David Von Pein

I'm on ignore here for the most part anyway, Paul. So my participation doesn't matter much.

CTers like DiEugenio, who continually throw slings and arrows at Ruth and Michael Paine without a stitch of evidence to back up their slanderous theories, deserve all the criticism and scorn that can possibly be heaped upon them. (IMO.)

Listen to what Ruth said in 2003 after hearing that Marina thinks Ruth was part of a conspiracy....

JFK Video / Ruth Paine (2003)

"A lot of people will just believe what they're gonna believe.

And there's nothing much I can do about it." -- Ruth Paine; 2003

It's amazing to me how people try to look down on Ruth Paine.

[...]

It boggles my mind why anybody would want to impute Evil Intentions to this Christian heart.

Because many (or most) conspiracy theorists prefer fantasy over facts and the truth.

No CTer has ever come within a thousand miles of proving that Ruth Hyde Paine did anything wrong at all. And no CTer has ever proved (and never will, because the idea is incredibly stupid) that Mrs. Paine served as Lee Oswald's "handler" in late 1963 -- which is hilarious in the first place -- what did RUTH HERSELF do to advance the plot along? She certainly did NOT "plant" Oswald in the Depository. That fact has been proven beyond all doubt.

CTers see sinister "CIA connections" all over the place. But none of them ever go beyond the conjecture stage--and they never will, because Ruth Paine wasn't with the CIA.

The CTer motto is in full bloom when it comes to Ruth Paine --- ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo?

None of [the] crap DiEugenio [has ever written] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening.

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.

dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html

Lots more....
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

BRIAN WALKER SAID:

Did Ruth Paine have six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers as has been claimed? Does anyone know anything about this?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's very likely just another one of the dozens of myths that conspiracy theorists love to tout as true about the JFK case. And according to what Ruth Paine herself said in a public appearance on September 13, 2013, the story about the "seven file boxes of Cuba sympathizers' names" was a completely bogus story from the get-go. Listen to Ruth talk about it right here.

And let's stop and think about this for a moment from the POV of the CTers who think Ruth Paine was a "CIA agent" who was attempting to manipulate and frame Lee Oswald for Kennedy's murder in 1963:

In such a circumstance, with Ruth being a "CIA" employee involved in a lot of underhanded shenanigans, would it make any sense for Ruth to keep on her property (or, in general, traceable back to her) six or seven filing cabinets filled with stuff that could only make the authorities (and the conspiracy theorists) suspicious about what she was up to? IMO, the whole thing is just silly to begin with.


GARY CRAIG POSTED THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for supplying Decker Exhibit No. 5323, Gary.

Nice to know that Ruth and Michael Paine weren't hiding anything.

Do conspiracy theorists actually believe that anything in that "set of file cabinets" could possibly have any relation to any alleged "CIA" activity revolving around either Ruth or Michael Paine and a plot to frame Lee Oswald for JFK's assassination?

According to Deputy Walthers' report in Decker Exhibit 5323, the cabinets were seized on either November 22 or 23 and were found right there in Ruth Paine's house in Irving. And if Ruth had been "setting up" Oswald for weeks (or months) prior to Nov. 22, as many conspiracists believe, she, of course, would have to know that the police would be searching her residence right after the assassination, since she was allowing the wife of the "patsy" to stay at her house and since the "patsy" himself stayed there the night before the assassination.

All of this indicates, of course, that whatever was in those filing cabinets could not possibly be some "key" to link Ruth and Michael Paine to an assassination plot, nor could it be a key to link the Paines to the CIA -- unless, that is, the conspiracy theorists want to believe that Ruth Paine was a very very stupid person. And by just listening to Ruth speak for only a few minutes, it's fairly obvious that the word "stupid" does not apply to Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine.


GARY CRAIG SAID:

What are you talking about?

Are you trying to make the metal filing cabinets disappear again, like the DPD and FBI did in '63?

Too late, the cat's out of the bag.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary,

If you were a CIA operative and were tasked with the chore of framing Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's murder, would you place IN YOUR HOUSE a bunch of stuff that proves you were "CIA"?

