Let's Not Forget Lyin' Davey!

[Ben Holmes]

Lyin' Davey Von Peiny - who posted a fact online, but ABSOLUTELY
REFUSES to publicly agree with it here in this forum.

Such a lyin' coward!!!

[Bud]

You should worry about the lies you tell about the evidence in this case and start supporting the things you say and stop worrying about other people.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:13:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Lyin' Davey Von Peiny - who posted a fact online, but ABSOLUTELY
>> REFUSES to publicly agree with it here in this forum.
>>
>> Such a lyin' coward!!!

LFD.

Where's Lyin' Davey???

[Bud]

Worry about your own lies.

[David Von Pein]

The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).

And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".

When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....

"Clearly the neck was dissected."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ngxLCYXJ_Jo/m/Y3S5RnxUAAAJ

....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:

"Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."

And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.

Because, "in essence" (or "fundamentally"), the track of the bullet through JFK's upper back and the front of his neck WAS definitely established by way of examining the bruises that existed inside the President's body during the autopsy after the Y-incision was made. The autopsy doctors, after the Y-incision was done, could, "in essence", SEE the track of the bullet in the President's body by way of the bruising.

And this "in essence" track was also established in 1968 by the Clark Panel when four doctors examined the autopsy photos and X-rays in detail. Here's what the Clark Panel concluded:

--- Quote On: ---

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:54:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).
>
>And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".
>
>When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....
>
>"Clearly the neck was dissected."
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk
>

>....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:
>
>"Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."
>
>And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.
>
>Because, "in essence" (or "fundamentally"), the track of the bullet through JFK's upper back and the front of his neck WAS definitely established by way of examining the bruises that existed inside the President's body during the autopsy after the Y-incision was made. The autopsy doctors, after the Y-incision was done, could, "in essence", SEE the track of the bullet in the President's body by way of the bruising.
>
>And this "in essence" track was also established in 1968 by the Clark Panel when four doctors examined the autopsy photos and X-rays in detail. Here's what the Clark Panel concluded:
>
>--- Quote On: ---
>
>"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014

This is really a simple matter... either the prosectors dissected the
frontal neck wound, and the track of the bullet, or they didn't.

Chickenshit argues that they did.

Davey Von Peiny admits publicly that they did not.

Trying to re-write what Chickenshit was claiming won't work... he's on
record in far too many posts...

[Bud]

I couldn`t even get you to specify what these things entail, so how can you tell whether they were done or not?

> Chickenshit argues that they did.

You refuse to make the case that they didn`t.

> Davey Von Peiny admits publicly that they did not.

It might come down to a different understanding of the vague concepts you came up with.

> Trying to re-write what Chickenshit was claiming won't work... he's on
> record in far too many posts...

You are on record not supporting too many claims.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:54:14 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).
>
> And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".
>
> When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....
>
> "Clearly the neck was dissected."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ngxLCYXJ_Jo/m/Y3S5RnxUAAAJ
>
> ....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:
>
> "Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."
>
> And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.

Clearly the neck was dissected, as things like the neck muscles were described. Humes said the neck was dissected.

The thing is that Ben is trying to make the argument that the autopsy was negligent or deficient, but he can`t make that argument so he asks loaded questions that shift the burden. When I tried to get him to get specific on these concepts he resisted. If he doesn`t spell out the ideas how can we tell whether what was done is outside of the vague concepts he expressed?

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

Humes said the neck was dissected.

DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:

Point me to his testimony where he says that. I can't find any such testimony where he uses the word "dissected" in connection with his examination of the neck.

In Humes' WC testimony, he definitely does get into a good amount of detail about the "bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound". Is this the testimony you mean when you said "Humes said the neck was dissected"?....

"We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea. At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy. There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles."

To reiterate my previous point, the above testimony would seem to indicate that the wound in JFK's neck was, "IN ESSENCE", dissected.

A key question to ask here would be: How much more information than what is provided above via Dr. Humes' WC testimony would (or could) have been obtained if the autopsists had completely cut open JFK's neck? Dr. Humes, in fact, has answered that question already. He stated this during his 1996 ARRB testimony:

"It wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't. I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important."

[Ben Holmes]

Sheer cowardice....

Either the frontal neck wound was dissected, or it was not.

