(PART 115)


>>> "David, I am a bit confused here." <<<


That's not surprising. ;)

>>> "Previously, you claimed that I altered the photo to make that spot look like a bullet wound." <<<

Nope. I never claimed that YOU altered anything. You're mistaken. I
was careful to never accuse YOU yourself of anything underhanded.
Better read my posts again regarding that subject. Here they are (for
easy-to-access reference) --- ONE; TWO; THREE.

>>> "Now you admit that the image is pristine, but you claim it doesn't even faintly resemble a bullet wound." <<<

Well, I can't be 100% perfect ALL the time, can I? After all, I'm only
human (as far as us lowly LNers go, that is). ;)

Amazingly, even the Master of Perfection (Vince Bugliosi) made several
innocent mistakes in his JFK book (and during his dozens of radio/TV
since May 2007).

Even Babe Ruth and Ted Williams went 0-for-4 occasionally.

But in the final "upper-back wound photo" analysis -- The lower
splotch on JFK's back was determined to NOT be a bullet hole. The
larger, higher defect is the bullet hole, per the House Select
Committee on Assassinations.

>>> "I guess you just thought I was one pretty crummy con
artist eh?" <<<

I never said YOU were any kind of a "con artist". But I still wouldn't
put it past some CTers to "touch up" an existing copy of a photo and
try to peddle his/her handiwork as the real deal on the Internet. It'd
be a piece of cake to accomplish.

But certain things in some photos can look quite different, depending
on the quality of the image and the "zoomed" factor being employed.

>>> "Even Cdddraftsman's alter-ego...admitted in Youtube that he saw a "faint outline" encircling that wound." <<<

Good for him/(her).

>>> "What do you suppose got him so confused, David?" <<<


Hillary Clinton maybe? Or aliens? Michael Rennie? (Michael played
"Klaatu" in 1951's "The Day The Earth Stood Still"; his faithful
robot, "Gort", could have easily burned a fake hole in JFK's back with
his Death Ray...or altered a photograph.)

>>> "The upper location doesn't even faintly resemble a bullet
wound." <<<

It somehow fooled the HSCA though. Go figure.

>>> "David, this is not a subjective issue." <<<

Correct. It's not. And you're just plain wrong. Simple as that.

And the HSCA agrees with me. Why don't you go argue with Blakey &
Company about it? Shouldn't they know a little more about the wound
location than you (or I)....seeing as how they were assigned the task
of officially investigating the JFK case?

>>> "So, why were the autopsists measuring the distance from the neck to a dried clot of blood??" <<<

How do you know WHAT they were measuring? Telepathy?

>>> "So they were perhaps using the ruler to squash an insect?" <<<

IMO, the ruler is probably there to provide some kind of measuring
"scale" (tool/device) within the image. But it surely isn't there to
measure the distance from the "body landmark" that the back wound WAS
measured from -- the Right Mastoid Process.

>>> "They were using that ruler to measure the distance from the base of the neck to the back wound." <<<

Then why did the autopsists OFFICIALLY measure the back wound from a
completely different part of JFK's body -- the mastoid process?

Is there anything in the JFK literature/testimonies that indicates
that the ruler in the photo is there to "measure the distance from the
base of the neck to the back wound"?

If there is, I've never run across that documentation. Maybe Bob has.

Or maybe Bob Harris is just guessing.

David Von Pein
January 2008