THE BACK OF JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD (REVISITED; AGAIN)
David Von Pein
>>> "You and I had a fairly fruitful exchange not too long ago re. whether or not any BOH wound (besides the entry) existed in Dallas. ... Would you pleeeeese "un-confuse" him {Ed Cage} re. the wound you think I described to you. ... I'd be grateful for ANY help you could give US on that." <<<
Hi John C.,
I enjoyed our prior discussions re. the "BOH" matter. I know that I
remained a bit ambiguous about some things. (And I'm still not
convinced that Boswell ever specifically claimed he replaced "BOH"
skull fragments on JFK's head...but I guess that's not for this
thread.) ;)
Anyway, to comply with your request.....
It's my impression from our discussions in the past that you (John
Canal) believe there was a LARGER THAN JUST AN ENTRY-SIZED BULLET HOLE
(the size is undetermined to a large extent, per your beliefs) in the
right-rear portion of JFK's head after the President was shot in the
head one time (from behind) by Lee Oswald's Carcano bullet.
You also, of course, believe there was a smaller wound (of entrance)
at the back of the head.
The larger BOH wound is IN ADDITION to the TOP/FRONT/RIGHT head wound
on JFK's head, which you believe was probably not visible (or at least
not AS readily visible) to the Parkland people due to Jackie Kennedy
likely "holding JFK's head on", as Jackie said she tried to do.*
* = I am also inclined to believe this explanation re. the right-front
exit wound, as I alluded to in past posts and in my review of Jim
Moore's book, while trying to debunk Mr. Moore's absurd explanation of
the Parkland witness observations.
But I want to also stress that the "Jackie masked the front-right
wound" explanation still doesn't entirely satisfy me....because it's
rather amazing that her "holding the head on" in the car would have
COMPLETELY masked the blood/ooze/brain that I still think would have
at least been PARTIALLY visible to the Parkland personnel.
But the Parkland people seem to see ONLY a large BOH wound...and not
the right-front wound. Very curious indeed.
But I'll also reiterate that there's just as much evidence (if not
more) that reveals the Parkland witnesses to be mistaken (in mass, as
incredible as that thought might be).
Other evidence such as: Autopsy report, X-rays, photos, Z-Film, and
the Bethesda doctors' unwavering testimony for decades on
end....including the NON-"testimony" statements made by Dr. Humes on
national TV in June 1967).....
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right
side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; 1967
The autopsy picture below is one that you (John) think is obscuring
the damaged right-rear BOH wound (a wound that I think you say could
even extend all the way up to the EOP area of the head, behind the
scalp here, which is being held up in place to hide the hole).....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
If I have misinterpreted your head-wound beliefs, I apologize....but I
think that's correct re. your thoughts on where the wounds were on
JFK's head on 11/22/63.
This thread also affords me the chance to state for the unambiguous
record my own thoughts (to date) re. the controversial "BOH"
matter.....
As of this date (May 7, 2007) I do not think there was ANY "large BOH"
wound at the back of President Kennedy's head.
If there had been a large hole at the back of JFK's head, would we
have all of the following testimony in the public record from the
autopsy doctors? (I've culled parts of testimony from Humes and Finck
below, but not Boswell....because we covered Boswell's statements
thoroughly in other threads):
DR. HUMES.......................
WC TESTIMONY:
DR. HUMES -- "We concluded that the large defect to the upper right
side of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit. ... As
this missile penetrated the scalp, it then came upon a very firm
substance, the hard skull, and I believe that this track depicted by
the dotted lines on Exhibit 388 was a portion of that missile which
was dislodged as it made its defect in the skull. And that...a more
major portion made its exit through the right lateral side of the
skull."
========
HSCA:
MR. CORNWELL -- "Your autopsy report reflected that there was one and
only one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did
enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those
three points, to the best of your knowledge?
DR. HUMES -- "Absolutely."
========
ARRB:
DR. HUMES -- "This is the wound of exit from the skull, the big gaping
hole in the right side of the temporo-parietal area."
QUESTION -- "Do you have any knowledge as to where the missing skull--
or missing scalp was?
DR. HUMES -- "No. It wasn't that much, I'm telling you. It was more
torn than missing."
