PAT SPEER SAID:
Come on, Dave, you can do better. That last post [linked here] was a total embarrassment.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's odd. I just now re-read it and thought it was quite good, lucid, and reasonable. (Especially considering the fact I am up against an ABO CTer [i.e., an Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorist]; and those people can be knocked down without even trying.)
PAT SPEER SAID:
I think Martin is right, and that the heat here [at The Education Forum] is too hot for you.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
LOL. What heat, Pat? All I'm hearing is Jim DiEugenio's usual Anybody-But-Oswald take on everything from Hoover, to Warren, to Specter, to the SBT, to the HSCA. And he relies almost exclusively on other conspiracy authors for his sources. (And no conspiracy-promoting authors would ever have an agenda, would they Pat?)
And, btw, yes, Vince Bugliosi DID have an agenda from Day 1 of writing "Reclaiming History". He knew by the time he started writing his book in 1986 that Oswald killed two people and very very likely had acted alone. So, yes, that IS an "agenda". I don't deny that fact.
So, if you want to toss Vince and his huge tome of rock-solid evidence and facts under the bus because of his Oswald-was-guilty "agenda", well, then, I guess you can do that if you want. But I'll hang on to my copy of "Reclaiming History", because in my opinion it contains the truth about the way John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963.
PAT SPEER SAID:
It certainly appears that you're trying to get yourself booted so you can crawl back to aaj complaining about how all those kooks over on the ED Forum teamed up on you....waaa!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong about that, Pat. I'm just passionate about my position. And I get a little testy and irritable when confronted with someone like Jim DiEugenio, who believes in two things that are just not supported by ANY of the evidence in this case -- 1. Oswald was innocent of shooting Jack Kennedy; and 2. Oswald was also innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit.
PAT SPEER SAID:
Dr. Lattimer said that the bullet entering Kennedy's back entered at the level of his chin. He also said that he thought the autopsy measurements were correct, and that the back wound was roughly 14 cm below the bottom tip of the right mastoid process. Do you agree?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I agree with the autopsy measurements, of course. After all, that's one of the few precise measurements regarding the wounds that we've actually got to rely on. The back wound was certainly 14 cm. below the mastoid (although the HSCA said it was 13.5 cm.). But I can live with either of those measurements, to be honest. And either measurement most certainly places the back wound anatomically higher than the throat wound.
As for Lattimer's "chin" reference -- The diagram Dr. Lattimer uses on page 180 of his book [pictured below] appears to me to have an angle through JFK's body that is too steeply downward. It looks steeper than 17.72 degrees [17 degrees, 43 minutes] to me anyway.
If the angle were to be lessened to the correct 17.72-degree figure, then the back wound would be LOWER than where Lattimer shows it to be on page 180.
Of course, via Lattimer's diagram, if the back wound were to be lowered, it would likely mean that a bone in Kennedy's back would be hit. But since we know no bones were hit in JFK's upper back, then I have no choice but to conclude that Lattimer's illustration is flawed in a "bone structure of the human body" regard as well.
David Von Pein
September 1, 2010
