David Von Pein Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 34 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: DVP, Yet in this other photo from the JFK gallery, the back of the head seems to be obliterated. In the photo you showed, showing the back wound, the back of "JFK's" head was neatly groomed. Regards, --Paul Trejo You think this photo shows any part of the BACK of JFK's head? Oh my, you ARE confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 32 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said: Paul, If that's the back of the head, then what's the top of the head? Micah, I'm just saying that the photo I showed, with JFK's hair all bloody and drooping down, seems to have no connection with the photo that DVP showed, with the hair well-groomed and tidy. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 22 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: You think this photo shows any part of the BACK of JFK's head? Oh my, you ARE confused. DVP, You misunderstood my point. The photo I showed, with JFK's hair all bloody and drooping down, seems to have no connection with the photo that you showed, with the hair well-groomed and tidy. What's up with that? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 48 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Sure. Good stuff, I have already started it - it's called Was The HSCA's conlusion helpful to the case of certain conspiracy theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 5 hours ago, Michael Crane said: " And, just for the record, I certainly do not believe that Humes performed any surgery --i.e., pre-autopsy surgery--on the president's head." David,I find this quote very interesting.After all ...it was Robinson who is quoted as saying "that`s what the "Dr`s" did." By process of elimination...that leaves Boswell. Michael: The quote is indeed an important one; the problem is the context. When time permits, I'll answer in greater detail. But here is the nub of the matter. The ARRB interview of Robinson was conducted in 1996 (plus or minus). By that time, Best Evidence had been published multiple times--originally in 1981 then again in 1982 (paperback); then with the autopsy photos, in full "trade paper" size (1988, Carrol and Graf) ;and finally (and again), in 1993, again with the autopsy photographs. It is implausible to believe that Tom Robinson did not read--and read closely--Best Evidence. It was therefor incumbent on any legal investigation which questioned him (and he is one of two examples of this) not to ask Robinson (a) whether he read the book; (b) his reaction to the book; and (c ) whether he had any theories of his own. This was not done. The result: Robinson was permitted to espouse his "theory" without any questioning--without any cross-examination. The result is a mess, in which we have a conflation of his original recollections and the memories he had (as a genuine witness) plus what he said in an ARRB telephone interview over three decades later. Not properly questioning Robinson properly is the fault of the ARRB. It opened the door to a witness polluting the record with an assassination theory. If you go back to Robinson's original HSCA Interview (back in 1976, prior to the original publication of my book), you will find quite a rather different record. At that time, he was interviewed, in person (not on the telephone, which is really amateurish) by HSCA Attorney Andrew Purdy. If you read that (HSCA) interview carefully, you will discover two things: #1: Robinson told Purdy, who questioned him carefully, that there was no back wound--let me repeat that: no back wound. Purdy asked him, more than once,as I recall, whether there was any wound on the back, which he (Purdy) defined in the area above the waist, and below the head. Robinson answered in the negative. FWIW: This questioning should have been reviewed by the ARRB, carefully, and under oath, because of its implications--i.e., no back wound, consistent with the Parkland hospital record. But none of that was done. #2: The transcript created by the HSCA (circa 1976 or 1977) happens to be incorrect. Something I discovered years later, by carefully listening to the audio tape of that interview, when it was released sometime in the 1990s. Words and/or phrases were left out, and so (when read superficially) the false transcript gives the impression that the interviewee (Robinson) was saying that the body was removed from the Bethesda morgue, and then returned--both events witnessed by him (!). That is false. No such event happened. More importantlly: That's not what Robinson said. At all. All it took to avoid that error, and to remedy that situation was to listen to the audio tape of that HSCA inteview, and correct the transcript. To repeat: Years later, I did exactly that. Doing so, I immediately discovered the error,and transcribed that part correctly. The ARRB did not, and so Doug Horne advanced a false thesis, based on an incorrect transcript, that Robinson had witnessed something mysterious; i.e., that he had said the body was removed from the morgue (in his presence) and then returned again (!). To repeat: as if he had witnessed something truly mysterious. Robinson said no such thing. That surmise was false and was a completely avoidable error/ But the ARRB (that is, Horne and Gunn, in questioning Robinson) did not properly review (and correct) the HSCA transcript. Had they done so, that incorrect surmise would not have arisen. That was a poor performance for the ARRB, whose major purpose was to "clarify the record." Instead, and because of that inadequate questioning, they clouded the record. The combination of an incorrect transcript and the failure to question the witness properly--exploring whether the implications of his having read Best Evidence (which by that time had been in print for about 17 years, and in four editions)--led to the confused record that now exists. The resultant ARRB record is, imho, a confusing combination of the witnesses original recollections, and his own hypothesis. I'll have more to say about this, because something very similar happened with another witness--X-Ray tech Ed Reed--and the combination of Ed Reed and Robinson has led to a confusing mess in which the legal record contains, instead of the unvarnished record of the witnesses' recollections, those important recollections, but also the witnesses theories about lhe autopsy. That would not have happened if proper procedures had been followed. DSL 2/11/2017 - 4:05 p.m. PST Los ANgeles, California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: DVP, You misunderstood my point. The photo I showed, with JFK's hair all bloody and drooping down, seems to have no connection with the photo that you showed, with the hair well-groomed and tidy. What's up with that? Simple: they tidied up JFK's hair before taking the "red spot" BOH picture. Why is that so impossible to believe? Edited February 12, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Simple: they tidied up JFK's hair before taking the "red spot" BOH picture. Why is that so impossible to believe? From Humes and Boswell's HSCA interview: Dr. PETTY. Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more? Dr. HUMES. Exactly. Dr. PETTY. It is not intended to represent the ruler starting for something? Dr. HUMES. No way, no way. Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I can't read it-but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down. Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp. Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp? Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. From Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony: Q. I'd like to draw your attention to in the color photograph the round, reddish marking just to the right of the ruler, very near the top of the ruler. A. Yes. Q. Could that round or ovular-shaped marking be the entrance wound? A. No. Q. What is that, if anything, that round or ovular-shaped marking? A. I think it's the--this is awfully near the front of the scalp fragment here, and here is a laceration up here with complete separation. And when-- Q. You're referring there to the very top of the scalp-- A. Just under the fingers that's holding the scalp up. And if you let--when you let this fall down, in one of the previous photographs-- Q. I'm sorry. Just for the record, you're letting the scalp fall down towards the back and cover where the ruler would be? A. Yes. If you let that fall down, then this would be right in the midline and that line that you asked me about where the tissue was separated but not completely separated. And I think this is probably the other side of that traumatic disfigurement of the scalp. Q. If I understood you correctly, were you saying that that marking that we've been pointing to that is near the top of the ruler and somewhat to the right might be the beginning or at least part of the laceration in the scalp? A. Yes. That's occurring from beneath with the explosion of the bullet. Q. I'd like you to note the parting of the hair that goes at approximately a 45-degree angle irregularly out to the right. Is that hair that is being pulled to the left covering part of the laceration? A. Probably. I can see it; probably up in here, at least. Edited February 12, 2017 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) Let's approach the "BOH" issue this way.... 1.) We know (or at least I do) that there was ONE bullet hole of entry in the back of JFK's head. and.... 2.) We have an autopsy photo (the one below) which appears to show ONE bullet wound of entry in the back of JFK's head. Now, I wonder what the odds are of having the ONE wound of entry that we know existed in JFK's head NOT being the ONE AND ONLY thing in this picture that resembles a bullet hole? Food for thought.....isn't it? Edited February 12, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Let's approach the "BOH" issue this way.... 1.) We know (or at least I do) that there was ONE bullet hole of entry in the back of JFK's head. and.... 2.) We have an autopsy photo (the one below) which appears to show ONE bullet wound of entry in the back of JFK's head. Now, I wonder what the odds are of having the ONE wound of entry that we know existed in JFK's head NOT being the ONE AND ONLY thing in this picture that resembles a bullet hole? Food for thought.....isn't it? You can't take a photograph out of context when the correct context has just been given to you in plain english. There are actually many dark spots on the BOH photographs which may or may not resemble entry wounds. An alterationist may wonder if those dark spots were added so we can be here in 2017 debating which, if any, spot is the true wound while getting nowhere, but I can accept those dark spots as as simply a weird thing that happened in real life. If you think the red spot looks like an entry wound (even though it's not in the same size, shape, or location as in the autopsy report), then weirder things have happened. You can't believe in anything in this case without accepting a few weird things. BTW your version makes the red spot appear artificially dark. Here's a better version: Edited February 12, 2017 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 14 hours ago, David Von Pein said: 14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: The WC said that JFK was shot in the back of the head -- and the photo showing the hole in JFK's back shows no damage at all to the back of JFK's head. What am I missing? I wouldn't expect to see the small wound of entrance in the cowlick of JFK's head in the "back wound" photo. It was taken expressly to highlight the BACK wound, not the head wound. Never mind that the wound was really near the EOP. (BTW, this is yet another obvious proof of conspiracy that I'm sure Bugliosi brushed aside.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: DVP, I bought that video in 2010, and have watched it several times over the years. It is a pitiful excuse for a trial. First, VIncent Bugliosi is a world famous prosecutor, while the attorney for the defense of LHO was an ambulance chasing hack who was woefully unprepared, and utterly ignorant of the nuances of the facts in the LHO case. It seems to me that Bugliosi selected the defense attorney, and the Network paid this hack a lot of money to accept the job, knowing he was unevenly matched. This hack attorney did bring an adviser to make up for his ignorance, but this adviser seemed to be convinced of a CIA-did-it CT, and so that was the nonsense that led the defense. There were several horrible omissions in that tape series, including: 1. Ex-General Edwin Walker was not called to testify. 2. Robert Alan Surrey, publisher of the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK ad, was not called to testify. 3. Robert Klause, printer of the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK ad, was not called to testify. 