PAT SPEER SAID:
It is...indisputable that the photo comparison pushed by yourself and [Tom] Lowry matches up the base of JFK's skull in the first photo with the base of his neck in the second photo. You have effectively removed his neck. .... Will you at least admit the obvious and that this comparison is incorrect?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why would I admit that? The comparison photo in question (pictured below) looks just fine to me. The top black line is being drawn from HAIRLINE to HAIRLINE. So what's the big complaint?
Granted, as I've mentioned previously when talking about that very same photo montage, such comparisons of two-dimensional images that were taken from different angles and distances from the subject are always going to be problematic, and can likely never be ideal in a "Perfectly Lined Up To The Inch" sense (just ask Dale Myers about the difficulty or the impossibility of performing that photographic task).
In addition, JFK's head is being tilted back somewhat in the autopsy photo on the right, which could be affecting the comparison to a small extent as well (since Kennedy's head isn't tilted back at all in the left-hand picture). But, in general, it looks like a fairly good comparison montage:
And I'll add this important footnote -- For the purpose in which Jean Davison was utilizing the above photo in her Internet posts of December 2006 and January 2007, we could actually eliminate the autopsy picture on the right entirely, because Jean's whole point is perfectly demonstrated by using just the photograph on the left depicting President Kennedy in profile with his tie on.
Jean's whole point being --- When you draw a line toward Kennedy's back from his tie knot, angled at approximately 17 to 18 degrees, the imaginary line will extend through JFK's UPPER BACK, and not his NECK. And the autopsy picture on the right isn't needed at all to prove that point.
Of course, an even better photo to use for such an "imaginary line" demonstration is this autopsy picture of JFK, which actually gives us the "starting point" for the imaginary line -- the visible throat wound itself:
And when you extend a 17- or 18-degree line toward Kennedy's back, starting from that throat wound, the "wound" is certainly not going to be up in JFK's "neck". It's going to be in the upper BACK, just where the back-wound photo shows the wound to be.
PAT SPEER SAID:
But for you to go around pretending the back wound was well above the throat wound is just plain wacky.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
~sigh~ (again)
Nonsense. (again)
Only a totally blind individual could look at these two pictures below and somehow conclude that the throat wound was anatomically HIGHER than the back wound (or at the same level). Now THAT'S "wacky" (the HSCA's silly determination regarding this matter notwithstanding):
David Von Pein
July 27, 2009
