BEN HOLMES SAID:
Are you attempting to assert that *YOU* are honest, Davey?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You bet.
[Ben now scurries around like a rat to find 397 previous DVP posts that he thinks contain "lies", but they really contain no "lies" at all. Have a ball, Ben.]
BEN HOLMES SAID:
So let's test that "honesty". Where's the occipital located?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Occipital" is in the back of the head....as I already said several days ago. (Didn't you pay attention, or even notice the chart/diagram I posted which shows the occipital?)
And, no, the "prosectors" did NOT say there was a big hole in the occipital of JFK's head. The exit wound was "chiefly parietal", with the wounded area extending only "somewhat" into the temporal and occipital regions.
But the autopsy doctors, as I have emphasized dozens of times previously, could not have been talking about MISSING BONE OR SCALP in the "occipital" in that autopsy report verbiage. We KNOW they weren't referring SPECIFICALLY to any MISSING "occipital" bone or scalp, because the photos show no missing bone or scalp in the occipital.
Could that paragraph of the autopsy report have been better worded? Yes, I think it could have been. They could have been more precise as to EXACTLY where the "absence of scalp and bone" was located, instead of making it SEEM as though they were talking about ALL THREE "regions" (occipital, temporal, and parietal) when they said "in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone".
That language -- "in this region" -- has allowed the conspiracy hobbyists like Ben Holmes to allege that there really was **MISSING OCCIPITAL BONE** in John Kennedy's head---when we know from the autopsy photographs and X-rays that there was no MISSING bone or scalp anywhere in the occipital region of JFK's cranium [see pictures below].
BEN HOLMES SAID:
As I've pointed out before, AND YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS AT ALL... a wound can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the head.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, that's true. But let's see where Dr. Humes placed the large exit wound....
"The exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Audio Clip]
BEN HOLMES SAID:
If a wound extends, even to the width of a hair, into the occipital - how can the wound *NOT* be in the back of the head?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I already stated my position in a previous post, Ben. I said the "somewhat" paragraph could have been written in a clearer manner, with more detailed emphasis put on exactly what PART of "this region" the doctors were referring to (among the three areas included in "this region").
But, as I said, the photos PROVE they could not be talking about "occipital" in that paragraph about "absence of scalp and bone".
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You know... ***YOU KNOW*** ... that the prosectors didn't see the photos until several years *AFTER* they'd written & signed the Autopsy Report.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But what difference does it make WHEN the autopsy doctors first saw the photos? They were RIGHT THERE in the morgue with the body of JFK during the autopsy. Why would they need PICTURES when they had their eyes on the BODY itself?
Yes, I suppose it would have been useful if Dr. Humes could have had the photos right there with him when he wrote the final draft of the report on November 24, but his notes and his memory should certainly have provided enough information for him to write an accurate report.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Try to keep your mind on the *AUTOPSY REPORT*... it says something quite different... and you're either going to admit that it DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the photos and X-rays -- or we'll know that you're not the honest person you claim to be.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, yes, it DOES conflict with the autopsy photos and X-rays. I think I made that plain in an earlier post last week also. (I recall admitting the "conflict", and I even used that word. So we're going over old admissions here, Ben.)
And just minutes ago I essentially admitted the "conflict" too when I said....
"Could that paragraph of the autopsy report have been better worded? Yes, I think it could have been. They could have been more precise as to EXACTLY where the "absence of scalp and bone" was located, instead of making it SEEM as though they were talking about ALL THREE "regions" (occipital, temporal, and parietal) when they said "in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone". That language -- "in this region" -- has allowed the conspiracy hobbyists like Ben Holmes to allege that there really WAS **MISSING OCCIPITAL BONE** in John Kennedy's head---when we know from the autopsy photographs and X-rays that there was no MISSING bone or scalp anywhere in the occipital region of JFK's cranium." -- DVP
So, there's a "conflict". (Oh, the horror!)
What should I do now? Turn Oswald loose for lack of evidence?
Does every "conflict" in the JFK case HAVE to have sinister implications, Ben?
DALE H. HAYES, JR. SAID:
David, I have gone round and round with Ben on this issue - it is an absolute black hole with no end in sight. He is both incapable and UNWILLING to honestly interpret the autopsy statement about "chiefly parietal and somewhat occipital".
