JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THE REAR SKULL WAS NOT FRAGMENTED [LOOSE]. AND IF YOU CAN'T, YOU SHOULD DEFER TO ALL THE BOH WOUND WITNESSES." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I disagree. The image below is as close as you can possibly get to verifiable "proof" that there was no large hole in the back of John F. Kennedy's head:
>>> "I may be a LNer, but I want to see the truth come out." <<<
In my opinion, the truth has come out.
>>> "He [Dr. Humes] lied...more than once---but the lies were well intended." <<<
These "lies", therefore, couldn't have possibly been mistakes in judgment or mistakes in interpretation or just plain garden-variety mistakes that human beings make every day (even during some autopsies I would surmise), could they John?
Let's review the official definition of that much-bandied-about word "LIE" for just a moment (via Dictionary.com):
"LIE" -- (noun):
1. A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. Something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3. An inaccurate or false statement.
4. The charge or accusation of lying -- [as in the following example:] "He flung the lie back at his accusers."
Now, out of the above four possible definitions for the noun "Lie", how many can be applied to Dr. James Joseph Humes?
#1 cannot be applied. No way. No how. (And this is the primary definition that most people think of when they think of the word "Lie"; hence, it's the #1 definition for this noun.)
#2, IMO, also cannot be applied to Dr. Humes with respect to anything he has said concerning JFK's wounds or his autopsy since 1963. (Your mileage on this one may vary, and no doubt shall.)
#3 is the one where we could honestly say that Dr. Humes could fit (with respect to his original version of the very-low location for JFK's head entry wound). But as far as the "intent to deceive" part of #3 here....no way. (IMO.)(YMMV.)
#4 doesn't apply to Humes either. #4 deals with the way the word is utilized after having already been defined as either #1, #2, or #3 above.
So, if you want to call Dr. Humes a liar, you've got only the third definition to work with, because none of the others describes Humes' conduct, IMO.
And that would seem to be more of a semantics game than anything else (via the #3 definition above). Technically, via the dictionary, "An inaccurate or false statement" does equal a "Lie"....but without #1 in place, #3 falls flat. Because a #3 "lie" can just as easily equal a "mistake" or "innocent error"....which is the case with Dr. Humes (IMO).
>>> "LOL! He [James "I'm All Confused" Humes] was confused like so many others that had the BOH photo shoved in his face when he was asked to show the entry on it...you know the photo that does appear to show the wound high." <<<
Yeah, I thought you'd get a kick out of my "confused" comment. ;)
>>> "David, I think we are about done here. You are on record as saying the X-ray "almost certainly" and "in your opinion" shows that Boswell couldn't have "smoothed" [pushed] a couple of loose pieces of rear skull back into place...and now you say the X-rays are proof that couldn't have been done." <<<
Yes, that's my opinion as of this date (03/30/2008 AD).
>>> "As a matter of fact, a long time ago, I'm almost certain you said you'd always been bothered because of all the BOH witnesses..." <<<
Yes, I certainly did say that. And those witnesses still bother me. I can't fully explain them. But there's BETTER EVIDENCE than those BOH witnesses' eyeballs, IMO. And that better evidence is the autopsy photos and X-rays and the autopsy report. And those things just simply do NOT support your theory regarding a large-sized wound in the back of John Kennedy's head, John.
>>> "...and I also seem to recall you saying I might be right about a BOH wound (is my recollection pretty accurate?)..." <<<
You are 100% accurate on that point, John. You've got a good memory, and I was kind of wondering if you would be reminding me in this thread of [the following comments I made in 2007]:
"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."
-- DVP; May 7, 2007
Footnote -- Since I wrote the above post, I've taken a better look at the X-ray below, and just cannot see any way around the following fact:
THERE SIMPLY IS NO LARGE-SIZED HOLE IN THE BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD. IT JUST ISN'T THERE. PERIOD.
But I will say this (so that I don't have all of my eggs in just one basket): You still may be right, John. Hardly anything is totally "impossible" -- if, that is, you can align your theories properly, and in just the right sequence (while ignoring a good deal of common sense while you're aligning them).
Just ask Oliver Stone and the late Jim Garrison about that. Those guys actually think/thought it wasn't "impossible" to pull off the miracle "One Patsy In The Depository" plot of the ages, when a bunch of shooters got together and decided, per Stone and Garrison, to shoot up Dealey Plaza like it was the back lot at MGM Studios and kill JFK from multiple angles while attempting to frame JUST Lee Harvey Oswald at the SAME TIME. How's that for believing that the "impossible" can actually come true?
>>> "...then along comes RH ["Reclaiming History"] and your position morphs to being certain these guys are lying (sorry, mistaken)." <<<
It's not so much Vince B. and RH, John. It's this X-ray (again)....
....Which is a photo that I really hadn't thought about too much before writing this Internet post in late December 2007.
I knew that the X-ray existed, of course; and I also knew it had been deemed "unaltered in any manner" by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s (like all the other X-rays and autopsy photographs of JFK).
But until fairly recently I just hadn't really thought about how much that one single X-ray of President Kennedy's head tends to totally demolish a whole series of theories (usually put forth by conspiracy theorists, of course, concerning a purported rifle bullet that struck JFK's head from the front and caused a massive blow-out at the rear of his head....which is just NOT THERE in that X-ray).
>>> "Let's agree to disagree, OK?" <<<
Ten-Four. ;)
David Von Pein
March 30, 2008
