Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
Quote

....and created what looked like a large hole on the back of the head? And that's the way it appeared to 20 different medical professionals? Some of them looking down into the FAKE hole and seeing cerebellar tissue oozing out?

Which would have been impossible --- the "looking down" (into an occipital hole) part of your statement, I mean --- if the President had been lying on the stretcher FACE UP the whole time----which, of course, he was.


That wasn't impossible. The back of the head isn't flat. The wound was reportedly on the right side of the back of the head and so it could be seen from that side. Also, keep in mind that that the body was moved around, for example when the body was prepared and put into the coffin.

I believe that one reason different people gave somewhat different sizes for the hole is because those who got a straight-on view would have seen the whole thing, whereas those who viewed it only from the side would have seen a much smaller hole.

Anyway, some of the 20 got VERY close views of the wound. NOBODY reported a wound on the right-top side. Nobody.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anyway, some of the 20 got VERY close views of the wound. NOBODY reported a wound on the right-top side. Nobody.

Because it had very likely been closed up by Jackie. And evidently she did an excellent job of closing it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anyway, some of the 20 got VERY close views of the wound. NOBODY reported a wound on the right-top side. Nobody.

Because it had very likely been closed up by Jackie. And evidently she did an excellent job of closing it.


How did closing up the top-right side wound create a new hole on the back-right side that witnesses could look into? And see bone fragments protruding from? A hole that the 20 could see and locate?

This is a nonviable theory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How did closing up the top-right side wound create a new hole on the back-right side that witnesses could look into? And see bone fragments protruding from? A hole that the 20 could see and locate?

The huge amounts of blood, gore, skull fragments (possibly?), and brain tissue that was no doubt pooling toward the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head (with some of that material probably adhering to his head and hair in the Right-Rear) fooled the witnesses into thinking there was an actual DEFICIT of skull in that area, IMO.

 

Quote

This is a nonviable theory.

But your theory about how all the photos and X-rays were faked or forged to hide a large BOH hole is even more "nonviable", in my opinion. Especially in light of the verbiage we find on Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 (which most CTers will find a way to avoid at all costs).

Plus, you need the Z-Film to be altered too, don't forget. Because that film certainly does NOT show the large wound to be in the REAR of the head. It shows it to be just where Bill Newman and Gayle Newman and Abe Zapruder said it was on 11/22/63----the Right-Front.

 WFAA-044.png------Gayle+Newman.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But your theory about how all the photos and X-rays were faked or forged to hide a large BOH hole is even more "nonviable", in my opinion.


It's easy to fake evidence. It's hard for 20 medical professionals to be convinced they see a large hole where one isn't.

 

18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

.... Bill Newman and Gayle Newman and Abe Zapruder said it was [on] the Right-Front.

 WFAA-044.png------Gayle+Newman.jpg

 


Of all the witnesses of the gaping wound, these are the worst. Because 1) they were taken by complete surprise and thus weren't focusing on the wound, and 2) they saw it for only 1/4 second. The primary reason they thought it was on the right is because that's the side of Kennedy's head that was visible to them.

In contrast, the 20 Parkland professional had plenty of time to take a look at the wound. And were very close to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy!  Quit while you're ahead, morally.  Let all good men desert this thread!  Allons, enfants!

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In contrast, the 20 Parkland professional had plenty of time to take a look at the wound. And were very close to it.

And Dr. Humes of the autopsy team was even CLOSER to it. And what did he say? ....

"The exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Click For Video]

Dr-Humes-1967.png

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

 

1992-JAMA-Quote-By-Dr-James-Humes.png

 

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And Dr. Humes of the autopsy team was even CLOSER to it. And what did he say? ....

"The exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Click For Video]

Dr-Humes-1967.png

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

 

1992-JAMA-Quote-By-Dr-James-Humes.png

 

 

 

The bottom line is that the government did a huge cover up (of which HUMES {see photo above} was a reluctant participant) and DVP and the other nutters have fallen for it.

We CTers can't just sweep the inconsistencies under the rug like the LNers do. That is what motivates us to keep digging for the truth, much of which we already have uncovered and stitched together.  ("We" meaning primarily the old-timers and authors, of course.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The bottom line is that the government did a huge cover up (of which HUMES {see photo above} was a reluctant participant) and DVP and the other nutters have fallen for it.

Yet another in a series of unwarranted (and wholly unproven) accusations put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists/fantasists.

Dr. Humes used the perfect word for it in 1992 ---- Hogwash.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jim,

Do you mean that ~20 medical professionals at Bethesda also saw and described the wound as being on the back of the head?

I haven't studied that part of Dr. Aguilar's list yet.

 

Sandy if you read Gary's essay in The Assassinations, yes that is the case.

The actual chart in which he names the witnesses and maps out their observations, that is in Murder in Dealey Plaza. p. 199.

DVP knows all this and has for years.  I have never been able to understand why, because he has no life, we have to be his caretakers.  I am not trained in that field.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy if you read Gary's essay in The Assassinations, yes that is the case.

The actual chart in which he names the witnesses and maps out their observations, that is in Murder in Dealey Plaza. p. 199.

DVP knows all this and has for years.  I have never been able to understand why, because he has no life, we have to be his caretakers.  I am not trained in that field.


Thanks Jim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The actual chart in which he names the witnesses and maps out their observations, that is in Murder in Dealey Plaza. p. 199.

 

And as noted on p. 198, the HSCA report flat-out lied by saying that Bethesda witnesses did not agree with the Parkland witnesses about the wound in back of the head. The interviews of Bethesda witnesses agreeing with those at Parkland were suppressed by the HSCA, but released by the ARRB.

The former HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey said he had no idea who wrote the inaccurate part of the HSCA report.

But so what? To lone nutters there is nothing to see here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

And as noted on p. 198, the HSCA report flat-out lied by saying that Bethesda witnesses did not agree with the Parkland witnesses about the wound in back of the head. The interviews of Bethesda witnesses agreeing with those at Parkland were suppressed by the HSCA, but released by the ARRB.

The former HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey said he had no idea who wrote the inaccurate part of the HSCA report.

But so what? To lone nutters there is nothing to see here.



I  just checked it out and this is very good... very good evidence for the BOH blowout wound. And proof that the HSCA lied.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According Dr. Aguilar, the HSCA stated in their report that numerous (I forgot the number, but greater than 20) Bethesda witnesses agreed with the location of the gaping head wound as stated by the autopsy. Dr. Aguilar says this is not true, and he shows that most the Bethesda witnesses agree with the Parkland witnesses. He has the Bethesda witness accounts documented and sourced.

However, I can't find in the HSCA documents where they say that the Bethesda witnesses largely agree with the autopsy. I've  looked in a number of document including HSCA Volume 7 and haven't been able to find it. (Naturally I could have missed it.) Does anybody know where this might be, or have any tips on where I could find it?

I want to quote it on the website I'm planning to build.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...