THIS is the best example of Ben's disingenuous manner of discussion and his dogged devotion to a conspiracy that he just can't prove. Ben is not honest and he's not smart - don't waste your time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Excellent advice, Dale.
And there's also the OTHER piece of photographic evidence -- the Zapruder Film -- which totally corroborates those autopsy photos and X-rays that Ben Holmes surely must believe are completely fraudulent.
Here's a discussion I had with David Lifton about the "BOH" matter....
DAVID LIFTON SAID:
I do not understand how today, people can return to these accounts and reasonably claim that this or that doctor did not see what he said he did.
The notion that this is what the President's head looked like, at Bethesda, is--as far as I'm concerned--not just unlikely. It's simply absurd.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And yet we have THREE different forms of photographic proof that indicate the Parkland doctors were wrong --
1.) The autopsy photographs.
2.) The autopsy X-rays.
3.) The Zapruder Film.
Am I really supposed to believe that ALL of the above items are fakes, David, including Mr. Zapruder's home movie? And Mr. Zapruder's movie and camera, keep in mind, are items that were never out of Mr. Zapruder's sight from the time he filmed the assassination to the time the film was developed and processed. So is Abe Z. a part of a plot too? He'd almost HAVE to be in order to even BEGIN to believe that his film is a fake.
[...]
Also:
Mr. Lifton, can I get you to agree that if even one of the above photographic items is NOT a fake and a fraud [including the Zapruder Film], then President Kennedy definitely did NOT have a great-big hole in the back (occipital) area of his head?
Thank you.
DAVID LIFTON SAID:
David Von Pein,
You are so arrogant, and so utterly ill informed.
[...]
I played a role in creating this historical record, which you so glibly, arrogantly (and ignorantly) dismiss.
DVP SAID:
What reasonable person WOULDN'T dismiss your kooky ideas?
I mean, for Pete sake, you think JFK and Connally were struck by NO SHOTS FROM BEHIND. Talk about being "arrogant". Geesh. It really takes some arrogance to put that idiotic theory on the table at a JFK Forum filled with people who have studied this case for a long time.
And you think JFK's body was spirited off of Air Force One and his wounds were ALTERED BEFORE THE AUTOPSY. (Aren't you pleased I didn't use the word you hate--"stolen"?) Here again--it's a dumb theory. Simple as that. Not to mention--impossible.
DAVID LIFTON SAID:
The photographs of those who saw the President's head in Dallas completely contradict the color photograph you are displaying. Those doctors (and nurses) saw the back of the head and they said--in their reports, testimony, and when I interviewed them--that there was an avulsive wound at the back of the head.
The photograph you are using is also contradicted by the clear language of the Bethesda autopsy report, a report written by Dr. James Humes, the Director of the lab, and co-signed by Boswell and Finck. That report states that the large wound extended into the occipital area. But that does not appear in the color photograph you have posted. Do you really believe those three doctors--Humes, Finck and Boswell--were so incompetent that they could not properly describe where a large hole in the head was located--as well as where it was not?
DVP SAID:
I discuss the autopsy report's "somewhat into the occipital" language in the multi-part "BOH" [Back Of Head] series posted at my website HERE. In those "BOH" discussions, I am battling mostly just one person--Mr. John A. Canal--who, ironically, believes that Lee Oswald fired all the shots, but Canal believes that Humes deliberately "under-reported" the amount of damage done to JFK's head.
[More battles with Lifton HERE.]
BEN HOLMES SAID:
As Davey admitted, the occipital IS IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.
Therefore, the wound is in the back of the head, according to the Autopsy Report.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Only a rabid conspiracy believer could possibly manage to transform this description of President Kennedy's head (exit) wound....
"...a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions..." [Warren Report, Page 540]
....into a wound that is ENTIRELY in the occipital region of JFK's head.
And that's precisely what many CTers have magically attempted to do when they endorse this picture of the alleged wound location:
Do you think the above drawing is an accurate one, Ben?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Can you point to anyplace in the autopsy report where Dr. Humes stated that the wound was to the right and *FRONT* of JFK's head?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It would appear that it was common practice not to utilize words like "back" or "front" in the official autopsy report to describe the location of wounds. They always seem to only refer to the medical terms for the locations, e.g., parietal, temporal, and occipital.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Well... let's see... you've admitted that *ALL* of the occipital is in the back of the head...