QUESTION -- "The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as
best you recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp."
DR. HUMES -- "They went in every direction. They were-- I think I
described them as stellate. So they went down this way and back, and
the whole area was lacerated."
QUESTION -- "For the scalp?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes."
QUESTION -- "In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital--"
DR. HUMES -- "Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily.
Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal."
QUESTION -- "Okay. 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."
=====================================================
DR. FINCK..........................
WC TESTIMONY:
DR. FINCK -- "President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the
rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the
right side of his skull, producing a large wound, the greatest
dimension of which was approximately 13 centimeters."
========
HSCA:
DR. FINCK -- "Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and
right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13
centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one -- the fractures were
so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr.
Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any
sawing to do."
========
ARRB:
QUESTION -- "We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes
that were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides
the exit wound and the entrance wound?"
DR. FINCK -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Three holes or just two?"
DR. FINCK -- "Two."
========
CLAY SHAW TRIAL:
DR. FINCK -- "The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head,
disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high
velocity goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them
seen on X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and
also recovered by us, we found fragments in the brain of the
President, and that projectile produced that wound of exit on the
RIGHT SIDE AND TOP of the head." (DVP's emphasis.)
QUESTION -- "Doctor, having examined the entire body of the late
President Kennedy, did you detect other than the two wounds which you
have described to me any other wounds on the body of the late
President?"
DR. FINCK -- "I did not, no other bullet wounds."
DR. FINCK -- "Gentlemen, you are looking at a letter-sized paper
reproduction of a drawing labeled here "D-29". It represents the right
side of the head and the right shoulder and upper chest of President
Kennedy. For demonstration purposes, the drawing shows the wounds in a
general way, arrows indicate the direction of the missile, the arrow
behind the back of the head has the word "in", and the arrow you see
in front of the wound on the right side and top of the head is labeled
"out". You see a relatively small wound of entry in the back of the
head and you see a much larger wound of exit irregular on the right
side of the head. This indicates the direction of the bullet striking
the back of the head coming out on the right side. If you take the
middle of this wound of exit, the general direction of this missile
path, is from the rear to the front going downward."
======================================================
[END DOCTOR QUOTES.]
Now, I forthrightly admit that the observations of the Parkland
witnesses drive me nuts. I just cannot FULLY explain them...not even
to my own 100% satisfaction (within my otherwise very firm "LN"
beliefs on the case).
I think that I (and others), however, have at least provided a
possible explanation for why those Parkland witnesses saw what they
said they saw. But I must confess it's never fully satisfied me
either.
It sure would have been nice if somebody at one of the various
official inquiries (including the Shaw trial) had simply asked one of
the autopsy doctors, point-blank -- "Doctor {Humes/Boswell/Finck}, did
you observe ANY large, gaping wound (i.e., HOLE) at the back of the
President's head underneath the scalp?"
The closest I think we can find to that type of point-blank question
would be this exchange at Humes' ARRB session:
QUESTION -- "Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any
tears over the occipital bone?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
Now, "laceration" doesn't equate to "hole". It means "a torn and
ragged wound" (per Merriam-Webster Online). And, of course, that
inquiry was referring to the "scalp lacerations" only...not the skull
under the scalp (I would assume). So, it's still not totally
definitive.
But that ARRB exchange does confirm what we can see in the BOH autopsy
photo; i.e., no torn, lacerated scalp in the BOH.
Perhaps Vincent Bugliosi, who has studied the case for 21 years in
writing his book "Reclaiming History", will have a more definitive
"BOH" solution/explanation that will be more satisfying to me. I have
no idea at this point. But we'll soon see when the book comes out.
Chapter 3 of Vincent's book is 68 pages long and is titled "President
Kennedy's Autopsy And The Gunshot Wounds To Kennedy And Governor
Connally".
I'm a little surprised that chapter takes up only 68 pages (in
relation, that is, to the overall huge size of the book). It's
probable, however, that the subject of JFK's wounds will also surface
in other chapters as well. I'd have to believe that that sub-topic
will emerge in various places within the tome, in fact.
But as of this moment, it's my belief that a large-sized BOH wound
(i.e., a big HOLE) did not exist at all in the back of JFK's head.