I.E.:

The SAME HOUSE where you are allowing the patsy's wife to live....and the SAME HOUSE where you've "arranged" for the police to think the assassination rifle was stored....and the SAME HOUSE where all of the patsy's belongings are being kept....and the SAME HOUSE where the resident patsy spent his last night of freedom? You'd have to be nuts.

And why wasn't Decker Exhibit 5323 destroyed (along with the file cabinets and all those "secret" Ruth Paine documents)?

The bumbling, stumbling plotters strike again. They can manage to deep-six a bunch of filing cabinets and tons of suspicious documents relating to that vixen named Ruth, but they can't quite seem to manage to get rid of that one sheet of paper containing Walthers' report about the cabinets. Yeah, right.



Naturally, no conspiracy theorist can think of ANY other solution to ANYTHING relating to the JFK case OTHER than "it's a conspiracy". No non-sinister explanation would even be entertained by the likes of a conspiracy monger such as a Gary Craig.

So, Ruth Paine is automatically guilty of--something. The conspiracy-happy kooks aren't sure just WHAT she's "guilty" of. But she's got to be guilty of SOMETHING, that much the conspiracy buffs know for sure.

The conspiracy nuts who want to hang Ruth Paine are sickening. I only wish she could sue the pants off of at least one of the idiots who has slandered her name since 1963. She couldn't lose.


JASON ADAIR SAID:

Thumbs up Dave!

I've always felt Ruth Paine is a very sympathetic character in the LHO murder spree....and subsequent character assassination by CTs.

Ruth is the perfect example of why LNers CARE to post here. To help protect innocent people from slander.


RONALD VAN DIJK SAID:

I think this is a weak argument. Maybe she (or he) made a mistake? Forgot about the thing? There are other possibilities of course.

What did she say about these boxes? Undoubtedly the WC has asked her about these files? Where are these files now? Names?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ronald,

I can't find a thing in Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony or in her Clay Shaw trial testimony concerning the "metal file cabinets" and their contents. Maybe there is something in her extremely lengthy WC sessions about them, but I had no luck finding it. (The CTers would no doubt say that the WC was covering up something re the file cabinets too, since they mentioned nothing about them during Ruth's many hours on the witness stand.)

I also noticed that Vince Bugliosi doesn't mention a thing about those file cabinets in his 2007 book.

It would be nice to know what was in the file cabinets. But I still stand by my previous argument re the cabinets. If Ruth was "CIA", would she have such things sitting in her garage for the police to find? Or was she supposedly in cahoots with the DPD and Sheriff's Office too? Did she nudge Bill Decker one day and whisper -- "Remember, Bill, you've got to get rid of those filing cabinets." And then Decker complied? Too funny.

EDIT -- But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we do now have Ruth's very own words concerning the topic of the filing cabinets (or "file boxes"). Here again is what Ruth herself said in September of 2013:

https://app.box.com/s/iuce7aaneb3xnfj472hy


RONALD VAN DIJK SAID:

Following the same arguments you use for Ruth Paine: Would Oswald leave a rifle with his fingerprints in the SBD? Would he make the backyard pictures? Would he....? Do you think he was nuts?.... You are explaining the find of the cabinets in a way that suits you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I am explaining the file cabinets in a way that suits me....yes. But it's also in a way that makes sense (IMO).

Re: Oswald doing those things you mentioned -- There's a big difference: it can be PROVEN he did those things (although very few Internet CTers would ever dare admit that Oswald actually did the first thing on your LHO list--leaving his prints on the rifle in the TSBD on November 22nd -- but he did it all the same).

And the backyard photos have been proven to be genuine (i.e., non-phony). That's not even debatable here in the real world of science where a negative exists of one of the pictures which can be tied to Oswald's own camera. Did the plotters manage to steal LHO's camera too? And then got Marina to lie about taking the photos?

When does this string of conspiracy-oriented nonsense end? Or does it ever reach an end in this case? (Silly question, I know. Of course it doesn't end...and never will. That's why we're here now.)

