(PART 694)


Although I do agree the head shot came from behind, it has little to do with the credibility of these men. One can not blindly trust them. Period.


Instead, we should put our blind faith in an amateur sleuth named Patrick J. Speer, who tells us that John Kennedy's head was struck by one bullet that entered and exited in pretty much the same place (along the side of JFK's head).

And Mr. Speer's expertise that would supercede and negate the final conclusions of the three autopsy doctors and FOUR different U.S. Government panels is....what again?

I have a feeling that a lot of CTers truly believe that the following equation is a valid one:

A JFK conspiracy theorist = An expert on all matters connected with the JFK medical evidence, entitling the conspiracy theorist to the right to completely dismiss the official findings of all four Government committees, plus Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck.

Somebody should spread the word to all conspiracists that the above equation is a total joke (despite many CTers' apparent firm adherence to it).


David, what malarkey! I don't want anyone to put their blind faith in me or my findings. I want them to do what I did...READ. Read pathology textbooks and journals. Read radiology textbooks and journals. Try to figure out what really happened...as opposed to picking a side and sticking with it, even when it is obviously wrong. (That comment is meant to cut both ways... I have as many CTs upset with me because I concluded the Parkland witnesses were wrong as I do single-assassin theorists upset with me because I concluded the single-bullet theory was a fraud.)

As far as wounds of both entrance and exit...might I suggest you read chapter 16b at patspeer.com? You'll find that Dr. Clark believed Kennedy's head wound was one and that Dr. Coe of the HSCA wrote a number of articles about them. Hmmm... Now why would he do that?


There is one thing that is a 100% certainty and that is that the head shot came from behind. Whatever else you might say about the autopsy team or the review by the FPP [Forensic Pathology Panel], that is an undeniable fact and that is what really matters.


The autopsy was Phony!
The autopsy X-Rays were Phony!
The autopsy photos were Phony!


The reason you HAVE to say that they are phony is because you are admitting that they do, in fact, show what they are purported as showing -- that Kennedy was shot from BEHIND and that this mystical "massive rear head wound" does not exist.

And yet, many of your conspiracy cohorts do NOT claim that they are phony and insist that these x-rays and photographs indicate that Kennedy was shot from the right/front (i.e. grassy knoll).

Don't you ever pause and contemplate just how much evidence in this case you claim is "phony"?

The phoniest thing about the Kennedy assassination is the strained efforts by a bunch of sensationalists/hobbyists/paranoids who want to perpetuate the debate because they have invested so much time/effort/money in their delusion.

Some people just cannot say the words, "I was wrong."


Aren't you one who DODGED these? --- http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE DISMISSED


That is just a silly laundry list of oddities that really do not add up to anything. That is no investigative achievement, Tom.

You are incapable of seeing how the bulk of the more compelling evidence fits into a clear pattern. Instead, like an Attention Deficit Disorder-afflicted child, you are distracted by "shiny objects" and hyper-focus on them as if THEY are the "compelling" evidence of something you have NEVER been able to articulate. You're very good at jumping up and down and screaming "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!" at the top of your lungs, but you have never been able to put it all together and tell a cogent story about what it all is telling us.

You interpret every oddity and inconsistency in this case as something sinister. You always think it shows the dark underbelly of hidden forces at work. It never occurs to you that people are human - they say stupid things, they sometimes draw incorrect conclusions, they make honest mistakes, sometimes they even try to say more (to seem important) than they are qualified to have an opinion on. Some people just want their 15 minutes of fame. Who knows? And some of the things you point out are absolutely true - but they, in no way, negate the overall conclusion.

But when you take a step back, look through the chaff instead of focusing on it, the conclusion couldn't possibly be clearer.

I maintain that you are nothing more than a JFK assassination collector. You're no researcher - you're more of a hobbyist. You even try to turn your "debates" into JFK assassination trivia contests. You enjoy showing people your bizarre "stamp collection" but you really do not know anything about how the "postal service" operates. But you've got plenty of "stamps!" - there's no denying that.


To sum up, people like Rossley believe ALL the evidence is phoney because ALL the evidence indicates Oswald did it. If you want to argue Oswald was innocent, you can't explain the evidence, you have to explain it away.


I have seen ALL of the material and much better material than you have. We have the BEST forensic pathologists on our side. You have JAMA hacks on your side. You have kooks who believe that the autopsy doctors got it right.


So, per Marsh, only "hack" doctors were part of ALL FOUR of the Govt. panels/committees who said that JFK was shot twice and only twice and only from behind.

SEVENTEEN "hacks", eh Tony? And not a one of them got a damn thing right, eh?

Oh...my poor bladder (again)!


Here's a fun game - list all the Warren Report testimony of the Parkland doctors, Secret Service agents et. al. who place the exit wound where the HSCA finds it.

Hey - NONE.


Doesn't really matter.


Because there's much BETTER evidence to rely on when trying to figure out exactly where the large exit wound was located on John F. Kennedy's head. And that "much better evidence" is (and always has been) this evidence (especially the X-ray):

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

Was the HSCA lying its collective ass off when it said the above words in Volume #7?

David Von Pein
September 8, 2009
September 14, 2009