A CONSPIRACY NUT KNOWN AS "OL' LAZ" SAID:
>>> "Why do none of the witnesses who have looked at the BOH [Back Of Head] photograph agree with it?" <<<
DAVID V.P. SAID:
Well this is a real toughie, huh? (Duh!)
Those witnesses would obviously not agree with what the official
autopsy photos depict because those witnesses legitimately thought
they saw a large hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head.
If those people truly thought they saw only a hole in the BACK of
JFK's cranium when they saw JFK up close and in person, then why on
Earth would they suddenly think there was NO HOLE in the back of JFK's
head just because they were shown a picture?
Footnote --- Of course, there are some exceptions to the above
"BOH" witness scenario (but not many). With four such exceptions being
Parkland doctors Peters, McClelland, Dulany, and Jenkins. Each of
those doctors appeared on the PBS NOVA program in 1988 and seemingly
totally reversed their earlier opinions about the location of the
President's large head wound.
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly." -- Dr. Robert McClelland
"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." -- Dr. Paul Peters
[More on the strange "NOVA" stories of those four Parkland doctors HERE.]
Dr. Carrico also totally changed his opinion with respect to JFK's head
wound too. Years later he decided the large wound was located at the
right-front of the President's head instead of where he places it here:
Conspiracists can piss all over the NOVA comments of those four Parkland
physicians if they wish to (and they do wish to do that, no doubt [and even
I have questioned their reasoning and their 1988 comments, via the link
previously supplied]), but those doctors are on film saying what they said
in 1988 nonetheless. And I've seen a video with the late Dr. Carrico doing
his about-face regarding the head-wound location as well. So, take it with
the usual grain of salt.
But even without such retractions/reversals by ANY of the "BOH"
witnesses, the BEST evidence with respect to how John F. Kennedy was
killed (and by how many bullets and from what direction those bullets
were fired) is (and always will be) the autopsy report, which was
signed by all three autopsy physicians. And that autopsy report says
the following (as unambiguous as can be).....
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via JFK's Autopsy Report (Autopsy No. A63-272)
Plus: The next "best" evidence is, of course, the autopsy pictures,
which the HSCA determined were "authentic and unaltered".....
"The committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; Volume VII
So, in a nutshell:
LNers have the positively-verified-as-authentic autopsy photos and X-rays,
plus the autopsy report, which is a report that contains these words that
CTers will never be able to skirt around without resorting to the usual
(unsupportable) CT tactic of calling all three autopsists rotten, dirty liars:
"The deceased died as a result of two gunshot wounds...fired from a point
behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."
CTers have the following -- The "BOH" witnesses (some of whom have
admitted they were in error regarding their observations about
President Kennedy's head wounds).
That is where things rest with respect to the location of JFK's large
head wound (and probably always will rest). So, which should we
choose?.....
1.) Should we call many, many people outright "liars" (such as Humes,
Finck, Boswell, Blakey, Baden, plus all four doctors who viewed the
autopsy photos for the Clark Panel in 1968, plus all of the various
photographic experts who examined the autopsy pictures for the HSCA)?
2.) Or should we call the "BOH" witnesses "mistaken" (not liars,
because none of them were really outright liars, IMO)?
Option #2 is a far more reasonable conclusion to reach than is Option #1.
Because Option #2 has nobody telling a single "lie" to anyone; whereas
Option #1 has many people telling deliberate, outright lies in order to
hide the truth about President Kennedy's death.
Almost all conspiracy theorists, of course, pretty much have no choice
but to select Option #1 (if, that is, they want to remain a believer
in a multi-gun conspiracy, with the fatal gunshot hitting JFK from the
front).
But I'll go with the most reasonable choice among the two options
above, which, of course, is #2.
David Von Pein
December 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 12, 2007)