And btw...yes, Oswald was kinda nuts (not "insane", but just plain "nuts"). You've got to be "kinda nuts" in order to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger (unless it's strictly self-defense). And Oswald did that THREE times in 1963 (Walker, Kennedy, and Tippit.) And none of the three was done in "self-defense". Yes, Oswald was nuts alright.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID [QUOTING THE WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY OF DALLAS DEPUTY SHERIFF BUDDY WALTHERS]:

BUDDY WALTHERS. You could tell it from the way it was tied and the impression of where that barrel went up in it where it was tied, that a rifle had been tied in it, but what kind---you couldn't tell, but you could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it, and then we found some little metal file cabinets---I don't know what kind you would call them---they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves.

WESLEY LIEBELER. About how many of them would you think there were?

Mr. WALTHERS. There were six or seven, I believe, and I put them all in the trunk of my car and we also found a box of pictures, a bunch of pictures that we taken. We didn't go to the trouble of looking at any of this stuff much---just more or less confiscated it at the time, and we looked at it there just like that, and then we took all this stuff and put it in the car and then Mrs. Paine got a phone number from Mrs. Oswald where you could call Lee Harvey Oswald in Oak Cliff. It was a Whitehall phone number, I believe, and they said they didn't know where he lived, but this was where they called him, and I called Sheriff Decker on the phone when I was there and gave him that number for the crisscross, so they could send some men to that house, which I think they did, but I didn't go myself. Then we put everybody in the car, the kids, Mrs. Oswald, and everyone---no; just a minute---before that, though, this Michael Paine or Mitchell Paine, whichever you call it, came home and I had understood from Mrs. Paine already that they weren't living together, that they were separated and he was supposed to be living in Grand Prairie and when he showed up I asked him what was his object in coming home. He said--well, after he had heard about the President's getting shot, he just decided he would take off and come home, and he arrived there while we were there.

[...]

Mr. LIEBELER. What was in these file cabinets?

Mr. WALTHERS. We didn't go through them at the scene. I do remember a letterhead--I can't describe it--I know we opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead we had pulled out and so I just pushed it all back down and shut it and took the whole works.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have been advised that some story has developed that at some point that when you went out there you found seven file cabinets full of cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind, but you don't remember seeing any of them?

Mr. WALTHERS. Well, that could have been one, but I didn't see it.

Mr. LIEBELER. There certainly weren't any seven file cabinets with the stuff you got out there or anything like that?

Mr. WALTHERS. I picked up all of these file cabinets and what all of them contained, I don't know myself to this day.

Mr. LIEBELER. As I was sitting here listening to your story, I could see where that story might have come from--you mentioned the "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets that were in a barrel.

Mr. WALTHERS. That's right--we got a stack of them out of that barrel, but things get all twisted around.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/walthers

[END WARREN COMMISSION QUOTES.]


Question:

What proof is there that the file cabinets belonged to Ruth or Michael Paine? Why couldn't that stuff have been part of Lee Oswald's personal possessions? After all, about everything Lee and Marina owned was in Mrs. Paine's garage in November of '63.

This part of Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission testimony above certainly makes it sound as though at least some of the material in at least one of the metal file cabinets belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald:

"We opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead..."


In addition, there is this WC testimony from Marina Oswald, in which she refers to a metal file cabinet owned by Lee Oswald, in which he kept materials associated with his Fair Play For Cuba activities (the box itself can be seen in Commission Exhibit 125):

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 125 is a file cabinet for presumably three by five or five by seven inch cards.

Mrs. OSWALD. Lee kept his printing things in that, pencils.

Mr. RANKIN. The things that he printed his Fair Play for Cuba leaflets on?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Pencils and materials that he used in connection with that matter?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he have any index cards in that metal case?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, he had some.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't know what happened to them?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what was on those index cards?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. A list of any people that you know of?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. I don't know.

Mr. RANKIN. Were those leaflets about Fair Play for Cuba printed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And then did he stamp something on them after he had them printed?

Mrs. OSWALD. He would print his name and address on them.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't know what happened to the cards that were in that?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

[END WC QUOTES.]


Whether the metal box of LHO's (CE125) has any connection at all to the several similar such metal boxes found at Ruth Paine's house on 11/22/63, I haven't the slightest idea. But perhaps Lee owned more than one such box.