You've admitted that it's entirely possible to have a wound ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the head...
Yet you still can't bring yourself to admit that the Autopsy Report CLEARLY—AND WITH *SPECIFIC* MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY—PLACES THE LARGE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But I guess you think Humes is lying here, right Ben?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Put it in medical terminology... let's compare it to the Autopsy Report.
My guess is that you'll do your best imitation of a squawking chicken before you state what this photo shows.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You think Humes is putting his hand over ANY part of his "Occipital" here, Ben...is that it? ....
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You can't even admit just *what* bones are described by Dr. Humes' hand gesture... because the moment you do - YOU'VE ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION. And you'd be agreeing with me. Embarrassing.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Certainly not occipital. That's for sure.
Embarrassing for you, isn't it Ben?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Thus proving that you COMPLETELY understand just how weak your position is... You just keep running and running and running and running...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I already admitted the "conflict", you silly little man. What ELSE do you want?
And what the hell am I supposed to do about such a conflict?
Should I assume the THREE hunks of photographic evidence have ALL been faked (autopsy photographs, autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film)? Is that the leap I should make?
Or should I--just maybe--believe that the "somewhat into the occipital" language isn't quite as precise (or accurate) as it should have been?
When faced with that SAME conflict, Ben, what have YOU chosen to believe? ---- Fakery (in triplicate)? Or an autopsy report that isn't quite perfect?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You've REPEATEDLY refused to specify what this "conflict" is.
You're a liar, Davey.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're the liar, Benny.
I definitely told you what I think the "conflict" is --- right here.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Simply tell everyone *WHAT* was in conflict.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Are you totally insane? Read this post. How many times do I have to say it?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Simply tell everyone *WHAT* was in conflict...
Davey whimpers: "Are you totally insane? Read the post below. How many times do I have to say it?"
Just once, Davey... just once.
Here - since you're too yellow to say it yourself, allow me:
The BOH photo and the X-rays both contradict the Autopsy Report when it comes to the SPECIFIC LOCATION of the large head wound on JFK.
Now, *YOU* were afraid to say that...
So either *AGREE* publicly with that statement -- or run like a yellow dog again.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I already did (at least three or four times), you insane nutcase.
It's not my fault you can't read.
But this sentence is grossly overstated and you know it....
"The BOH photo and the X-rays both contradict the Autopsy Report when it comes to the SPECIFIC LOCATION of the large head wound on JFK." -- B. Holmes
I don't fully agree with the above statement. There is only a partial conflict (or "contradiction"), and that's the "somewhat into the occipital" language that's used in the autopsy report.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Keep running Davey -- you're the best advertisement for conspiracy in these forums.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And you're the best advertisement for mental health clinics known to man.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
When I ask what *specifically* does the Autopsy Report, BOH photo, and X-rays conflict on... Why can't you simply say "the location of the large head wound".
See how simple that is? AND PROVABLY CORRECT!!!
You're a coward, Davey.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The ONLY "conflict", Ben, is with the word "occipital". You know it. And I know it. The REST of the paragraph in the autopsy report is perfectly accurate and not in "conflict" with the autopsy photos, X-rays, or Z-Film....and that's because there IS "an absence of scalp and bone" in the OTHER TWO areas of President Kennedy's head mentioned in the paragraph in question (i.e., the parietal area and "somewhat" into the temporal area).
Go back to the clinic, Ben. They're waiting for you.
BEN HOLMES SCREAMED:
YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Everybody cherry-picks, Ben. LNers do it. CTers do it. Can't be helped. It's human nature and always will be. (And I already told you that same thing several times in the past.)
Plus....
Ben Holmes is a HUGE hypocrite when he tosses this statement up in my face....
"YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!" -- B. Holmes
....because YOU, Benny, will forever "cherry pick" the autopsy report. You LIKE the "somewhat into the occipital" verbiage (which is obviously inaccurate as far as an "absence of scalp and bone" is concerned, as the photos and X-rays AND Zapruder Film readily confirm for all time)....but you sure as heck HATE these THREE parts of that VERY SAME autopsy report [WCR, p.543], don't you Mr. Kettle?.....
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."
and....
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance."
and....
"The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."
