Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

[David Von Pein]

39 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about EOP wound? All ten autopsy attendants who reported a small wound on the back of the head specified that it was in the lower head area. Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Stringer, Kellerman, Boyers, Lipsey, O'Neill, Robinson.

Which, when you think about it, is kind of odd. Because that precise area of JFK's head where the bullet supposedly entered --- the "occipital" area --- was ALSO allegedly the very same area (or pretty close to being the same area) that was allegedly BLASTED OUT of JFK's head, according to dozens of other witnesses.

So, which was it --- was it completely BLOWN OUT? Or was there just a small entry wound in that part of his head? Or both? Did the alleged entry hole just miss merging with the huge blown-out area of the occipital?

In any event, it doesn't really matter which of the above three options a conspiracist picks, because all three are debunked by the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays, which show no huge BOH blow-out and a small entry wound near the cowlick (not the EOP).

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

49 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about calling McClelland a "nut" not too long ago?

Can you cite the post, Micah?

I'm not sure I ever called Dr. Robert McClelland HIMSELF a "nut". But you might have a point, because I have, indeed, said that McClelland's explanation of one of the photos --- "A doctor is holding a flap of scalp" --- is "nuts" (article below). And it is. And McClelland's "The Mob Did It" theories are "nuts" too.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Which, when you think about it, is kind of odd. Because that precise area of JFK's head where the bullet supposedly entered --- the "occipital" area --- was ALSO allegedly the very same area (or pretty close to being the same area) that was allegedly BLASTED OUT of JFK's head, according to dozens of other witnesses.

So, which was it --- was it completely BLOWN OUT? Or was there just a small entry wound in that part of his head? Or both? Did the alleged entry hole just miss merging with the huge blown-out area of the occipital?

In any event, it doesn't really matter which of the above three options a conspiracist picks, because all three are debunked by the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays, which show no huge BOH blow-out and a small entry wound near the cowlick (not the EOP).

EOP wound stuff doesn't require film alteration. There is nothing in the x-rays or photographs specifically showing no small hole low in the scalp or skull. And several issues with the photographs taken of the skull could possibly lead to proof of the EOP wound. Information from the night of the autopsy corroborates the EOP wound. Even the autopsy report specifically says "occipital", and you are telling me it was in the right parietal bone.

 

[Micah Mileto]

38 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Can you cite the post, Micah?

I'm not sure I ever called Dr. Robert McClelland HIMSELF a "nut". But you might have a point, because I have, indeed, said that McClelland's explanation of one of the photos --- "A doctor is holding a flap of scalp" --- is "nuts" (article below). And it is. And McClelland's "The Mob Did It" theories are "nuts" too.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

"The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. .... And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- David Von Pein; November 2013

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25044-a-question-to-david-lifton/?do=findComment&comment=388086

[David Von Pein]

54 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

and you are telling me it was in the right parietal bone.

You don't need me to tell you anything. The photos and X-rays tell the tale. And there is no large wound in the occipital. Period....

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

"The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. .... And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- David Von Pein; November 2013

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25044-a-question-to-david-lifton/?do=findComment&comment=388086

Thanks for the citation, Micah.

Should we now debate whether my opinion about Dr. McClelland having what I think are "kooky" and "nutty" ideas is the same thing as calling him a "crackpot" with respect to only the topic of where McClelland said he saw a big hole in the President's head on Nov. 22, which is what I was accused of doing by Mr. Hammond---calling all of the "BOH" witnesses "crackpots"?

When I answered Jake on Page 7, I had, however, forgetten about my comments regarding Dr. McClelland. So I'd say that Micah Mileto scored three-quarters of one point by pointing out my "kooky" remarks in relation to Dr. McClelland. Thank you.

And thanks also for reprising the portion of Dr. McClelland's remarks concerning the size of the tracheotomy wound in JFK's throat. CTers should be reminded of that important quote on a regular basis. If they see it often enough, they themselves might be tempted to utilize the "K" or "N" words when it comes to Dr. McC.

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

52 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You don't need me to say anything. The photos and X-rays tell the tale. And there is no large wound in the occipital. Period....

The autopsy face sheet diagram marked during the body examination shows a dot indicating the small head wound in the back of the head, no higher than the level of the ears (https://i.imgur.com/Rqgkmvi.jpg).

The arrow is clearly pointing UPWARDS, indicating a proposed upwards trajectory.