~shrug~


LARRY BALDWIN SAID:

The questions to LNs (DVP in particular):

1. Did the file cabinets exist as documented?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think there's any doubt of that fact. Decker Exhibit 5323 is the proof of their "existence", plus Buddy Walthers' WC testimony. He mentions the "six or seven file cabinets" there too. And I certainly don't think Buddy W. just made it up from whole cloth.

I will admit, point-blank, that prior to today [July 10, 2013], I had no knowledge of the definitive existence of any such "file cabinets" being confiscated from Ruth Paine's house (other than to hear James DiEugenio ramble on about such cabinets during some of his appearances on Black Op Radio in the past; but you know how far I trust Jimbo; so anything uttered by him isn't going to make a big impression on a person like myself, seeing as how Jimbo can't even get the easy stuff right--like Oswald shooting Tippit).

But, anyway, prior to 7/10/13, I really had no desire to dig into the "file cabinet" matter at all. And obviously neither did Vincent Bugliosi, because upon searching my PDF file containing the entire 2800 pages of "Reclaiming History", I couldn't find a single reference to the "file cabinets" in that tome--even when cross-referencing and searching for "Decker Exhibit No. 5323". Vince might have mentioned the cabinets in his book, but if he did, I couldn't find it via my word search today.

So, yes, the cabinets (or, more accurately, the "small metal boxes") definitely did (or do) exist.


LARRY BALDWIN SAID:

2. Did the material in the file cabinets exist as documented?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't the slightest idea. Nor do you. And that's because (based on the limited "scope" of my looking into this matter) there doesn't appear to be anything in the testimony of anyone that would clarify the contents of the file cabinets/metal boxes. Walthers said "I don't know myself to this day" what was in the cabinets. And there's nothing in the testimony of Will Fritz or Jesse Curry or Sheriff Bill Decker pertaining to the cabinets either (that I could find via a word search). Nor is there any reference to the cabinets in the testimony of Guy Rose.

There is, however, something in the testimony of DPD Detective Richard Stovall that might be of interest (although whether these "boxes" picked up by Stovall are related to the "file cabinets" discussed by Buddy Walthers, I haven't the foggiest)....

Mr. STOVALL -- "I've got listed "one grey metal file box, which is 12 inches by 6 inches; youth pictures and literature." I've got, "One black and gray metal box 10 inches by 4 inches, letters, etc., one box brown Keystone projector." Let's stop just a minute and let me tell you about this. These two metal boxes came out of Ruth Paine's bedroom. This Keystone projector came out of the closet in the hall. Then, I have listed, "Three brown metal boxes 12 inches by 4 inches containing phonograph records." They came out of Ruth Paine's bedroom."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stovall

EDIT -- Please note that most of the above information supplied by Detective Stovall concerning the contents of various "metal boxes" perfectly matches the items that Ruth Paine herself said was in the "file boxes" during her 2013 public appearance that I twice provided above. In that 2013 audio, she said three of the boxes contained "folk dance records", three more boxes contained her "college papers", and the seventh box had a "projector" in it.


LARRY BALDWIN SAID:

If yes to #1 or #2, what were the Paines doing with this information and what are the implications?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not convinced the stuff in the "file cabinets" even belonged to Ruth Paine. As I speculated previously, maybe that stuff belonged to Lee Oswald. And this portion of Buddy Walthers' testimony is one reason why I say that:

"We opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead..."

So, as to WHAT exactly was contained in the boxes/cabinets and WHO exactly was the owner of that material -- I have no idea. Do you?


RONALD VAN DIJK SAID:

And since you checked all conspiracy's [sic] of any sort: Ruth has nothing to do with these cabinets! We can go on to the next topic! Life is easy if you want!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"We opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead..." -- Eddy "Buddy" Walthers

Sure sounds like OSWALD'S letter there, doesn't it? And why would Oswald's letter be in Ruth Paine's metal cabinets?

Who do you think the "he" is referring to in this sentence, Ronald?.....

"That's from the people he writes to in Russia."


BRIAN WALKER SAID:

Thank you LNs for clearing this up. I didn't know much about this. Thank you kooks for trying to make it seem sinister and getting totally destroyed by LNers who spent a few minutes looking into it. I always enjoy when that happens.