So, as we can easily see via the above examples of things that Ben will completely disregard (or label as "lies"), Hypocrite Ben Holmes is a much more blatant and brazen "cherry picker" of JFK's autopsy report than I have ever been.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
An "Occipital" Addendum....
Since we know without a doubt that there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP in the "occipital" region of JFK's head, I'm wondering if Dr. Humes really meant to say "somewhat into the temporal and FRONTAL regions" when he wrote this paragraph of President Kennedy's autopsy report....
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
If the word "occipital" is replaced with the word "frontal" in the above paragraph, it becomes a much more accurate paragraph (based on the autopsy photographs and X-rays, plus a look at the Zapruder Film as well)....
I'll also provide the following excerpts from the 1996 ARRB testimony of two of JFK's autopsy surgeons, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, which is testimony that most certainly indicates that these two autopsy physicians KNEW that there was no missing bone or scalp in the OCCIPITAL portion of the President's head:
QUESTION -- "Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital bone?"
DR. HUMES -- "No. No."
QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "There were tears, however, over the temporal--"
DR. HUMES -- "Temporal and parietal."
----------------
QUESTION -- "Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?"
DR. HUMES -- "There basically wasn't any. It was just a hole. Not a significant missing bone."
QUESTION -- "So a puncture hole--"
DR. HUMES -- "Puncture hole."
QUESTION -- "And no bone missing--"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Anywhere in the occipital?"
DR. HUMES -- "No, no. Unless maybe--you know, these drawings are always strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I don't think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal."
----------------
DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."
QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Now you finally admit that Dr. Humes *DID* write "occipital".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
When did I ever deny that?
Answer -- Never.
Why on Earth would I deny that Dr. James Humes wrote a word that I can see for myself in the autopsy report?
I suspect he SHOULD have written "FRONTAL" there, however. And the Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm correct in that assumption, with Dr. Boswell even using that very word -- "FRONTAL" -- to describe one of the missing areas of JFK's head as he looks at an X-ray during his ARRB session. And guess what word he DIDN'T use in that testimony? Answer -- "Occipital". ....
DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Hey Davey!!! You've admitted that the Autopsy Report states that the large wound, devoid of scalp and bone, extended "somewhat" into the occipital... You've admitted that the occipital is in the BACK of the head... When are you going to retract your lie and admit that the prosectors put the wound in the back of the head?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Earth to Ben (again)----
There is NO MISSING SCALP OR BONE in JFK's occipital.
Sorry. But that's the way it is---regardless of the flawed language that we find in the autopsy report on WCR Page 540.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Isn't it interesting that DVP thinks he can simply declare a part of the autopsy report "flawed language?"
It's not flawed, David. It's very clear and precise. We can't help that you don't like it, but you can't just decide it's "flawed."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh really? Please point out the "absence of scalp and bone" in the occipital in any of these three items shown below. I await your logical "All three of those items are fake, Davey" retort....
JOHN CORBETT SAID:
Based on what little we have seen of the photos and x-rays, I wouldn't be willing to go so far as to say Humes miswrote what he meant to say. I only know of the one photo of the BOH. My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may well have been concealing missing bone. If the drawings that were produced are accurate, so too is Humes' description of the defect.
It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and extent of the wounds, but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We will have to rely on the original AR, as well as the findngs of the review panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.
BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:
The level of fracturing was massive in JFK's skull and only so much can be told looking at the few relatively poor quality pictures of the body and X-Rays that are in the public domain. I also hope that wider access to the originals will be considered by the Kennedy family as JFK's immediate family members and close associates slowly die off and as the case slips back more and more to being of historical interest only.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But even though we Internet users have only seen some of the autopsy photos (none of which are the originals), there are many people who HAVE seen ALL of the ORIGINAL (higher-quality) photos and X-rays, such as Dr. Baden of the HSCA. And here's what Baden said....
"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." -- Dr. Michael Baden
In addition, the copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays we DO have for Internet use are certainly good enough to answer this question:
Was there any "absence of scalp and bone" in the occipital area of JFK's head?
After looking at these images, it couldn't be more obvious that the answer to the question I just posed above is --- No.