Because if it did exist, IMO the LNers (including myself of course)
have got a very, very big problem. And that problem is: THREE LYING
AUTOPSY DOCTORS.
And I just don't think we have that in this case. I simply cannot wrap
my brain around the idea that ALL THREE autopsy doctors, from Humes to
Boswell to Finck, for whatever reason, would tell what amounts to 40-
plus years worth of deception with respect to the true nature of the
wounds of an assassinated U.S. President.
Perhaps John Canal is 100% correct and I'm dead wrong. That's
possible...I'll admit it. But I just cannot embrace the thus-far-
unsupported notion that HB&F could be that deceptive (for years on
end) with respect to the most important autopsy any of them would ever
perform in their entire lives. "Military orders" or not.
Thank you.
David Von Pein
May 7, 2007
David Von Pein
I fully expect Vince to support an "INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD" (i.e., no
large HOLE back there). That's because: there was NO LARGE HOLE in the
back of Kennedy's head. The autopsy report, the photos, the Z-Film,
and the never-changing testimony and statements of all three
autopsists prove this fact.
And, in my view, there would have been absolutely no good ENOUGH
reason whatsoever (as John Canal purports) for those autopsy doctors
to skew the truth or dance around a large-sized BOH wound IF THE LONE
HEAD SHOT PROVABLY CAME FROM THE REAR (which it positively did...also
per the autopsy report, photos, Z-Film, and doctors' testimony).
If a large BOH wound did exist, and the doctors were also confronted
with just the ONE entry hole at the back of the head (whether it be at
the cowlick or the EOP), the doctors could quite easily explain the
reasons why there was a large BOH wound within the context of "ONE
HEAD SHOT FROM THE REAR".
Why do I say this? Because it would have been THE TRUTH!
Therefore, WHY THE HELL AVOID THIS TRUTH? Deceiving people within a
LEGIT and TRUE scenario of one shot hitting JFK in the head from the
rear is just ..... STUPID!
Such deception within such a scenario could ONLY be disastrous for the
doctors and the ensuing investigation, IMO. Because they'll always
need to cover their tracks re. this deception. And ALL FOR NO GOOD
REASON....because the "One Head Shot From The Rear" conclusion would
still be true whether they lied or told the truth.
So, IMO, if Mr. Bugliosi supports ANY type of "Large BOH Wound" on
Kennedy's head...he's probably going to be in major trouble. (Unless
he's got an extremely good and convincing reason for believing in such
a thing in light of the autopsy report, the doctors' statements, the
Z-
Film, and the photos/X-rays.)
Why? Because such a "BOH" declaration would make all 3 autopsy doctors
absolute liars and deceivers when it came to that autopsy report and
their various verbal pieces of testimony over the years.
And WHY would Dr. Humes go on TV (voluntarily!) and say this, when he
obviously didn't have a gun to his head, forcing him to talk to Dan
Rather?:
"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right
side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; 1967
If Humes, the primary autopsy doctor, had been trying to deceive
America re. any kind of large BOH wound, he would have never gone on
TV and said the above words. He merely would have turned down the
offer to appear on CBS-TV in 1967.
David Von Pein
JOHN CANAL WROTE:
>>> "Moreover, where's the pic of the BOH from the rear with the scalp removed??? Now, David, if you want "curious", there you go." <<<
DVP RESPONDS:
Right. But, then again, we must all realize that NONE of this current
crop of "Fox" autopsy photos is supposed to be available AT ALL.
The Kennedy family never wanted these grisly pictures seen by the
public; nor SHOULD they really be available to us right to this very
day.
So, my question would be: How do we know there aren't SEVERAL more
autopsy pictures apart from the so-called "Fox set" of pictures? How
can we know that? The autopsy people don't even seem to know exactly
how many pictures were taken.
>>> "Again, their testimony {i.e., Humes & Finck}, and lest we forget Hill's and Ebersole's, is consistent, IMO, with Boswell replacing pieces of rear skull just after the body arrived." <<<
But there's the rub -- I don't think it's been firmly established that
Boswell DID, in fact, replace any "BOH" skull fragments. And BEFORE
the X-rays were taken?? Was he truly THAT stupid (and/or deceptive)?
