"Reclaiming History" Talk -- Re: VB, Dr. Humes, And JFK's Head (Entry) Wound
David Von Pein
>>> "How does VB {Vincent Bugliosi, in "Reclaiming History"} explain (evidently, what he believes was a gross error) three pathologists misidentifying the location, by about four inches, of where the fatal bullet entered the back of JFK's head? For example, does he chalk such an error up to them being incompetent, or inexperienced, etc.? If I could push my luck, I'd love to have a citation too, e.g. page number. I'd greatly appreciate any help I could get on this." <<<
In my opinion, Vincent Bugliosi does a good job at explaining the
discrepancy regarding the head (entry) wound location in his book
"Reclaiming History" (on Pages 395-397 of the book itself, plus some
additional remarks concerning this matter on Pages 229-234 of the
Endnotes on the CD-ROM).
But I will point out something strange that I noticed on Page 396 of
Mr. Bugliosi's book relating to the HSCA testimony of Dr. James Humes.
This oddity (or "error" if you want to call it that) is quite strange
indeed, IMO, because after this "error" is fully corrected, then the
words spoken by Dr. Humes in 1978 to the HSCA only FURTHER aid and
enhance and buttress the overall "LHO Did It Alone" conclusion put
forth in "Reclaiming History".
This oddity (or "error", if you prefer) occurs when Vince Bugliosi
says this on Page 396 of "RH":
"The HSCA pathology panel reported that the lead autopsy
surgeon, Dr. Humes, had changed his mind during the committee's public
hearings and "supported the panel's conclusion as to the location of
the wound." But actually, Humes wasn't quite that clear. In fact, when
he was asked specifically by the HSCA counsel to explain the
discrepancy between the language in the autopsy report, which placed
the entrance wound "slightly above" the occipital protuberance, and
the forensic panel's conclusion, which placed the entrance wound 4
inches above the occipital protuberance, Humes replied, "Well, I have
a little trouble with that; 10 centimenters is...significant--4
inches." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 396 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
The "odd" part of the above section of VB's book is this sentence:
"Humes wasn't quite that clear". When, in fact, Dr. Humes was actually
VERY clear regarding this subject during another portion of his HSCA
testimony, shown and linked below (1 HSCA 327):
MR. CORNWELL -- "Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at
least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines
that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a
more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is
still the same; as to where the point of entry is?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... I
go back...to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the
absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical
observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those
measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability
to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of
entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head,
you heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is
obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged
drawing of the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed
or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said
approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance;
therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. .... The object in
the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously
previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the
external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original
autopsy findings."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95&relPageId=331
So, as we can easily see, Dr. Humes is fully admitting to the House
Select Committee via his above words that he was wrong in 1963-1964
about the exact location of the President's head entry wound.
And Humes' words shown above are as clear as clear could possibly be
(IMO) when it comes to his REVISED location of JFK's head entry wound,
with Dr. Humes fully agreeing with the HSCA (and the Ida Dox drawing
linked below) with respect to the true and accurate location of the
entry wound at the rear of John Kennedy's head:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/73/Photo_hsca_ex_48.jpg
Now, it's quite possible that Vincent Bugliosi DOES include the above
testimony from "1 HSCA 327" somewhere in his book "Reclaiming
History". The book, plus the CD endnotes, is so huge and vast that I
might have missed a reference to that exact Humes' testimony, but I
tend to doubt it, since Vince uses the words "Humes wasn't quite that
clear" on Page 396 when referring to Humes' flip-flop on this head-
wound issue.
I looked and couldn't find any specific reference within "RH" (or its
CD endnotes) to the very clear testimony of Dr. Humes that I just
mentioned above from HSCA Volume 1.
Also: There isn't a single reference to "1 HSCA 327" anywhere within
the 170 pages of Source Notes on the CD-ROM computer disc. (Which can
easily be confirmed in exactly 7 seconds via the "Find/Search" feature
that accompanies the Source Note's PDF file.)
And there is only one single reference to "1 HSCA 327" in the book's
"Endnotes" on CD (which is endnote material that is sourced
independently from the main book, with Source Notes appearing directly
underneath each and every endnote). But that one Endnote reference to
1 HSCA 327 doesn't have anything to do with Humes changing his mind
with respect to the precise location of the entry hole on JFK's head.
Therefore, this would appear to be one more instance where Vince could
have actually bettered and significantly bolstered his overall "lone
assassin from behind" arguments if he had also included additional
material that is available in the public record (like "1 HSCA 327" re.
Dr. Humes).
And it's equally as odd in my mind to note that Vince obviously DID
read Dr. Humes HSCA testimony....because he CITES exact passages of
Humes' HSCA session in the book "RH" (like footnote #81 on Page 396 of
the book, which shows: "1 HSCA 329").
And 1 HSCA 329 is a mere two pages after the Humes' quotes I cited
above from 1 HSCA 327.