VERN SAYLOR SAID:

There is no question that the cabinets were found at the Paines house, why wouldn't the DPD, FBI and WC make more of an effort to link them to LHO, esp. after LHO was murdered?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's not a bad question. And I'll admit I don't know the answer to it.

[...]

I would, however, like to know where the metal file cabinets went. And is the metal box I mentioned previously (CE125) part of the "six or seven" cabinets/boxes that were seized by the police at the Paine house? And are the five "metal" boxes referred to in Detective Richard Stovall's WC testimony the same as the metal cabinets described by Buddy Walthers? I just do not know. But I do think that at least ONE of those metal file boxes belonged to Lee Oswald, based on the quote I mentioned earlier from Walthers' WC session (where Walthers quotes Michael Paine).

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.

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.

David, do you admit that at the autopsy photos and X-rays could have been altered or faked[?] Note - not that they were, but that they "could have been"[?]

That would have been virtually impossible, Ray. And that's because the photos exist in stereo pairs. ....

• "The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

  The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

  The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president.

  It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

  Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

James Gordon,

I agree that the whole "Back Of The Head" topic is very strange and contradictory. I've often said it's the #1 thing that bugs me the most. But, then too, we DO have what I believe is BETTER evidence than those (admittedly many) "BOH Wound" witnesses --- with that "better evidence" being the autopsy photos and X-rays. Plus, to a lesser extent, the Zapruder Film as well, which also does not agree--at all--with those many "BOH" witnesses.

To answer the question you asked above, I'll offer up the following excerpt from my review of Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History":


CHAPTER 3 (68 PAGES) -- "PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S AUTOPSY AND THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS TO KENNEDY AND GOVERNOR CONNALLY":

DVP: This chapter brings about a "closure" (of sorts) for me with respect to the single biggest "question mark" that I personally have had regarding the entire JFK case -- that being: How could so many different witnesses claim to see a large hole in the back of President Kennedy's head on 11/22/63 (at Parkland and at Bethesda)?

I've scratched my head more than a few times when thinking about those back-of-the-head wound witnesses. But at the same time, I have also always realized that there is a bunch of evidence that totally contradicts those witnesses (regardless of how many of them there might be).

That contradictory evidence includes: The official autopsy report (signed by three doctors), the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the Zapruder Film, and the never-wavering testimony of all three autopsy doctors (with each doctor agreeing that President Kennedy was hit by only two bullets, with both of those bullets coming from "above and behind" John F. Kennedy). And all of this evidence is also pointed out numerous times by Vince Bugliosi in this chapter as well.

Vincent doesn't pull some magical rabbit out of a hat when he discusses this often-heated controversy about the head wounds of the late President. Instead, he relies on basic sound judgment and common sense (like always) to try and figure out a reasonable answer for why the many Parkland witnesses thought they saw what they said they saw.

And Vincent's primary explanation regarding this matter is actually an explanation offered up by someone else, HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel member Michael Baden:

[Quoting from Mr. Bugliosi's book:]

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. 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." [End Baden quote]." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History"


DVP: The above explanation is one that I, too, have postulated as the probable answer to this enduring "head wound" mystery over the years, such as HERE, HERE, and HERE.

One other point that I think is worthy of mentioning here is the fact that (as far as I'm aware) there wasn't a single witness at Parkland or Bethesda who claimed to have seen TWO large wounds of exit in JFK's head on 11/22/63.

This fact would certainly suggest that there was, indeed, only ONE large wound in Kennedy's head, and that wound was located, per the autopsy and the authenticated autopsy photographs, "chiefly parietal" (i.e., the side and top of the head).

On page #410, Bugliosi provides some additional strength to the "No Exit Wound In The Back Of JFK's Head" rope, when he says:

"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 (when the president's head exploded) and frame 328 (almost a second later) clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the right front of the president's head. The back of his head shows no such large wound and clearly is completely intact." [bugliosi's emphasis.] -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 410 of "RH"


DVP: Another excellent visual demonstration that pretty much proves that JFK was shot in the head from BEHIND is the following slow-motion clip from the Zapruder Film, which positively depicts the President's head being pushed FORWARD at the all-important moment of impact when Oswald's bullet strikes the back of Kennedy's head:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Go away, Healy. Please. For everybody's sake. You're an embarrassment everywhere you go. How can you possibly not realize that fact by now?