Plus, a few years ago, John Fiorentino sent me a very high-quality black-and-white autopsy photo of the back of JFK's head. And in that picture, it's very clear that all of President Kennedy's scalp in the occipital is present and accounted for. No "occipital" scalp is missing whatsoever. I can see every individual hair on JFK's head in the occipital.
BTW, I'm not claiming there wasn't some DAMAGE done to the "OCCIPITAL" area of JFK's head. There most certainly IS occipital damage. We can easily see the fractures in the occipital bone in the X-ray. But what I'm emphasizing is that there was no MISSING (or "ABSENCE OF...") scalp or bone in the occipital area of Kennedy's head. And I think the autopsy pictures and X-rays prove that fact very clearly (even second- or third-generation photos).
BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:
I would even go so far as to say that even some *minor* missing scalp was possible that could fit Humes' description. Because even with a high quality BOH photo such as Fiorentino let DVP see, the possibility remains that a minor defect could have gone unobserved amongst JFK's thick hair.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But let's just consider the incredible DOUBLE hunk of photographic deception (not FAKERY, mind you, just ordinary, non-sinister DECEPTION) that we would have to swallow in order for there to be ANY missing "occipital" SCALP or SKULL BONE....
We'd have to believe that the less-than-perfect (but still pretty decent) "Internet" Fox copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays just happen to NOT show--in tandem--ANY missing occipital bone or scalp, even though (per your suggested theory) there really is a certain amount of missing occipital BONE AND SCALP.
Such a double example of photo deception (or "misinterpretation" might be a better word) would, in my opinion, be truly remarkable---if not completely impossible....or improbable beyond belief.
Plus, we can really make it a TRIPLE batch of misinterpretation if we were to add the Zapruder Film to the photographic mix, because the Z-Film certainly doesn't show any missing occipital either.
In addition --- If we accept the "somewhat into the occipital" portion of the verbiage found in the autopsy report, we'd have to almost certainly conclude that a goodly-sized chunk of the "parietal" bone that extends into the BACK of the head was ALSO missing. And that's because in order for the 13-centimeter "large irregular defect" to actually have reached ANY occipital bone and scalp, that same 13-cm. wound would have HAD to have crossed into the PARIETAL bone that extends into the back of JFK's head as well.
But we know from those same autopsy photos and X-rays that there also is not a single bit of PARIETAL bone missing in the BACK part of Kennedy's head.
So I stand by my first post in this discussion --- i.e., Paragraph #6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report (WCR, page 540) is not an entirely accurate paragraph. The word "occipital" is inaccurate in that paragraph. It should probably say "Frontal" instead of "Occipital" in that particular paragraph.
Again --- "IMHO".
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
One more (important) thought on this "Occipital vs. Frontal" subject....
After viewing several of the photos and X-rays of President Kennedy's head, it's hard for me to believe that the autopsists would have failed to come to the conclusion that the large "absence of scalp and bone" on the right side of JFK's head extended into the FRONTAL BONE of the head. It sure looks to me like some "frontal bone" is blown out, just as much as it's clear that there is no OCCIPITAL bone or scalp missing from the President's cranium:
And yet, in the controversial paragraph on Page 3 of the autopsy report, there is no mention whatsoever of the "Frontal Bone" or "Frontal Region" of the head. Instead, we find this:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
And yet, when we check out some of the later testimony given by the autopsy doctors, including the ARRB testimony repeated below by Dr. Boswell, we can see that the "Frontal" region is an area of the President's head that was most definitely void of some skull:
DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."
PAT SPEER SAID:
God forbid I should coach a LN how to effectively fend off a common CT argument. But here goes....
The measurements for the head wound in the autopsy protocol were obtained after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. It's as simple as that. There was no hole on the back of the head in the back-of-the-head photos. But there was shattered skull beneath the scalp. The scalp was then peeled back, and skull fell to the table. There was now a large wound extending into the occipital area.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Pat,
Your explanation could possibly explain the "absence of BONE" verbiage that we find in Paragraph 6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report. But your explanation most certainly does not explain the "absence of SCALP" portion of that paragraph. Because even the "peeled back" scalp does NOT have anything MISSING from it in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's scalp.
Plus, there's also still that one word which is, IMO, curiously missing from the description of the large exit wound -- "FRONTAL".
The more I look at the pictures and X-rays (and the ARRB comments made by both Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes), the more conspicuous the absence of the word "Frontal" becomes.