To do that with scads of other people watching, no doubt?! And then
ADMIT to doing it (albeit ambiguously as hell) in 1996?!! And all FOR
NO GOOD ENOUGH REASON WHATEVER (IMO)?!
It's just...dumb. Again, IMO.
If the TRUTH was: One entry wound in head (from behind)....then
there's NO good reason to tell false tales about ANYTHING. There just
ISN'T. Because these guys could easily explain the damage to the head
via an "OSWALD COULD HAVE DONE ALL OF THIS FROM THE DEPOSITORY"
fashion. Because it would be THE TRUTH!
The major problem that I would continue to have with the autopsy
doctors IF your scenario re. the "larger BOH" wound is correct is this
--- If they "fudged" on telling the WHOLE story/truth about the BOH,
then how can we know for certain these guys didn't fudge on telling
the whole story and the whole truth someplace else within their
examination of the President?
As I've said many times in the past when talking about Oswald's tons
of lies that he told in Nov. '63 after he was arrested -- ONE LIE
FEEDS ANOTHER. (Like when CTers insist on misinterpreting Oswald's
infamous "I'm just a patsy" statement...which was uttered just a
single second after he told a PROVABLE lie about having been "taken in
because I lived in the Soviet Union"....I ask CTers: WHY would you
suddenly start BELIEVING a known liar re. the "patsy" thing, esp. when
he told a lie just one SECOND prior to telling us he was a patsy?!)
I'd ask the same thing with respect to the autopsy doctors (times
THREE men) -- If they weren't forthright about something like the BOH
wounds on JFK's head...how can we know what other secrets they might
be keeping to themselves?
My $0.02 (or more).
YMMV. (And it probably will, too.)
Regards,
DVP
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm confused....in an earlier post you seemed to write with an angry tone. If I brought that out of you, I regret it....and if I said something that offended you, I didn't mean to." <<<
No, you didn't offend me in any fashion. And I didn't realize my
earlier post was "smoking" (angry) in any major way. I didn't mean for
it to be....but sometimes things can come out that way, although
unintentionally. (It's the "Nuthouse Forum" effect perhaps.) ;)
>>> "I have respect for you and your logical thought processing abilities." <<<
And I yours. I just cannot wrap my mind around your theory re. Boswell
and the BOH. And that's mainly due to the fact that (as I mentioned
previously, probably several times) I just cannot see the overwhelming
and compelling REASON for any such deception.
>>> "Maybe they {Humes & Boswell} weren't so comfortable that their explanations about there only being one entry and exit would be accepted. I'm not sure."
I suppose that is a possibility (from your POV on this BOH thing). But
I don't think that reasoning necessarily follows. For, why on this
Earth were the H&B boys picked to perform this critical autopsy in the
first place if they didn't have a pretty decent amount of experience
inside an autopsy room?
Why not pick someone else with more experience? Or were H&B all that
Bethesda had to offer on 11/22/63? It was either H&B or a couple of
guys in their teens who'd never seen a dead body previously, with
Homer Simpson asked to assist? (Sorry, just a little humor
there...very little probably.) <g>
Yes, I know that question (re. "gunshot-wound" experience) HAS been
asked by many a-CTer too (re. Humes especially). And, I suppose, it IS
a valid question from either side. But if these guys were picked to do
this important job (the most important autopsy in history), surely the
pickers of the men had a good deal of confidence in the autopsists to
get it right. Didn't they?
Who exactly DID pick Humes & Boswell anyway? I'm not even sure, to be
honest with you. I assume it must have been the head of Bethesda who
made those assignments, correct? And then someone also asked Finck
from the Army to join them an hour or so into the procedure.
In any event, surely the person(s) who chose H&B weren't total
moron(s). They didn't choose some first-year orderly to perform the
biggest autopsy ever.
>>> "But what if they opined that the BOH wound was just clutter and not relevant to the cause of death? IOW, to them it wasn't that important and describing any such wound wasn't necessary to telling the whole [important] truth." <<<
Yikes. I'm having lots of trouble wrapping my (perhaps) feeble brain
around the above scenario.
A hole in President Kennedy's head was considered "just clutter" by
the men assigned to do this ultra-important autopsy and report all of
their findings??