There is no "in essence" involved.

Chickenshit said it was.

You said it wasn't.

Who's lying?

[Bud]

You refuse to support that it wasn`t.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I already did, as did Davey Von Peinty..

>> There is no "in essence" involved.
>>
>> Chickenshit said it was.
>>
>> You said it wasn't.
>>
>> Who's lying?

Notice folks, no answer...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 10:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:22:17 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:13:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:11:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Lyin' Davey Von Peiny - who posted a fact online, but ABSOLUTELY
>>>> REFUSES to publicly agree with it here in this forum.
>>>>
>>>> Such a lyin' coward!!!
>>
>> LFD.
>>
>> Where's Lyin' Davey???

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:58:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:54:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).
>>>
>>>And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".
>>>
>>>When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....
>>>
>>>"Clearly the neck was dissected."
>>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk
>>>
>>>....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:
>>>
>>>"Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."
>>>
>>>And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.
>>>
>>>Because, "in essence" (or "fundamentally"), the track of the bullet through JFK's upper back and the front of his neck WAS definitely established by way of examining the bruises that existed inside the President's body during the autopsy after the Y-incision was made. The autopsy doctors, after the Y-incision was done, could, "in essence", SEE the track of the bullet in the President's body by way of the bruising.
>>>
>>>And this "in essence" track was also established in 1968 by the Clark Panel when four doctors examined the autopsy photos and X-rays in detail. Here's what the Clark Panel concluded:
>>>
>>>--- Quote On: ---
>>>
>>>"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."
>>>
>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014
>> This is really a simple matter... either the prosectors dissected the
>> frontal neck wound, and the track of the bullet, or they didn't.
>
> I couldn`t even get you to specify what these things entail, so
> how can you tell whether they were done or not?

**YOU** made the claim. It's not my responsibility in ANY WAY
WHATSOEVER.


Trying to blame me for your lies simply won't work.

>> Chickenshit argues that they did.
>
> You refuse to make the case that they didn`t.

Already did.

As did Davey Von Peiny... Huckster too afraid to publicly make a
statement on this issue.

>> Davey Von Peiny admits publicly that they did not.
>
> It might come down to a different understanding of the vague
> concepts you came up with.

Can't blame *ME* for your lies.

>> Trying to re-write what Chickenshit was claiming won't work... he's on
>> record in far too many posts...

As Chickenshit makes clear in this post - he's not backing down from
what *HE* claimed... Davey's rewrite didn't work.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:54:14 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).
>>
>> And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".
>>
>> When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....
>>
>> "Clearly the neck was dissected."
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ngxLCYXJ_Jo/m/Y3S5RnxUAAAJ
>>
>> ....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:
>>
>> "Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."
>>
>> And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.
>
> Clearly the neck was dissected,

The frontal neck wound was **NOT** dissected. Everyone - note how
Chickenshit is trying now to change the claim he made.

This fact shows that he's now realized he's been lying...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 6:54:36 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
> Humes said the neck was dissected.
> DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>
> Point me to his testimony where he says that. I can't find any such testimony where he uses the word "dissected" in connection with his examination of the neck.

He describes dissection. I hate to go back over ground I covered two months back but I`ll try to get you up to speed on my position. Here is the testimony where Humes talks about dissection, as soon as he says "Y shaped incision he is taking about dissection, that is what an autopsy does....

"To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest, I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior portion of the chest.

We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea.
At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy.
There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles.

The muscles in this area of the body run roughly, as you see as he depicted them here. We have removed some of them for a point I will make in a moment, but it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemmorhage or other massive injury in this portion of the neck.
In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact. no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest.
It was completely intact.
However, over the apex of the right pleural cavity, and the pleura now has two layers. It has a parietal or a layer which lines the chest cavity and it has a visceral layer which is intimately in association with the lung.
As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung.
It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura."

He is talking about opening up the body to examine the neck. A 'y" incision looks like this...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Y-shaped-incision-for-evisceration-Courtesy-of-T-Hansen_fig2_278319248

I quoted a source that said that often the top part of the "y" is pulled up over the face. That would expose the neck area for examination.