BEN HOLMES SAID:

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

https://app.box.com/s/9r44k0y7wx976fz74paaruvyuk6vya89





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" in the 1967 image above, 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 xxxx, Davey.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're the xxxx, Benny.

I definitely told you what I think the "conflict" is. HERE'S the Amazon post.


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:

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:

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.


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."

David Von Pein
October 3-8, 2015
October 7-12, 2015

DVP makes a valiant attempt to have us all chasing our tails over who ordered the body be taken to Bethesda. Meanwhile, the topic of this thread is still the large gaping wound seen by many witnesses in the right rear of JFK's head, and if you can't stay on topic, DVP, I kindly invite you to go start another thread.

Yes, sir, Sergeant Prudhomme! ~salute~

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html

DVP,

Thanks, but you appear to ignore the importance of authority in late 1963.

Today, internet commenters are critical.

In late 1963, few were critical of the government. Authority ruled. You know this, certainly.

The W.C. played on this faith in authority.

What has that got to do with Kenny O'Donnell's testimony and the fact that O'Donnell said that Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy herself was the person who chose Bethesda Naval Hospital as the location for JFK's autopsy?

Do you think O'Donnell was lying here?....

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Who made that decision [to take JFK's body to Bethesda], by the way?"

KEN O'DONNELL -- "Mrs. Kennedy."

DVP,

Didn't O'Donnell admit to Tip O'Neill that he dissembled before the W.C.?

So Ken O'Donnell, one of JFK's best friends, is part of the plot and/or cover-up now? Is that what you're suggesting, Jon?

C'mon. The President of the United States, the leader of the Free World, the most powerful individual on planet Earth has just been shot to pieces, and the U.S. Government can't do better than Humes and Boswell?

As for Jackie "primarily" selecting Betheda, the best extant AF-1 tape reveals clearly just how hard McGeorge Bundy pushed for Bethesda. The idea Jackie pushed for Bethesda because Jack was a navy veteran always has been bunk; Jackie was clearly, according to all accounts, in a state of shock and was hardly capable of making any argument.

Good job, Jon. Let's blame McGeorge Bundy now. And let's add him as "Plotter #199" in the cover-up scheme.

The CTers of the Internet are so EAGER and so amazingly WILLING to blame almost ANYONE they can blame in order to advance the notion of the make-believe conspiracy in the JFK case. No proof required. Let's just point SOME kind of finger of guilt or blame at McGeorge Bundy. (And let's not even ask ourselves WHY Bundy would want to engage in such a charade regarding the autopsy of the President.)

And with respect to WHO made the decision to have the autopsy done at Bethesda, I guess Jon Tidd wants to totally ignore the Warren Commission testimony of Ken O'Donnell [at 7 H 454-455]....

KENNETH O'DONNELL -- "We arrived at Andrews and meanwhile the Attorney General had been notified, the decision had been made that he would go to Bethesda."

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Who made that decision, by the way?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "Mrs. Kennedy."

MR. SPECTER -- "That the autopsy should be performed?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "I don't think she knew anything about an autopsy. The question is where the body went. We didn't tell her there was to be an autopsy. And the choice was Walter Reed or Bethesda. He being a Navy man, she picked Bethesda."

MR. SPECTER -- "She chose Bethesda, as between Bethesda and Walter Reed?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "She did."

MR. SPECTER -- "Who made the decision there would be an autopsy, if you know?"

MR. O'DONNELL -- "I don't know who made the decision. I just think we all agreed--we arrived at Bethesda. The Attorney General was there. I think it was just our assumption that this was a necessary part."

Addendum to my last post (as I breeze merrily past Healy's daily batch of flatulence and empty insults)....

I can, however, certainly understand the awkward predicament that CTers like James DiEugenio are in concerning President Kennedy's autopsy. Since the Bethesda autopsy conducted by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck doesn't even come close to confirming or supporting the multi-gun conspiracy that CTers like DiEugenio have placed their faith in (with the autopsy pretty much doing just the opposite--i.e., confirming that JFK was hit with just two bullets, both fired from above and behind the President's car, which is perfectly consistent with a scenario of Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone assassin), it means that those conspiracists have no choice but to attack the autopsy findings, as well as the men who performed the autopsy, and even attack the manner in which the autopsy was arranged.