Strange indeed. (Unless, that is, VB doesn't think Humes was being
"clear" at all on 1 HSCA 327 when Humes makes the statement: "I
believe that is the wound of entry" (referring to the higher [cowlick]
entry wound as depicted in the Dox drawing and the actual autopsy
photo of JFK).
~shrug~
This same type of thing occurred with respect to VB's book and another
assassination sub-topic -- that sub-topic being the testimony of Dr.
Charles Gregory and the bullet fragments in John Connally's body. More
on that below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
In addition, let me add the following remarks regarding the "head
entry wound" topic:
Apart from any "oddities" that may exist with respect to VB's personal
view of Dr. Humes' HSCA testimony, there are several other very good
arguments concerning this matter made by Bugliosi in his book.
One such example being a footnote on Pages 395 and 396, where VB
mentions a conversation he had with one of the 17 pathologists who ALL
concluded, beyond all doubt (based on the available evidence), that
President Kennedy was struck in the head by only ONE single bullet,
with that one bullet entering JFK's head in the REAR of his skull.
The pathologist I'm referring to is Dr. Werner V. Spitz, who served on
the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel and who also served on the
Rockefeller Commission's panel of pathologists who re-examined JFK's
photos and X-rays in 1975.
Here's that "RH" passage regarding Spitz:
"Much has been made in the assassination literature of the fact
that the autopsy surgeons were wrong on the location of the entrance
wound. But is there any real significance to the head entrance wound
being 3 inches higher than the autopsy surgeons said it was other than
as a reflection of the ALLEGED incompetence of the surgeons? "No, not
really," Dr. Werner Spitz...said. "It's just a red herring. We know
from the autopsy photos and X-rays that there was only one entrance
wound to the back of the president's head. The only significance this
matter has is academic." (Telephone interview of Dr. Werner Spitz by
author [VB] on March 26, 2005)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 395-396 of
"Reclaiming History" (footnote)(c.2007)
David Von Pein
>>> "Maybe VB meant that Humes objected to the full 10 cm, and so the extent of the "supposed" error wasn't established?" <<<
Possibly. But I still can't understand why VB didn't place the very
clear, "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion" verbiage of
Dr. Humes' HSCA session SOMEWHERE in "RH".
There's no reference to it at all (unless it's buried in a footnote
within the actual book itself, which would mean that it would be
"sourced" with "1 HSCA 327" within the footnote itself and not on the
CD-ROM; that's the only place such an exact reference to "1 HSCA 327"
could be, because I've checked all other "RH" source locations).
Bottom line, IMO, with respect to Dr. Humes' HSCA testimony is that
Humes positively DID change his mind with respect to the location of
the wound:
"Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... It is
obvious to me as I sit here...that the upper defect to which you
pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we
said approximately where it was, above the external occipital
protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry." -- DR.
JAMES J. HUMES; 1 HSCA 327
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0166a.htm
>>> "I sent VB a very comprehensive package of material that, IMO, shows it's a no-brainer that the entry was near the EOP. VB hasn't replied...maybe I understand why." <<<
So do I (maybe). The reason is probably because Vince considers the
endless debate about where to the square inch on JFK's head the one
and only entry hole was located amounts to, in essence .... MUCH ADO
ABOUT NOTHING.
Or, to quote (again) from VB's masterwork:
"Much has been made in the assassination literature of the fact
that the autopsy surgeons were wrong on the location of the entrance
wound. But is there any real significance to the head entrance wound
being 3 inches higher than the autopsy surgeons said it was other than
as a reflection of the ALLEGED incompetence of the surgeons? "No, not
really," Dr. Werner Spitz...said. "It's just a red herring. We know
from the autopsy photos and X-rays that there was only one entrance
wound to the back of the president's head. The only significance this
matter has is academic." (Telephone interview of Dr. Werner Spitz by
author [VB] on March 26, 2005)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 395-396 of
"Reclaiming History" (footnote)(c.2007)
aeffects
<idiocy of course.... sniperoo>
go fetch the paper, son.... LMFAO, you're pathetic..... LMFAO!
David Von Pein
>>> "LMFAO, you're pathetic..... LMFAO!" <<<
Promise me you'll never ever leave us, Healy-Kook. Pretty please! I'd
so miss DGH gems like the one below if you left us:
"Von Pein copys & pastes whatever DaBugliosi tells him to copy &
paste." -- HEALY-KOOK
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2ac9d6f9a5fb5657
aeffects
the Lone Nut KOOKster Von Peinster rides again... I'm here for the
duration, son... I expect a invitation to Dave and Tim's
anniversary.... I'll fly in on Indiana born and bred mosquito, built
for two....
David Von Pein
>>> "I expect a [sic; per the kook norm] invitation to Dave and Tim's anniversary." <<<
Just when you thought the laughs couldn't possibly get any bigger,
Healy breaks the Laugh Mold again.
Healy evidently thinks I'm married to my brother (i.e., a person who
has the EXACT SAME LAST NAME that I have, via the Internet phone book
that Healy obviously utilized to find out I have a relative in my home
city named "Tim").
Oh, I hate having a weak bladder at moments like this.
~to restroom, again.....~