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 - Page 214....
Question -- "Was the frontal bone present on -- was the frontal bone still intact on the President?"
Answer -- "It was intact, yes. I can't even make it out here, really."
Question -- "You can't see it there, but it was present?"
Answer -- "No. It was present, yes, sir."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, then too, Humes also told the ARRB that there was no missing bone in the OCCIPITAL either, except for the small "puncture hole" of entry, which, of course, is a mistake, because we can easily see that the entry hole is really much higher than the "occipital" area. The entry is in parietal bone.
[ARRB Testimony:]
QUESTION -- "Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?"
DR. HUMES -- "There basically wasn't any. It was just a hole. Not a significant missing bone."
QUESTION -- "So a puncture hole--"
DR. HUMES -- "Puncture hole."
QUESTION -- "And no bone missing--"
DR. HUMES -- "No."
QUESTION -- "Anywhere in the occipital?"
DR. HUMES -- "No, no. Unless maybe--you know, these drawings are always strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I don't think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal."
[End Quotes.]
-------------------
It is frustrating indeed, because Dr. Humes was conflicted in his HSCA and ARRB testimony. I would imagine he was asking himself the following questions during both his HSCA and ARRB testimony sessions:
Should I rely on my autopsy report? Or should I rely on these autopsy photos and X-rays, which do not perfectly align with what I wrote in the autopsy report?
It must have been quite a quandary for James Humes indeed.
But we always have this statement made by Dr. Humes in 1992:
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
I am still looking for an LNer explanation as to how one can determine a piece of evidence is real or planted to frame someone. Clearly you guys have some kind of technique because you are quite sure that certain disputed items are real evidence. I have offered my criteria, but all I have from the LN side is:
1) Common sense.
and...
2) Any item of evidence can be challenged.
Neither of these answers explains anything. 1) is simply stupid and 2) totally avoids the question.
So please tell us, LNers, how does one determine that evidence is genuine?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In my opinion, a big thing that indicates NONE of the evidence is fake is the fact that there are multiple pieces of evidence collected by MULTIPLE organizations and in MULTIPLE locations (TSBD, Parkland Hospital, the limousine, 10th & Patton, the parking lot behind the Texaco station, the Texas Theater, Ruth Paine's garage, and Bethesda Naval Hospital).
If all that is fake evidence, it was a heck of a coordinated effort.
Plus, it would appear as if the various alleged evidence-fakers got the person they were framing to cooperate with them as well, because Mr. Oswald acted like anything BUT an "innocent patsy" immediately after the assassination.
My question for conspiracy theorists would be --- Why would you think any of the Oswald-incriminating evidence is fake when Lee Harvey Oswald himself was acting so much like a guilty person on November 22, 1963?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
And *ALL* of it went through just two places... the FBI, or the Secret Service.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The DPD doesn't count at all, eh? They only collected all of the TSBD evidence.
Most of the evidence also ended up being handled by the FBI, that's true enough. (Probably all of it, in fact.) But the Dallas Police Department did a lot of work with the evidence BEFORE the FBI ever got involved with it. Take the Oswald palmprint on the rifle, for example. And the trigger guard prints on the rifle. And the paraffin tests administered to Oswald.
And then there are the two "non-Poe" bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene (the ones that were initially found by witnesses Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis), which have the shortest chain of custody possible --- from Davis to Dhority for one of them; and from Davis to Doughty for the other....with each officer marking their respective shell. So HOW are THOSE chains NOT complete and bona fide?
The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is another piece of evidence that has the shortest (or smallest) possible chain --- from Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department ... to .... NOBODY ELSE. Day is essentially THE entire chain. (The entire chain that really matters, I mean.)
I.E., Lieutenant Day took possession of the rifle in the TSBD; he did not hand it off to anybody else before he marked it; Day etched his name into the butt of the gun [see photo below]; and Day retained possession of that rifle all throughout Day 1 until the FBI took it at 11:45 PM CST on November 22nd.
So, REGARDLESS of who handled the C2766 rifle at the FBI, the gun is still going to trace back to the FIRST PERSON who handled it---Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD. So I can't really see why CTers think the Carcano rifle has a poor chain of custody either....because it clearly does not have a poor chain, because Lieutenant Day marked the gun on November 22 before he ever turned it over to anybody else. Ergo, no matter who else handled the rifle after J.C. Day, the C2766 rifle will forever still PROVABLY be the rifle Lieutenant Day picked up off the floor of the TSBD's sixth floor on 11/22/63.