A summarized autopsy "conclusion" by FBI agent autopsy witnesses James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill in a 2 AM 11/23/1963 teletype, freshly written after departing the autopsy around 11:00 PM - 1:00 AM and driving to the FBI lab from Bethesda Naval Hospital, reads:

TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL. PIECE OF SKULL MEASURING TEN BY SIX POINT FIVE CENTIMETERS LATER FLOWN IN FROM DALLAS HOSPITAL AND XRAYS BETHESDA DISCLOSED MINUTE METAL FRAGMENTS IN THIS PIECE WHERE BULLET EMERGED FROM SKULL.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

From 11/26/1963 Sibert and O'Neill FBI report (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md44.pdf)

... a second high velocity bullet had entered the rear of the skull and had fragmentized prior to exit through the top of the skull.

Even the autopsy report, with it's "above and behind" line, has a sentence describing the small head wound as being in the "occiput" while the large head wound as being in the "vertex" (which is supposed to have a beveled exit on part the skull bone):

Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=584&rel=#relPageId=4&tab=page

By definition, the occiput is lower than the vertex.

On the same page, the official autopsy report reads:

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull.

The 12/6/1963 autopsy supplemental report (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=585#relPageId=2&tab=page)":

SKIN WOUNDS: Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

34 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks for the citation, Micah.

Should we now debate whether my opinion about Dr. McClelland having what I think are "kooky" and "nutty" ideas is the same thing as calling him a "crackpot" with respect to only the topic of where McClelland said he saw a big hole in the President's head on Nov. 22, which is what I was accused of doing by Mr. Hammond---calling all of the "BOH" witnesses "crackpots"?

When I answered Jake on Page 7, I had, however, forgetten about my comments regarding Dr. McClelland. So I'd say that Micah Mileto scored three-quarters of one point by pointing out my "kooky" remarks in relation to Dr. McClelland. Thank you.

And thanks also for reprising the portion of Dr. McClelland's remarks concerning the size of the tracheotomy wound in JFK's throat. CTers should be reminded of that important quote on a regular basis. If they see it often enough, they themselves might be tempted to utilize the "K" or "N" words when it comes to Dr. McC.

Not saying I'm arguing frontal shots, but why do you think McClelland had a report saying there was an entrance wound in the left temple? And then why does McClelland's Warren Commission testimony include Specter showing him this report and him reaffirming it's accuracy?

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

The arrow is clearly pointing UPWARDS, indicating a proposed upwards trajectory.

How do you know that's what Boswell meant by that arrow he drew on the Face Sheet? I think it's much more likely that the arrow indicates the "slanting" nature of the wound. It doesn't have to mean anything about "trajectory".

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

8 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Not saying I'm arguing frontal shots, but why do you think McClelland had a report saying there was an entrance wound in the left temple?

That's fully explained by Dr. McClelland in the 2009 interview below. (Go to 14:20.) McClelland got the erroneous "left temple" information from Dr. Marion Jenkins. McClelland has since fully retracted his belief that there was any wound in the left temple, including a retraction for that belief in this 2009 interview....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOODhkYTRkOFdNUlU/view

 

[Micah Mileto]

19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

How do you know that's what Boswell meant by that arrow? I think it's much more likely that the arrow indicates the "slanting" nature of the wound. It doesn't have to mean anything about "trajectory".

 

From Humes/Boswell HSCA 9/16/1977 interview:

Dr. PETTY. Dr. Boswell, this is the diagram that I was referring to a moment ago where the point of
K. KLEIN. Could you identify in some way what it is?
Dr. PETTY. The face sheet of Dr. Humes' protocol.
K. KLEIN. OK.
Dr. PETTY. Which shows an inshoot wound on the back of the head and the arrow pointing upward and to the left--that just meant up.
Dr. BOSWELL. That just meant up. It wasn't intended to indicate direction or anything.

 

[...]

Dr. BADEN. Dr. Boswell, I think you may have covered this once before relative to the diagram that you made, The notation of the diagram on the front sheet shows an arrow going toward the left by the perforation near the external occipital protuberance. What does the arrow to the left mean?
Dr. BOSWELL. I think it was only meant to indicate "upward," not laterality at all.
Dr. BADEN. Not that it went to the left?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes, right.
Dr. BADEN. Thank you.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../jfkinfo/hscv7f.htm

From Boswell's 2/26/1996 arrb deposition:

Q. I'd like you to note on the right diagram; on the head there appears to be a circle with an arrow pointing up and to the left. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you the person who made that mark?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what that mark signifies?

