehead just up past the hairline. Note doctor after
doctor on that page describing the wound at the back of the head with
their hand covering the area they saw the large hole in the skull
right rear. They all 'corroborate' each other. So the phony tale
that they are all crazy or incompetent won't wash.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
As an addendum to the drawings above, here's the information from
Bethesda, showing the damage to the skull by the time the body was in
Bethesda. Could so many physicians make such huge mistakes that they
missed the huge hole over half the skull on the left? The Parkland
doctors could easily see the left side of the head. If it were
damaged as the Bethesda pictures suggest, they would not have missed
it. This is proof that the body was tampered with. Betewwn Parkland
and the Bethesda autopsy.

Humorously, the 5 panels that tried to deal with the evidence of the
body could not all agree on where the entry hole was...of course, they
didn't have the body in front of them at Parkland...:)

OK Dave, wheel out your next failure and we'll deal with that
too...:)

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland, saw entrance wounds, believes shot
from front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

Chris

[mainframetech]

Hmm. There's usually some whining from DVP right about here, but not
today. Did he run away again to hug the tired old WCR for warmth?
There's none there...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yep. It looks like DVP has run back to his website. Maybe he's
going to change it to show the truth now?

Chris

[Robert Caprio]

On Aug 23, 6:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "DVP just had it proved to him that Oswald didn't fire the kill shot into JFK! A medical opinion as well as physical evidence, plus Douglas Horne proving the autopsy was a fake." <<<
>
> Gee, I wonder who proved that? I sure haven't seen it.
>
> Mainframe loves doing what most CTers do -- turn the evidence into
> something it's not.

NO, that is something you LNers do!

> Fact is, the ONLY evidence that exists indicates
> that ONLY bullets from Oswald's rifle hit the President.

Why NOT cite this evidence then? Start with the rifle order and
receipt. Show us LHO ordered and received a 40" Carcano with C2766 on
it.

I quadruple dare you!

> But to the CT
> gang, incredibly, since there's a large pile of "Oz Did It" evidence,
> this fact must mean exactly the opposite and Oswald couldn't have done
> it.

Why NOT cite this "Oz did it evidence" for me? You guys claim it
means something opposite of what it shows, NOT the CT community.

> What kind of logic is that? Oliver Stone 101 class?

NO, I think it is John McAdams 101.

[Robert Caprio]

On Aug 23, 9:03 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <919c6fa4-482d-4b2a-bed7-4babb2382...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 23, 3:05=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "DVP just had it proved to him that Oswald didn't fire the kill shot =
> >into JFK! =A0A medical opinion as well as physical evidence, plus Douglas H=
> >orne proving the autopsy was a fake." <<<
>
> >> Gee, I wonder who proved that? I sure haven't seen it.
>
> >> Mainframe loves doing what most CTers do -- turn the evidence into
> >> something it's not. Fact is, the ONLY evidence that exists indicates
> >> that ONLY bullets from Oswald's rifle hit the President. But to the CT
> >> gang, incredibly, since there's a large pile of "Oz Did It" evidence,
> >> this fact must mean exactly the opposite and Oswald couldn't have done
> >> it.
>
> >> What kind of logic is that? Oliver Stone 101 class?
>
> >envy will get you nothing, moron. be a lone nut troll, take it like
> >whimp.
>
> What I can't figure out is why anyone would think you can "prove" something to a
> kook?

Shocker! This sounds just like "Paul May!" LOL! Newsflash for all
new lurkers and viewers -- "Paul May" and Allegedly "Ben Holmes" are
the SAME person! Probably either Dave Reitzes or John McAdams in all
likelihood.

>
> Look at Robby Caprio, for example... I quoted the Constitution, I quoted a
> Supreme Court decision, I quoted many other authorities for the simple and
> accurate statement that the President *IS* the Commander in Chief. Period.

Your *problem* was that you quoted/cited things that did NOT support
your claim con man! The Constitution is clear, the President is C-in-
C ONLY when the Congress has DECLARED war, and that has NOT happened
since 12/8/41.

> Yet the kook fought tooth and nail to argue against this... despite his
> inability to cite *ANYTHING* that would lead anyone to his kooky belief.

You are a liar, but we all know that already. I cited things that
showed what I said is correct, meanwhile, as usual, you didn't. YOU
tell the most obvious lies, but then again, ALL LNers do this.

> Kooks inhabit a different world than the rest of us. They cannot be convinced of
> *ANYTHING* contrary to what they hold faith in... no matter how convincing the
> proof.

Whatever you say John. By the way, how is your *conspiracy* going --
you know, the one, where you lie to everyone about there being NO
conspiracy in the murder of JFK?