Look, I don`t conduct autopsies, you don`t and Ben doesn`t. My understanding is they open up the body and look for damage. This was done. The problem here is that we end up arguing against an argument that Ben refuses to make. It is up to him to make the argument that the autopsy wasn`t done correctly, and he can`t, so he plays these games, where he throws out some vague concept and tries to make it all about that.

[Bud]

You are simply lying, you produced nothing from Finck supporting what you`ve said.

> as did Davey Von Peinty..
> >> There is no "in essence" involved.
> >>
> >> Chickenshit said it was.
> >>
> >> You said it wasn't.
> >>
> >> Who's lying?
> Notice folks, no answer...

They must know it is you by now.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:58:33 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 6:54:36 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BUD SAID:
> >
> > Humes said the neck was dissected.
> > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> >
> > Point me to his testimony where he says that. I can't find any such testimony where he uses the word "dissected" in connection with his examination of the neck.
> He describes dissection. I hate to go back over ground I covered two months back but I`ll try to get you up to speed on my position. Here is the testimony where Humes talks about dissection, as soon as he says "Y shaped incision he is taking about dissection, that is what an autopsy does....
>
> "To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest, I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior portion of the chest.
> We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea.
> At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy.
> There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles.
> The muscles in this area of the body run roughly, as you see as he depicted them here. We have removed some of them for a point I will make in a moment, but it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemmorhage or other massive injury in this portion of the neck.
> In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact. no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest.
> It was completely intact.
> However, over the apex of the right pleural cavity, and the pleura now has two layers. It has a parietal or a layer which lines the chest cavity and it has a visceral layer which is intimately in association with the lung.
> As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung.
> It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura."
>
> He is talking about opening up the body to examine the neck. A 'y" incision looks like this...
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Y-shaped-incision-for-evisceration-Courtesy-of-T-Hansen_fig2_278319248
>
> I quoted a source that said that often the top part of the "y" is pulled up over the face. That would expose the neck area for examination.
>
> Look, I don`t conduct autopsies, you don`t and Ben doesn`t. My understanding is they open up the body and look for damage. This was done. The problem here is that we end up arguing against an argument that Ben refuses to make. It is up to him to make the argument that the autopsy wasn`t done correctly, and he can`t, so he plays these games, where he throws out some vague concept and tries to make it all about that.
> > In Humes' WC testimony, he definitely does get into a good amount of detail about the "bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound". Is this the testimony you mean when you said "Humes said the neck was dissected"?

of course, by your own admission you don't conduct autopsies. Perhaps others here know more than you concerning this very subject. Heaven forbid...

Are you saying Ben Holmes is playing a game? If so, why play a game. There is no need to "play a game." Were autopsies of the day negligent if they did not track bullet wounds.If tracking wounds was the practice of the day, why wasn't tracking done done at Bethesda?

Ben Holmes has been making arguments here for over 15 years, and your excuse is?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7:41:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:54:14 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).
> >>
> >> And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".
> >>
> >> When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....
> >>
> >> "Clearly the neck was dissected."
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ngxLCYXJ_Jo/m/Y3S5RnxUAAAJ
> >>
> >> ....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:
> >>
> >> "Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."
> >>
> >> And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.
> >
> > Clearly the neck was dissected,
> The frontal neck wound was **NOT** dissected.

So you say. So you refuse to support.

> Everyone - note how
> Chickenshit is trying now to change the claim he made.

It is the same thing I said almost two months ago.

> This fact shows that he's now realized he's been lying...

How am I lying by saying the neck was clearly dissected?

[Bud]

So how do you know it wasn`t done?

> Trying to blame me for your lies simply won't work.

If you can`t say what it is how can you say what it isn`t?

> >> Chickenshit argues that they did.
> >
> > You refuse to make the case that they didn`t.
> Already did.

You don`t make a case with hot air, you need to produce support.

[Bud]

Even this idiot knows these are the sorts of arguments Ben should be making.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

So, is it crack these days, Einstein?

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for your clarifying post, Bud.

Actually, while looking through several older acj posts in order to put this discussion on my website, I did come across this 8/25/21 post of yours....