4. Bernard Weissman, publisher of the WELCOME TO DALLAS MR. KENNEDY as, was not called to testify. 5. Ruth Paine was raked over the coals by the defense. 6. The DPD was not treated with kid gloves by the defense. 7. The JFK autopsy scenario was treated like a Halloween story -- completely non-sequitur. It was pitiful. Everybody knows that Mark Lane should have been hired as the attorney for the defense of LHO. Mark Lane would have kicked Vincent Bugliosi all over that courtroom. It would have been a great moment for the BBC. But they let us down. Regards, --Paul Trejo I beg to differ. The defense attorney in the case was Gerry Spence, who actually had a better rep than Bugliosi at the time of the trial. Spence was famous for his country lawyer mannerisms, and I dare say he comes across a heckuva lot better than Bugliosi in the case. Bugliosi comes across as extremely shrill and nasty, which he was. Spence, on the other hand, comes across as fair and genuinely curious. Watch his cross-examination of Vincent Guinn, for example. Spence ate him up and got Guinn to boast that he knew the results of tests he'd never actually conducted. This would destroy his credibility with a jury. And Spence did it without being rude or shrill in the manner of Bugliosi. There's also this to consider. We really have no idea how well Spence performed because the program as shown in the U.S. was edited down to something like 1/3 of its original time, as shown in England. Now, one passion DVP and I share is the desire to get our hands on some tapes of the entire trial, or even a transcript of the entire trial. Bugliosi quoted such a transcript in his book, often quoting lines that were never shown in the U.S. But we have never been allowed to see the full tapes or transcript. For all we know, Ruth Paine admitted she worked for the CIA, or some such thing. I can say, however, that I contacted Spence about a decade ago, and that he told me he didn't believe he'd ever been provided a transcript for the trial. Well, this means Bugliosi was given special access to help sell Oswald's guilt in the U.S. And this, in turn, leads me to suspect the footage shown in the U.S. was edited to help this cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: Thanks, Micah. That version of the photo (above) goes a long way toward debunking the crazy theory in which many conspiracy theorists postulate the notion that a large "black patch" was inserted over JFK's head in the photo to artificially cover up virtually all of the right-rear quadrant of Kennedy's head (to cover up the alleged huge hole that supposedly existed in that part of his head). But in the version you posted above, we can clearly see most/many of the individual hairs on Kennedy's head in the right-rear area. So that's obviously not a "black patch" there. (Or did some clever fellow using Paint Shop decide to fake the picture by adding in the individual hairs on JFK's cranium? Maybe some CTer can advance that theory now.) BTW, those individual hairs are also easily visible in a couple of the black-and-white autopsy photos I've seen of the back of JFK's head as well. And one of those pictures I have on my computer is (I think) a second-generation print sent to me by researcher John Fiorentino several years ago. The picture, as I understand it, was sent to John by David Belin. (Forgive me if I'm wrong in that assumption, John. I discuss that photo here [two-thirds of the way down the page]). But even that version you posted, Micah, will still probably not sway the opinion of some of those "black patch" CTers, because there's still a little bit of a dark area in the lower-right. So some CTers can still cling to the "black patch" theory even with that "brightened up" version of the photo (even though some of the exact same type of "blackness" can be seen in various other portions of the photo too). http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html Edited February 12, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 43 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: 10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: Thanks, Micah. That version of the photo (above) goes a long way toward debunking the crazy theory in which many conspiracy theorists postulate the notion that a large "black patch" was inserted over JFK's head in the photo to artificially cover up virtually all of the right-rear quadrant of Kennedy's head (to cover up the alleged huge hole that supposedly existed in that part of his head). I've never heard the theory of a black patch being inserted or painted in the context of this photo. I've heard it only in the context of the Z film. So I doubt that is a commonly held believe among serious researchers. As far as this picture is concerned, I've read that the 3D effect is lost in the bottom part of the hair when viewing the 3D pair of photos. And that this is an indication of tampering in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) On 2/12/2017 at 4:23 AM, Sandy Larsen said: I've never heard the theory of a black patch being inserted or painted in the context of this photo. I've heard it only in the context of the Z film. So I doubt that is a commonly held believe among serious researchers. As far as this picture is concerned, I've read that the 3D effect is lost in the bottom part of the hair when viewing the 3D pair of photos. And that this is an indication of tampering in that area. The 3D argument made by Groden and Mantik doesn't hold. For some strange (or not so strange) reason, Groden failed to publish the two color BOH photos in his possession side by side, or even in the same book, until recently. I morphed the two photos together on the following page, about a fourth of the way down the page. And the three degree effect is apparent even on the middle of the photo. Thus, no matte was inserted. https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/reasontobelieve P.S. I tried to insert the GIF below. It doesn't run automatically and continuously as it does on my page. But seems to work one time when you click on it. Edited January 17 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) Pat, Why did you crop the bottom portion off? Anyway, to see whether or not there is a 3D effect, one really needs to look at the photo pair with a stereoscope. Edited February 12, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now