DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of the body?"
JOHN CANAL SAID:
"Because a BOH wound that could have been interpreted as being an exit wound (and an assassination conspiracy) was reported by at least the Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Hospital even before the autopsy started. IOW, the autopsy doctors, IMO and in the opinion of many others, should have addressed this rear exit wound possibility....and they didn't."
DVP SAID:
Good point (and it's a point that I knew full well was coming shortly
after I wrote my "left foot" analogy above). ;)
My "left foot" comparison [in this post] isn't quite as compelling as it
could have been under other circumstances, because the "feet" of JFK
are, indeed, far removed from the HEAD, where the President's fatal
wounds were located.
And you're correct....my analogy isn't as persuasive in this (JFK)
case due to the Parkland doctors who saw something that the Bethesda
doctors failed to see (or note).
So, on this point, I tend to agree with you....SOME explanation needed
to be put forth on the Bethesda end of the line regarding the Parkland
witnesses' BOH observations. (Okay, so I backpedaled a tad bit on this
point. Maybe I stuck JFK's "left foot" in my own mouth. If somebody
wants to sue me, they'll probably win.)
But in a case as important as the murder of a U.S. President, where
two sets of medical professionals are seeing totally-different things
in Dallas and Washington/(Maryland) on the head of the very same
victim....yes, I think that discrepancy NEEDS and DESERVES to be
cleared up as much as it possibly can be.
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "If the BOH wound was mostly enlarged because of Jackie's actions (your own suggestion) or because someone held him by the BOH as he was transferred to the gurney from the limo, the Z-film would have not been revealing." <<<
DVP SAID:
Another good point indeed. I fully agree. We, obviously, can only
see Z-Film frames that precede any "Jackie handling" of her husband's
head. Of course, as you also know, there are multiple other very
good indicators on the Z-Film that the head shot came from the rear --
e.g., the initial forward movement of the head from Z312-313....and
the tell-tale signs of that blood spray ALL TO THE FRONT of JFK's head
on the film. This slo-mo Z-Film clip is the best I've ever seen at showing
the undeniable forward head movement at the impact frames:
.gif)
Sorry, I got slightly off-topic I know. But I wanted to add in those
Z-Film facts just for the record, Your Honor. (Will I be sued a second
time now?) ~grin~
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "Your last transmissions, if they were addressed to me, constitute "preaching to the choir"." <<<
DVP SAID:
Yes, I realize that. I, again, got slightly off-topic during those
wrap-up "transmissions" in my last post. But when I get wound up in
one of my "This Multi-Gun Patsy Plot Purported By Oliver Stone And
Others Is Utter Nonsense" modes....I just can't stop until the essay
reaches its logical (LN) conclusion.
(A third lawsuit will commence now. I'll be bankrupt at this rate!) ;)
Thanks for the engaging "BOH" conversation, John. I've enjoyed it. And,
as I've stated before, I'm very much looking forward to what Vince
Bugliosi has in store in the BOH regard in his book "Reclaiming History".
Because, in my view, if VB explains those troubling Parkland BOH
witnesses in a reasonable/logical "LN" manner (and he will, of that I
have little doubt), then the rest of the LN case is a literal walk in
the park by comparison.
David Von Pein
April 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (APRIL 22, 2007)
