DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 88)


http://EducationForum.com


[NOTE -- IN ADDITION TO DVP AND JAMES DiEUGENIO, OTHER PEOPLE ARE QUOTED BELOW AS WELL.]


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

That photo that DVP and others, like Baden, like to display about the so-called wound in the cowlick area is actually touched up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, goodie! MORE fake stuff! A FAKED version of an already FAKED autopsy photo. Is that what you're saying, Jimbo? Great! I love it.



Maybe DiEugenio would like to chew on the following animated GIF image for a few moments, which is a moving GIF montage which merges two different autopsy photographs into one "moving" image. One of the pictures within this animated GIF is the color "red spot" picture, and the other one is a B&W autopsy picture of the back of JFK's head. They are identical. They are stereoscopic:



Photo/GIF credit to: John Mytton.

And I also totally agree with Mr. Mytton's remarks concerning the above GIF imagery:

"Faking these pairs of stereoscopic photos in 2013 would require a decent amount of computer skill, in 1963--forget it!" -- John Mytton; May 6, 2013


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Was this GIF made from the original photos? Have you seen those photos?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Have you?

No, of course you haven't.

Which means you have no case (as usual).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

When the four major investigations all disagree with each other, then something is rotten in Denmark, correct?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How many of those investigations concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent patsy, Jimbo?

I'll answer that one for you -- None.

Any more gripes, Jimmy?


PAT SPEER SAID:

I'm glad you posted this, David. Look at the piece of brain matter down by the hairline. Now, look just above it, at the 1 o'clock position if the brain matter was at the center of a clock. There's the EOP entrance wound, EXACTLY where Humes--and everyone else noting an entrance wound at the autopsy--said it was.

Now, why was this entrance wound erased from history by the Clark Panel? That's right. The Clark Panel was asked to debunk the stuff in Tink's [Josiah Thompson] book--including that the bullet supposedly traveled low to high within the skull, without destroying the brain in between. So they moved the entrance wound to someplace more compatible with the single-assassin conclusion--like the dried blood in the cowlick--where NO ONE at the autopsy saw such a wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's no entry wound at the "1 o'clock" position above the white splotch, Pat. You're seeing things that you WANT to be there--but aren't.

In addition, as I mentioned previously, neither the white splotch or your make-believe "1 o'clock" entry wound are located "above" or even "slightly above" the EOP. And the autopsy report (twice!) clearly indicates that the entry wound on the back of JFK's head was located "above" the EOP.

Also -- Isn't it remarkable, Pat, that the thing in the "red spot" photo that you claim is merely "dried blood" can look so much like an entry hole for a 6.5-mm. bullet? Amazing coincidence, huh? (Or did the Clark boys just draw in the red spot themselves?)

Plus -- Isn't it also remarkable that the red spot just happens to PERFECTLY LAY OVER THE TOP of the entry hole in the underlying skull of the President, per the Clark Panel? (More Clark lies here, Pat?).....

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel Report

Also hear the HSCA talk to Dr. Finck about how the red spot in the photo perfectly lines up with the entry in the underlying skull (just a co-inky,
I guess) --- 1978 Interview With Pierre Finck.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Of course I have not seen the original photos, I am not a doctor.

But I do know doctors who have. Neither McAdams, Reitzes, or Mike Williams (the rifleman) or "John Mytton" is. Therefore they have not seen the actual evidence. Medical doctors who have seen it do say that about the so-called cowlick wound. Although the actual artwork alteration I referred to is in the HSCA renditions, that is, with the raised edges.

The particular photo above does just look like a drop of blood, no matter how you arrange it. Yet, as Dave Mantik has written, in years of research on the JFK case, he has yet to find one witness at either Parkland or Bethesda who has ever testified as to seeing this red spot at the cowlick area, let alone identifying it as an entrance wound (MIDP, p. 238)

For a dramatic side by side comparison of the actual photo with the HSCA alterations, see Gary Aguilar's essay in "Murder in Dealey Plaza", p. 178. (This is one of the best essays you will read on this issue based upon the declassified ARRB files.)

[...]

