JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
>>> "Hey David--you don't believe Humes, Boswell and Finck anyway, do you? 3 pathologists being 4 inches off on a head wound. They have no credibilty, so if you throw away what they say and listen to all the other medico's, it's bon voyage Warren Report." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Am I required to toss in the trash EVERYTHING a given witness said, just because I believe a portion of that witness' remarks and observations are incorrect?*
In the case of Humes, Boswell, and Finck -- Should I completely disregard the fact that JFK was struck in the head by only one bullet (from behind) due to the fact that I have a quibble with Humes' location for that one head (entry) wound?
And I'd have to disregard a lot more than JUST Humes' account of where the bullet hole was located, too. I'd have to disregard this [the autopsy report as a whole].
And I'd have to disregard this (a picture deemed unaltered in any manner by the HSCA).
And I'd also have to disregard this picture too (a pic that shows no large wound in the back of JFK's head whatsoever).
And I'd have to disregard this Warren Commission determination.
And I'd have to disregard this HSCA determination.
And I'd also have to disregard the initial head movement I see here too:
Should all of the above be tossed in the trash bin of history due to the 4-inch discrepancy with regard to where Humes (et al) placed the entry wound on the back of John Kennedy's cranium?
Seems to me I could use the "Throw out the baby with the bathwater" analogy here. Should we, indeed, toss out the infant because the LN bathwater is a little bit murky with respect to the exact square inch on JFK's head that a bullet entered the back of his head?
* Awaiting the following CT retort:
Well, David, the same thing has to apply to conspiracy-favoring witnesses too. Should we CTers toss out everything that Roger D. Craig said that leads a person to think "conspiracy" just because of one tiny little lie from Craig's mouth about having seen the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle found on the sixth floor? And -- should the CTers toss away everything else that Jean Hill said just because of one little bald-faced lie she decided to tell years later about how she actually saw a man firing a gun from the Grassy Knoll and about how she saw Jack Ruby running around Dealey Plaza too?
My response to such a counter-argument involving witnesses who told PROVABLE LIES following the assassination would be:
Yes, we have good reason to throw out pretty much everything uttered by people like Roger Craig and Jean Hill (and Jim Garrison, too, for that matter)....and that's because they are PROVEN LIARS without a doubt.
The same cannot be said in the "proven liar" regard when it comes to Dr. James Joseph Humes, however.
Humes was not a "liar". He's a bit of a strange character, IMO, but he is not a liar. But good luck to anyone who wants to try and prove that he is/was a "liar".
David Von Pein
June 29, 2008
Posted By: David Von Pein