And I'm quite certain that the same kind of "one-man chain" can apply to other pieces of evidence connected to the JFK case, too.
As Vincent Bugliosi told me in a letter in 2009 when we were discussing the courtroom admissibility of Bullet CE399:
"The whole purpose behind the chain of possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be." -- Vince Bugliosi; Letter to DVP; 8/22/09
"NICKNAME" SAID:
And what is "acting guilty?"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You don't think pulling a gun and trying to shoot a cop inside a movie theater constitutes "acting guilty"?
You think such activity is more in line with "acting innocent"?
"NICKNAME" SAID:
There is no testimony to support a gun was drawn and no evidence that is was.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bullshit!
Johnny Brewer verifies it. [See video below.]
Conspiracy theorists will do and say anything to keep Oswald blameless.
"NICKNAME" SAID:
I've never considered Oswald blameless. You should read my posts once in a while.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You just don't think LHO shot anybody, right Nick?
And what makes you disbelieve M.N. McDonald's account of the theater scuffle?....
Don't CTers realize how utterly desperate they look when they keep pulling this same "Fake Evidence / Lying Cops" trick out of their empty bag of evidence?
At some point, don't you have to eventually TRUST SOMEBODY?
"NICKNAME" SAID:
Trust has to be earned, David. I don't trust a police department that takes over two weeks to secure Brewer's affadavit, seeing as he's such an important witness to the cause. Were they at all concerned with the IBM employees in the store, or did they have all the information they needed?
Brewer also verifies an officer shouting "Kill the president, will you?" when the police were allegedly there to arrest him for Tippit...or for failing to pay for his movie ticket, whichever story you believe. Let's say it's the former, because the latter wouldn't explain why two dozen police showed up. So you have this cop killer brandishing a gun at more cops in a public place, and no one gets shot? Not even a Mexican standoff? A miracle, isn't it David? Try pointing a gun at 30 cops sometime and see what happens, especially if they think you're a cop killer already.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Okay....so you don't trust Johnny Brewer to tell the truth about Oswald pulling a gun in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63.
You don't trust the DPD.
You don't trust the FBI.
You don't trust the Warren Commission.
You don't trust the HSCA.
You don't trust the Rockefeller Commission.
You don't trust the Clark Panel.
You don't trust the Secret Service (who first collected CE399 and the two front-seat limo fragments).
You don't trust Vince Bugliosi.
And you certainly don't trust me either.
Does anybody make the "trust" cut in your world, Nick? How about your mom and dad?
PATRICK COLLINS SAID:
Bugliosi presents many of the counter arguments for the lone gunman and challenges them. [Mark] Lane does nothing of the sort. Am I going to present that here for you Nick? No way. I don't have the time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's a decent start right here....
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Please, David, Mrs. Bledsoe? Do you seriously believe the Mrs. Bledsoe story?
Oh, my.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Garry,
Mary Bledsoe is one of the VERY BEST "I Saw Oswald" witnesses there is.
Why?
Because she knew Oswald on sight from having rented him a room just a few weeks earlier.
Plus, there's virtually no way possible that the person on the bus that Bledsoe said was Oswald was really somebody other than Oswald, because there's corroborating physical evidence in the form of the bus ticket found in LHO's pocket after his arrest. And it has Cecil McWatters' punch mark on it. So Oswald WAS on that bus. Which makes Mary Bledsoe's testimony all the more believable because it's backed up by physical evidence that was found in Lee Oswald's shirt pocket that very same day of November 22.
Do CTers really think the DPD wanted (or NEEDED) to "coerce" Mary E. Bledsoe to testify that Oswald was on McWatters' bus? The cops already had even BETTER proof of Oswald's short 11/22 bus excursion---this bus transfer:
So why would the police need to bend Mrs. Bledsoe's arm like a pretzel to say it was Oswald?
CTers, as usual, always isolate everything. They never put the pieces back together again. Why is that? (I guess we'll never know.)
David Von Pein
October 3-8, 2015 [This forum link is no longer available.]
October 7-15, 2015
October 13, 2015
.jpg){kind=link}