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/efF1XZIsKdU/m/-U4fnwPUAgAJ

....in which you cited the exact same excerpts from Humes' testimony that I also cited above when I asked you if it was *that* precise testimony which prompted you to say "Clearly the neck was dissected." (I guess I should have looked it up a couple of hours sooner. That would have saved you from having to cite it all over again today.) :-)

DVP Site Cite:

This took darn near all day today to compile (what with having to sift through multiple forum threads to find all these tidbits concerning this "Dissecting" topic)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2021/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1347.html

[Jason Burke]

Homey-boy has been playing with little girls and boys for a heck of a
lot more than 15 years.
You would be too, except that you're always too wasted to do anything to
the underage. Good alibi/excuse, drunkard.

[Bud]

It wasn`t that that had me annoyed, you`ve looked up plenty of things for me. It feels like we are jumping through hoops because Ben ropes us in because he doesn`t make proper arguments. He wanted you and Hank involved for the very reason it is playing out (which I said would happen early on), he plays one against the other or just uses the multiple people to muddy the water. You have to realize that whenever you are dealing with conspiracy folk you are dealing with deceitful people (probably because they are self deceived). You`ll notice they all play the "you`re calling the witness a liar" card, and now Ben is playing the "you`re calling DVP a liar" card.

> DVP Site Cite:
>
> This took darn near all day today to compile (what with having to sift through multiple forum threads to find all these tidbits concerning this "Dissecting" topic)....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2021/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1347.html

Thanks for that effort, maybe it will make it easier to find what I said. Ben kept restarting the discussion in multiple posts (he does that when he can`t answer the points made in the previous ones), which makes it hard to find any particular point I made. And I apologize for the way I came off, I benefit a lot more from your efforts and the work you`ve produced so I shouldn`t begrudge looking up something for you. It just ticked me off that there are at least 30 posts on this, another Holmes dirty trick of muddying the water. There was something said in one of the threads that I`ve looked and looked for and still haven`t found, spent probably half an hour trudging through all the discussions looking for it. I don`t like being played for a sucker by a conspiracy hobbyist.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:59:51 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>Thanks for your clarifying post, Bud.

So **YOU** believe that the track of the bullet, and the frontal neck
wound was dissected by the prosectors!!!

WHAT A SCUMMY LIAR YOU ARE, DAVEY VON PEINY!!!

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:05:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:59:51 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your clarifying post, Bud.
> So **YOU** believe that the track of the bullet, and the frontal neck
> wound was dissected by the prosectors!!!

We both believe the body was opened up and damage noted.

> WHAT A SCUMMY LIAR YOU ARE, DAVEY VON PEINY!!!

Try showing something instead of constantly blowing hot air.

[BT George]

This is excellent Bud. Was this from Humes WC Testimony? It all underscores again the point I have made that the actual autopsy was not *nearly* as deficient as critics (including the following HSCA FPP) often indicated. I believe that some of the criticism was both *assumed* based HFBs limited training in Forensic pathologies, and based on the Autopsy Report which is fairly brief and lacks some of the very description above IIRC.

[BT George]

Que MC Hammer music and substitute "It's mirror TIME!"

[Bud]

DVP provided that quote, and he said it was from the ARRB.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Jas(e)-baby are you a racist too, all draped up in that funky 'do? Have you been fooling all those loon nuts on AAJ? And to just think, all those years.... Playing Uncle Tom to boot, so what's in it for you, Scum-wad?

[...]

[Jason Burke]

Scum-wad?!? Oooh, turn me on, Davey!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 6:54:36 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

...

> Look, I don`t conduct autopsies, you don`t and Ben doesn`t. My
> understanding is they open up the body and look for damage. This was
> done. The problem here is that we end up arguing against an argument
> that Ben refuses to make. It is up to him to make the argument that
> the autopsy wasn`t done correctly, and he can`t, so he plays these
> games, where he throws out some vague concept and tries to make it all
> about that.

It's clear that Chickenshit realizes that his lies are done for...

You can see that he's desperately trying to re-write history. Now
it's *MY FAULT* for not making an argument!!!

This is really simple - Chickenshit asserted that the prosectors
dissected the track of the bullet, and the frontal neck wound.

That simply did not happen, and there's ZERO evidence for it.

Dr. Finck testified quite conclusively that this was *NOT* done.

Chickenshit lied.