Futhermore, Von Pein is also wrong--yawn--about the red spot aligning with a so-called entrance wound on the skull. Mantik, who has spent more time with these exhibits than any other person I know, shows that this is simply not true. It is actually one cm, (not a MM, a CM) below this so-called entrance wound. (Assassination Science, p. 124)

And if one looks at this lateral x ray, which is in the same book on p. 123, you will see that, as Mantik notes, this is not really a hole, it actually looks like a fracture.

(It's incredible, but Davey is even worse on the medical evidence than he is on Oswald and the ballistics. Like he has never read anything by Mantik or Aguilar.)

Also, why did the Fisher Panel get everything so screwy? As Pat Speer points out, they themselves admitted that Ramsey Clark had gotten the galleys of Thompson's book. And Clark was really upset by the diagram showing so vividly that the trajectory of the head shot as depicted by the WC was very hard to swallow. (p. 111, SSD [Six Seconds In Dallas])

As the young medical illustrator Mr. Rydberg has later said, this depiction was a complete distortion. Because Humes, rehearsed by Specter, showed up without any data to describe this trajectory: no notes, no photos, nothing. Therefore, as Pat states, the Fisher Panel was assigned by Clark to refute Thompson's exposure of this problem. Even though the work was completed in 1968, the results were not publicized until January of 1969, just in time for the jury selection at Shaw's trial. Whenever one has a political agenda, as the timing of the press release shows, that agenda will naturally distort what the true facts are. Therefore, by patching over this original paradox, Fisher created even more of them, as I described above. In addition to the "red spot", Fisher also "found" the 6.5 mm fragment.

See, it's because the problem was not really with Humes. It was with what happened to Humes at Bethesda which stopped him from performing a real autopsy. Which was revealed by Finck at Shaw's trial. (Destiny Betrayed, 2nd edition, pgs. 299-306) BTW, Fisher has a history of being the CIA's go-to guy in these cases. He performed the Paisley redo autopsy. Which is a real dandy.

So what is there to all this huffing and puffing by Von Pein? All this name calling? All of these so-called "corrections". As usual, it's all bluster and BS. He just hijacked another perfectly good thread trying to prepare for the 50th. Which, of course, in his function ever since Simkin let him back on.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's see....Mantik is the guy who thinks somebody filled in a gaping hole in the occipital area in this X-ray below (which, of course, is said to be authentic by the HSCA, but all CTers think the HSCA's Photo Panel was filled with liars, as per usual, so I'm told to flush 7 HSCA 41 down the nearest toilet):



And Mantik is the guy who thinks a piece of "cardboard" was inserted into the AP X-ray of JFK's head by the plotters who were framing Oswald. But apparently these industrious plotters never bothered to tell ANYBODY about the "6.5mm. object" between 1963 and 1968, so the first we find out about it is in 1968 with the Clark Panel. Great frame-up there. The plotters were the "patient" type evidently--they sat around and waited for FIVE years to have their fakery and handiwork discovered. But this fact, of course, doesn't bother Jim D. in the least.

Common Sense Break......

"Conspiracy theorist Dr. David Mantik, who has visited the National Archives on nine occasions to examine JFK autopsy materials, has since argued that the two X-rays (lateral and anterior-posterior) of the president’s skull have been altered, based largely on the presence of what appears to be a bullet fragment (but, per Mantik, was really a “simple piece of cardboard, or whatever you wish to imagine, cut out in the shape of a 6.5mm fragment”) seen embedded in the back of the skull “one centimeter below the entry site.”

[...]

But if Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were going to commit the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a “simple piece of cardboard” to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn’t they use an actual bullet fragment? Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected to the assassination is irrational on its face.

One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary to frame Oswald, wouldn’t they have found some way to bring it to the attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964? Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister implications of the “cardboard artifact” for the first time thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book 'Assassination Science'? Isn’t this silly, again, on its face?"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 221-222 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


Lots more common sense and rational thinking that destroys the theories of Drs. Mantik and Aguilar can be found in Vince's "RH", beginning on page 221 of the Endnotes.