But even though President Kennedy's autopsy doctors can definitely be criticized for making some mistakes during the course of the autopsy (and I have criticized them for some things too), the most important fact (by far) that was reached by the three autopsists at Bethesda on November 22, 1963, is the one that is revealed in the paragraph below. And not a single one of the autopsy physicians, as far as I know, has ever maintained that the information contained in this paragraph of their final autopsy report is flawed, inaccurate, or otherwise subject to any doubt whatsoever:

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- From Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report; Page 543]

I have come to believe today that the choices of Humes, Boswell and Finck were planned. It might have been short range, but they wanted three guys who they could control and who were not at all at the top of their game.

More pure B.S. from DiEugenio.

The reason why Humes and Boswell did the autopsy is merely because they were the doctors who were available at that time at Bethesda Naval Hospital, a location that was selected (primarily) by Jackie Kennedy during the flight from Dallas to Washington. (Do you really think Jackie was going about the task of choosing which doctors she wanted to perform the autopsy on her husband, Jim?)

And it was Dr. Humes himself who requested the services of Dr. Finck at the autopsy. I suppose conspiracy theorists must think that Humes was merely reading from a script when he told the Warren Commission the following in 1964, eh Jim?....

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "When I ascertained the nature of the President's wounds, having had the facilities of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology offered to me by General Blumberg, the commanding officer of that institution, I felt it advisable and would be of help to me to have the services of an expert in the field of wound ballistics and for that reason I requested Colonel Finck to appear."

Jon G. Tidd said:

Pretty clearly to me, the autopsy was pre-planned. Not by Humes, et al. But by guys like McGeorge Bundy.

And when such a fantastic (and absurd) notion gets embedded in a person's mind, it becomes all but impossible for an innocent party to exonerate himself. Such as when Dr. Humes made the following statement in 1992. Is any CTer who has decided (without a speck of proof, of course) that JFK's autopsy was "pre-planned" going to believe a single word uttered by Dr. Humes now? Of course not. Just like gum on your shoe, a false allegation, if repeated by enough people, is almost impossible to combat....

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. ***There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings.***" -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1992

Pat's make-believe bullet hole is way more than "2.5 cm. to the right of the EOP", and it looks like it's BELOW the EOP, not "slightly above the EOP".

But, then too, I guess I can't gripe TOO much when it comes to measurements, since I'm convinced the autopsy doctors screwed up the entry location by 4 inches.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gonna go down with the ship, huh?

I'm merely using my EYES, Pat. (And the exacting "100mm. above the EOP" measurements provided by the Clark Panel, which is a four-man panel that you think was filled with four bald-faced liars, which is ridiculous, IMO.)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

And I'll ask again....

What are the odds of having the ONLY thing in this photo that looks like a bullet hole really NOT being a bullet hole, with the REAL bullet hole hiding itself from view for 50 years?

Of course, most CTers here at The Education Forum don't believe there was ANY "entry hole" in the back of President Kennedy's head at all. So Pat and myself — both of us! — are certainly going against the CT grain by proposing ANY "BOH Entry Wound". Pat has probably been subjected to almost as much verbal abuse as I have been over the years when it comes to this "Head Entry Wound" topic.

But good luck with the EOP entry anyway, Pat. If Vince and I and Baden and the Clark Panel are all wrong....so be it. But given what I can SEE for myself in the BOH red-spot photo, if that bullet hole is anyplace other than high on JFK's head near the cowlick, I'd be flabbergasted (for the reasons emphasized in the question I asked above).

==========================================

Addendum.....

Here are some excerpts from a similar discussion between Pat and myself from earlier this year....

PAT SPEER SAID:

There is a red oval in the back of the head photo that resembles a gunshot wound. But it was quite clearly not the bullet wound identified at the autopsy. You seem to think it is...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pat,

Okay, I'll stop you right there. You readily acknowledge the fact that the "red oval" in the autopsy photograph below "resembles a gunshot wound".