~deep breath~
Can a take another deep breath as I contemplate that possibility for a
while longer?
(Thank you.)
>>> "In fact, I'll bet they left out many details." <<<
But a big ol' hole (or even not so big) at the back of his head?
They'd feel compelled to just ignore THAT? And write it off as "just
clutter"?
Sorry, I just can't buy that. Esp. in light of what I've said
previously....i.e., the scenario of the doctors knowing the true SOLO
entry point for the only bullet (coming undeniably from the rear).
Would lying (or shall we say just "not being forthright", if you want
a milder term) actually be BETTER than just telling the SINGLE-
ASSASSIN-FAVORING TRUTH??
It just makes no logical sense to me. I do fully understand your
position re. the BOH matter, however. I just can't abide the notion
that a President's autopsy (via the provably non-conspiratorial-
leaning conditions you subscribe to; i.e., just one shot hit JFK in
the head) would be subverted in ANY way by the autopsists.
And Humes' voluntary interview on TV in '67 is crazy on his part if
what you're saying is true. I know you'll say that he didn't lie there
either (when he told Dan Rather that the exit wound was "front &
right"), he just didn't offer a FULLER view of where ALL the hole
resided.
But if your scenario were the truth of the matter, do you really think
Dr. Humes would volunteer to go on TV and continue the "BOH spin",
when he could have just kept his yap shut?
>>> "Not being forthright and volunteering answers to direct questions that weren't asked is not, IMHO, the same as lying." <<<
Perhaps not. But it's pretty darn close to it.
And the doctors have to carry around that burden of not being fully
forthright for the rest of their lives. Plus everybody else in that
autopsy room has to do the same, too. The place was packed with
people...Burkley, photographers, technicians, military bigwigs,
etc. .... they all know the "BOH" truth (probably), but say nothing
about it (save Ebersole)?
Military orders I guess. Is that it?
(Am I getting testy again? Sorry. It's habitual. Not personal. I deal
regularly with the "Anybody But Oswald" CTers at the nuthouse
remember. So you'll have to cut me the slack.) ;)
>>> "When Humes was asked if there were any other wounds, he probably assumed the questioner was referring to entry and exit wound....therefore, because the BOH wound was neither where a bullet entered or exited, he could truthfully say, "no other wounds"." <<<
Hmmm. Now THAT I just cannot buy either. Sorry. I can't. There's
simply not a good enough reason to hold this information back. There
isn't. (IMHO.)
>>> "P.S. What's "YMMV" mean?" <<<
"Your Mileage May Vary".
Regards,
DVP
lazu...@webtv.net
quantity, BTW-Any day of the year i'll go with The Parkland doctors
earliest reports over Bugliosi..
David Von Pein
Gee, there's a surprise.
That means, of course, you'll totally ignore the autopsy report, the
pictures, the Z-Film, the X-rays, and the 3 autopsists' testimony,
which all confirm that JFK was struck in the head only one time...and
from the rear.
Right, ol' Laz?
BTW, for my amusement tonight I was re-listening to an old audio file
from 1967 of Jim "Mega-Kook" Garrison. And Garrison was purporting a
"FRAME THE LONE PATSY" shooting scenario featuring "at least 4
shooting locations" (and a possible 5th one in the city sewer
system)....with, of course, resident patsy Lee Oswald "never firing a
single shot that day" (including the Tippit murder too, of course).
And Garrison, circa '67, has TWO FRONTAL head shots to JFK. TWO from
the front! And possibly another from the rear (he didn't say on that).
And all of this from the POV of a "sheep dipping" operation to set up
poor Oswald as a LONE killer.
And yet nobody asked Jimbo this question: Were the patsy-framers just
hyperactive in their overkill idiocy (and assumed the Govt. would want
to frame the SAME PATSY the pre-planners wanted to frame)....or were
they just plain freakin' morons??
And Garrison was being applauded by the audience for his lunacy.