End of story!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:16:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7:41:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:54:14 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> The never-ending games that Ben likes to play with people can be amusing (if not monotonous).
>>>>
>>>> And I think Bud, too, over the last couple of months has been playing a mind game with Ben Holmes when it comes to this topic of "Dissecting The Neck Wound".
>>>>
>>>> When Bud said this on September 22, 2021....
>>>>
>>>> "Clearly the neck was dissected."
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ngxLCYXJ_Jo/m/Y3S5RnxUAAAJ
>>>>
>>>> ....it's pretty clear to me that Bud was really saying:
>>>>
>>>> "Clearly the neck was [in essence] dissected."
>>>>
>>>> And if that's what Bud really was saying (while playing a little head game of his own with our resident prick named Holmes), then I would totally agree with such an "in essence" characterization regarding the neck wound.
>>>
>>> Clearly the neck was dissected,
>>
>> The frontal neck wound was **NOT** dissected.
>
> So you say. So you refuse to support.

Dr. Finck is all the support I need.

>> Everyone - note how
>> Chickenshit is trying now to change the claim he made.
>
> It is the same thing I said almost two months ago.

You're LYING AGAIN, Chickenshit!

>> This fact shows that he's now realized he's been lying...
>
> How am I lying by saying the neck was clearly dissected?

Amusingly, you've gone even further than this when you blamed this
whole issue on me... not "making the argument."

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>>>> "It wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't. I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important."
>> This is excellent Bud. Was this from Humes WC Testimony?
>
> DVP provided that quote, and he said it was from the ARRB.

And despite the fact that it's a lie, it contradicts your silly theory
that the prosectors dissected the frontal neck wound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:18:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Because of thw sworn testimony by Dr. Finck - as I've told you
repeatedly.

>> Trying to blame me for your lies simply won't work.
>
> If you can`t say what it is how can you say what it isn`t?

Getting desperate, aren't you Chickenshit?

YOU MADE THE CLAIM!!! It was a lie, and you've known all along.

>>>> Chickenshit argues that they did.
>>>
>>> You refuse to make the case that they didn`t.
>>
>> Already did.
>>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:13:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7:40:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7:19:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:54:35 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>BUD SAID:
>> >>>
>> >>>Humes said the neck was dissected.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>> >>>
>> >>>Point me to his testimony where he says that. I can't find any such testimony where he uses the word "dissected" in connection with his examination of the neck.
>> >>>
>> >>>In Humes' WC testimony, he definitely does get into a good amount of detail about the "bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound". Is this the testimony you mean when you said "Humes said the neck was dissected"?....
>> >>>
>> >>>"We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea. At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy. There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles."
>> >>>
>> >>>To reiterate my previous point, the above testimony would seem to indicate that the wound in JFK's neck was, "IN ESSENCE", dissected.
>> >>>
>> >>>A key question to ask here would be: How much more information than what is provided above via Dr. Humes' WC testimony would (or could) have been obtained if the autopsists had completely cut open JFK's neck? Dr. Humes, in fact, has answered that question already. He stated this during his 1996 ARRB testimony:
>> >>>
>> >>>"It wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't. I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important."
>> >> Sheer cowardice....
>> >>
>> >> Either the frontal neck wound was dissected, or it was not.
>> >
>> > You refuse to support that it wasn`t .
>>
>> I already did,
>
> You are simply lying

This is, of course, a lie on your part. I stated that the sworn
testimony of Dr. Finck at the Shaw trial documented that they did
*NOT* do what you claimed they did.

That supports what I stated.

Shall I cite those posts? Go ahead coward, DENY THAT I POSTED THIS!

> you produced nothing from Finck supporting what you`ve said.

Never needed to. I asked you REPEATEDLY to deny that it was the
truth, and you never did. No need to quote what you already know to
be true.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 03:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> He wanted you and Hank involved for the very reason it is playing
> out (which I said would happen early on), he plays one against the
> other or just uses the multiple people to muddy the water.

I've stated many times my reasoning. My only interest is to show the
lies and cowardice needed to defend the WCR.

What part of that didn't you understand?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:05:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:59:51 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks for your clarifying post, Bud.
>> So **YOU** believe that the track of the bullet, and the frontal neck
>> wound was dissected by the prosectors!!!

LFD.