So, here's a simple observation and what I think is a very logical (and basic) question to ask after reading your quote above....

Since there is a spot on the back of JFK's head that DOES look like it could be a bullet hole---and since we both KNOW for a fact that there WAS, indeed, one single bullet hole of entry on the back side of President Kennedy's head---then what do you suppose the chances are of the thing that "resembles a gunshot wound" in the autopsy photo really NOT being a bullet hole in JFK's head after all?

Seems like a fair question to me. And I don't think it's a question that can be reasonably answered in the following manner (as some CTers and LNers seem to want to do).....

Well, DVP, the red spot only LOOKS like a bullet hole. The REAL bullet hole is hiding somewhere else in that autopsy picture. It's just a coincidence that the red spot (of blood?) in the photo just happened to take the form and general shape and appearance of a bullet hole. Whereas the REAL bullet hole, which cannot be seen at all in the picture (or at least most people have a hard time seeing it, except perhaps Patrick J. Speer) has decided to go AWOL from the photo, with no "redness" or other qualities to it at all that can be easily noticeable, even though that photo was taken under very good (and bright) lighting conditions. ~shrug~

[End Silly Explanation.]

So I'm just trying to wrap my head around the notion that the thing that looks like the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head really isn't a bullet hole at all. But at the same time, there really is a bullet hole of entrance somewhere else on the back of JFK's head in the above photograph.

What an amazing piece of unintentional and miraculous photographic misinterpretation that would turn out to be indeed, if it is to be believed. And, amazingly, Pat Speer (and many other CTers and LNers) actually do believe in it. I, however, cannot stretch unbelievable coincidence quite that far.

The red spot, in my opinion, is definitely the bullet hole.

DVP

June 2015

I took a large image of the B and W back of the head photo, cropped it down to the area where the EOP entrance ought to be, and reduced the exposure of the very spot where the doctors said there was a wound...AND voila! There's the wound!!!!

The entry wound in JFK's head was near the cowlick, just exactly where the ONE AND ONLY thing that even comes CLOSE to resembling a bullet hole is located in the "red spot" BOH autopsy photo. Any other "I Have Found The Entry Wound!" declaration is just wishful thinking and a vivid imagination. (Obligatory: IMHO.)

Garden Variety Common Sense Question.....

What are the odds of having the ONLY thing in the photo below that looks like a bullet hole really NOT being a bullet hole, with the REAL bullet hole hiding itself from view for 50 years? The odds are mind-boggling.

Recent "BOH" discussions:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-954.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1005.html

Number of People Shot in the Head Who Move in the Same Direction as the Bullet: 100%

Number of People Shot in the Head Who Move Against the Direction of the Bullet: 0%

Number of bullet holes of entry in JFK's head --- 1.

Location of the bullet hole of entry in JFK's head --- In the rear of the head.

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; Interview with JAMA editor George D. Lundberg; October 1991 [see “JFK’s Death: The Plain Truth From The MDs Who Did The Autopsy”, by Dennis L. Breo, Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 267, No. 20, May 27, 1992, Page 2794]

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/james-humes.html

So you think there were MULTIPLE gunmen on the Knoll, eh Martin?

We'll call that one -- Fantasy times Two.

Subject: Sixth Floor Museum / The Dealey Cam
Date: 10/4/2015 Approx. 5:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza

-----------------

Hello Sixth Floor,

This is an "FYI" message....

The lens of the camera in the sixth-floor window is filthy dirty. It needs to be cleaned off. [i learned later that it's not the camera lens that is dirty. It's the window itself.]

Thanks.

Regards,
David Von Pein

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


===========================================================


Subject: Sixth Floor Museum
Date: 10/4/2015 5:59:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: CharlieJ@jfk.org
To: David Von Pein

-----------------

Thanks for letting us know. We will have that taken care of.


===========================================================

Related post -----> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1046.html

This is an interesting excerpt.....

Robert Morrow of Austin, Texas, asks:

"Do any of you believe that Lyndon Johnson or the CIA murdered John Kennedy?" .....

https://youtu.be/y1mXeLHR8Ao?t=7101

Full video (re: the CIA's release of the President's Daily Briefs):