Part 1389 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of June 1—30, 2025. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
DAVID VON PEIN POSTED THIS LINK:
%20Logo.jpg)
DVP LATER POSTED THIS LINK:
David Von Pein
June 1-2, 2025
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
More good stuff from my audio/video collection:
David Von Pein
June 5, 2025
================================
VIA E-MAIL, ED BRACKETT SAID:
Greetings,
Basic question: Does "Reclaiming History" examine the differing official placements of a rear-skull bullet entry?
I can’t claim to have read all of “Reclaiming History” but have gone over significant portions of the print and supplemental CD components and combed over the index pretty thoroughly regarding the issue on official findings as to the location of the rear-skull bullet entry wound.
However, I have not encountered the discrepancy referenced in my subject line mentioned even in passing. More specifically, the discrepancy to which I refer is that between the autopsy report on the one side and the 1968 and 1978 doctors’ panels on the other, the two sides of course placing a bullet entry hole four inches apart.
Wondering out loud if I’m incorrect, and this disagreement is included in this obviously voluminous (and unimaginably painstaking) work? And apologies beforehand if so.
Regards,
Ed Brackett
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Hi Ed,
Yes, Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", did write several pages devoted to the topic of the 4-inch discrepancy concerning the location of the entrance wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. See the two PDF book excerpts linked HERE and HERE.
Regards,
David Von Pein
[June 9, 2025]
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Below are some excerpts extracted from THIS 2015 DISCUSSION about President Kennedy's head wounds. Ten years later, this "Occipital vs. Frontal" mystery still bugs me. I can't figure out why the word "Frontal" wasn't used (even once) in the official autopsy report to describe the location of any part of the large head wound sustained by JFK. ~big shrug~ ....
-----------------------------------------
DVP SAID (ON OCTOBER 7, 2015):
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 [Emphasis added by DVP] -- "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."
The Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm correct in [my] assumption [concerning the "frontal" bone], 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?
DVP 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."
DVP 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" 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.
DVP 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.
[...]
So I stand by my first post in this discussion --- i.e., Paragraph #6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report (Warren Report, 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".
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.
DVP 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.
[End 2015 Quotes.]
David Von Pein
June 13, 2025
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Complete January 1963 issue of "Television" Magazine (92 pages):
David Von Pein
June 16, 2025