But Jim DiEugenio never ONCE will allow himself to think in the above common-sense manner that Mr. Bugliosi demonstrates with respect to Mantik's theories. Jimbo will jump, head first, into the deep end of the Conspiracy Pool, never bothering to even stop and ask: Does this even make any sense?

Just as Jimbo's has done with respect to the "paper bag" topic. Jim thinks there was NO large paper bag at all carried by LHO into the TSBD on 11/22. It was an INVENTION of Frazier, Randle, and/or the DPD. But does Jim ever ask himself WHY Frazier and Randle decided to make their fictional bag TOO SHORT to hold the rifle that it needed to contain? No. Common sense, IOW, is not to enter into Jimbo's fantasies--ever. For if common sense WERE to enter into Jimbo's thinking, every theory he has ever purported would go flying out the window in two seconds.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID [SPEAKING TO FELLOW CONSPIRACY THEORIST PAT SPEER]:

Nice post above Pat. [THIS POST.]

Pat and I disagree on some things about the autopsy. But we agree that the Fisher Panel was simply a mess from the get go. [NOTE -- DiEugenio really means the "Clark Panel" here; why he insists on calling it the "Fisher Panel" is anyone's guess; yes, Dr. Russell S. Fisher, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Maryland, was indeed a member of the 4-man "Clark Panel" in 1968, but the panel itself was not "Fisher's" panel; it was known as the "Clark Panel".]

And BTW, I wish Pat [Speer] would post a link to his micro photo of what he thinks is the entrance wound. Because DVP, with his Muttonhead GIF, is selling more Von Pein snake oil with his newest deception. In Pat's photo, it's pretty plain and easy to see.

But that does not matter to Davey, he will just deny it anyway. That's his sickness.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why didn't you just look it up on Pat's website and post it yourself, Jimbo? Pat's stuff is easy to find on his site. Here it is below. But there is no "wound" there. It's just Kennedy's hair. Nothing more.

This is exactly like the people who think they've "found" stuff in other pictures -- e.g., Badge Man, Black Dog Man, the "other gunman" in the Dillard TSBD photo, "Oswald in the doorway", etc. They see what they WANT to be there. And so does Pat in the autopsy photo.

In fact, without the aid of Pat's arrows to guide us to the spot in the B&W Fox photo, we wouldn't have the slightest idea that the so-called "wound" was even there. The "arrows" don't even help much on that B&W picture (click for a larger view):




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Your arguments are ridiculous; in fact, they border on the insane. Only a raving fanatic would state that the cowlick is "slightly above" the external occiptal protruberance [sic].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you're going to have to call Dr. Humes "ridiculous", "insane", and a "raving fanatic" too, Bob. Because Humes totally reversed himself for the HSCA in 1978 and he's on record doing it [1 HSCA 327]. Yes, he re-reversed himself again for the ARRB, indicating the man was very confused over the years. But we do have the following testimony from Humes after he viewed the best possible evidence for where that entry wound was located (the red-spot photo):


MR. CORNWELL -- "Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still the same, as to where the point of entry is?"

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... I go back...to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head. .... And it is obvious to me as I sit here...that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance. Therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. .... The object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings."



Now, Robert P., I'm sure you will be more than willing to call James Joseph Humes "insane" and "ridiculous" and a "raving fanatic" (just as you inferred I was) after having read the above sworn testimony of Dr. Humes. Correct?

As for WHY Dr. Humes utilized the term "slightly above" in the autopsy report, when we know from the authenticated and unaltered autopsy photographs and X-rays that the entry wound in JFK's head was MORE than just "slightly above" the EOP, I haven't a clue.

But this photograph below is not lying. And this photograph, in that it has been authenticated as being "not...altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41] PROVES for all time that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head was located HIGHER (by about 4 inches, per the Clark Panel) than the location of that wound that appears in the autopsy report:




BONUS QUOTES (for the conspiracy theorists to mock, spit on,
and totally ignore):


"We, as the [forensic pathology] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978


"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; Interview with JAMA editor George D. Lundberg; October 1991 [See “JFK’s Death: The Plain Truth From The MDs Who Did The Autopsy”, by Dennis L. Breo, Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 267, No. 20, May 27, 1992, Page 2794]

video

David Von Pein
May 2013