If you want to re-live that huge laugh-fest, go here (it's better than
20 sitcoms in a row):
David Von Pein
>>> "You misstate the evidence. The X-rays and autopsy pictures do not prove one shot to the head from the rear. They prove one shot to the head from the front and none from the rear. The Zapruder film is not absolute proof either way. Forget the autopsy." <<<
DVP (AGHAST AT THE ABOVE KOOKSHIT) SAYS:
Wow. That's quite an accomplishment there Tony! The above paragraph of
CT crap is so incredibly wrong on so many different levels, one hardly
knows where to begin. .....
>>> "The X-rays and autopsy pictures do not prove one shot to the head from the rear." <<<
Total bullshit (as per the CT-Kook norm). .....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
The above picture is a fake, right Tony? Or: the red spot near the
cowlick is just "tissue" located where an "entry hole" was said to be
located? Right?
>>> "They prove one shot to the head from the front and none from the rear." <<<
And just how do they perform that amazing task, Sir Marsh?
>>> "The Zapruder film is not absolute proof either way." <<<
I disagree. The Z-Film is perfectly consistent with one head shot FROM
THE REAR....as it shows the initial forward movement of JFK's head at
the EXACT IMPACT POINT. What causes the forward movement via a frontal-
shot scenario? (Film fakery perhaps? But if so, why did the boob film-
fakers LEAVE IN the following head snap to the rear? Or didn't they
notice that?)
Plus, the Zapruder movie is showing the "All To The Front" brain/blood
spray after the head shot.
Plus there's the fact that there's not a hint of redness at the BACK
of JFK's head at all (that I can detect) in the frames just after
Z313. And that, IMO, just is not possible (or logical) if the
President has just had the back of his head torn open.
For all intents and purposes, this film is proving to us that John
Kennedy has just been shot in the head from BEHIND.....
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
>>> "Forget the autopsy." <<<
Yeah, let's just forget the BEST EVIDENCE for the President being shot
only twice "from behind and slightly above". Right, Tony?
Let's just toss the whole autopsy down the Bethesda drain and start
over (using crazy "CT Rules"). Right?
Holy Moses! What a kook.
>>> "No, that is not what he {Garrison} said. He said two shots from the front. One to hit the throat and the second to hit the head. Not both to hit the head." <<<
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. Try again, Mr. Kook.
You'd better listen harder next time to King-Kook Garrison....because
Mr. Garrison, 12-and-a-half minutes into this lecture.....
http://www.prouty.org/garrison/garrison.ram
....spouts this hunk of silliness:
"The autopsy pictures will show that he {JFK} was hit in the front of
the head at least twice. They will show that there's a hole in the
President's forehead at the temple line, and they will show that the
right side of his head has been torn off by a bullet coming from the
right, and God knows how many other wounds. But at least two from the
front." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
>>> "Is your style of argument going to be typical of {Reclaiming} History?" <<<
You mean accurately quoting someone from the source material? Yeah, I
think that will be my "style" of argument. I'd like to think it always
has been. That's not to say I haven't made mistakes. Everybody
misquotes someone from time to time. But I'll admit when I make such
an error. Will you?
In fact, I thought (for just a minute) perhaps you were even right on
this particular Garrison matter...and I thought I perhaps had been
mistaken. So I went back to the audio file and listened again. And
there's Garrison spewing his totally-unsupportable junk about there
being at least 2 head shots from the front (and maybe even MORE, per
the verbiage that he used).
But one thing Mr. Garrison had in his "CT" favor back then (which was
1967) is that the autopsy photos were sealed, never having been viewed
by the public. So, in effect, Garrison (circa '67) had an open field
re. the wounds to JFK. He can make up ANYTHING he wants and people
might believe him. Because there aren't any pictures that can prove
him wrong. (Plus, the Z-Film hadn't yet been made public either; which
gave Garrison even greater latitude to utter his "5 gunmen" crap.)
It's interesting to note, though, that Garrison's version of the
shooting seemed to change over time. And even Oliver Stone didn't buy
into the 4- or 5-gunmen scenario that Garrison talks about in the
above '67 lecture (as well as in his Playboy article from the same
year).
Oliver at least whittled his fantasy filmed version down to a "mere"
three shooters, and 6 shots. ;)
>>> "Wrong. He {Garrison} was being applauded for his courage in challenging the government." <<<
Nah. I prefer my earlier version. Allow me to repeat it:
"Garrison was being applauded by the audience for his lunacy." -- DVP