A. Well, at this late date, I have to assume. I remember that there is a--in the scalp there was a tunneling of the wound through the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel went.

Q. Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and the point where the bullet entered into the skull?

A. Yes.

Q. About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in the scalp to where the bullet entered the skull?

A. I would assume that that's 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across, and that the tunnel itself was a centimeter-and-a-half.

Q. So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an inch?

A. Less than an inch. About three-quarters.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

Edited December 27, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

28 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

That's fully explained by Dr. McClelland in the 2009 interview below. (Go to 14:20.) McClelland got the erroneous "left temple" information from Dr. Marion Jenkins. McClelland has since fully retracted his belief that there was any wound in the left temple, including a retraction for that belief in this 2009 interview....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOODhkYTRkOFdNUlU/view

 

3/25/1964 Dr. Marion T. Jenkins Warren Commission testimony ( http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/jenkins.htm)

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds immediately below the massive loss of skull which you have described?
Dr. JENKINS - On the right side?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes, sir.
Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.
Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.
Dr. JENKINS - Well, I was feeling for---I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.
Mr. SPECTER - At approximately what time was President Kennedy pronounced dead?
Dr. JENKINS - Well, this was pronounced, we know the exact time as 1300, according to my watch, at least, at the time.
Mr. SPECTER - And what, in your opinion, was the cause of death?
Dr. JENKINS - Cerebral injury--brain injury.

[...]

Mr. SPECTER - One of the comments we were just discussing off the record---I would like to put on the record, Dr. Jenkins, is the question as to whether or not the wound in the neck would have been fatal in your opinion, absent the head wound. What would your view of that be?
Dr. JENKINS - Well, from my knowledge of the wound in the neck, this would not have been fatal, except for one thing, and that is--you have not told me whether the wound with its point of entrance and point of exit had contacted the vertebral column in its course?
Mr. SPECTER - It did not.
Dr. JENKINS - In that case I would not expect this wound to have been fatal.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your view, Dr. Jenkins, as to whether the wounds which you observed were caused by one or two bullets?
Dr. JENKINS - I felt quite sure at the time that there must have been two bullets--two missiles.
Mr. SPECTER - And, Dr. Jenkins, what was your reason for that?
Dr. JENKINS - Because the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit, and the appearance of the wound in the neck, and I also thought it was a wound of exit.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever changed any of your original opinions in connection with the wounds received by President Kennedy?
Dr. JENKINS - I guess so. The first day I had thought because of his pneumothorax, that his wound must have gone--that the one bullet must have traversed his pleura, must have gotten into his lung cavity, his chest cavity, I mean, and from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did.
Mr. SPECTER - Aside from that opinion, now, have any of your other opinions about the nature of his wounds or the sources of the wounds been changed in any way?
Dr. JENKINS - No; one other. I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating).
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating the left temporal area?
Dr. JENKINS - Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating), but you have answered that for me. This was my only other question about it.
Mr. SPECTER - So, that those two points are the only ones on which your opinions have been changed since the views you originally formulated?
Dr. JENKINS - Yes, I think so.
Mr. SPECTER - On the President's injuries?
Dr. JENKINS - Yes, I think so.
Mr. SPECTER - Is the conversation you had with that Secret Service Agent the only time you were interviewed by anyone from the Federal Government prior to today about this subject?
Dr. JENKINS - As far as I remember--I don't believe so.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, you say that was the only time you were interviewed?
Dr. JENKINS - Yes, as far as I remember--I have had no formal interviews. I have been asked--there have been some people calling on the phone. As you know, there were many calls from various sources all over the country after that, wanting to know whether we had done this method of treatment or some other method and what principles we followed.
Mr. SPECTER - But the only one you can identify as being from the Federal Government is the one you have already related from the Secret Service?
Dr. JENKINS - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And did you and I have a very brief conversation before the deposition started today, when you gave me some of your views which you expounded and expanded upon during the course of the deposition on the record?
Dr. JENKINS - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And is there anything which you think of to add that you believe would be of some assistance or any assistance to the President's Commission in its inquiry?
Dr. JENKINS - I believe not, Mr. Specter.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for the Boswell testimony, Micah. (I hadn't memorized it, obviously.)

But since JFK's head was tilted quite a bit FORWARD at the moment of the head shot [see Z-Film clip below], I think it would be quite possible for there to have been an UPWARD trajectory when the angle is calculated while JFK was in the "autopsy position" (i.e., erect).

Anyway, what point are you trying to make, Micah? Are you saying you think somebody shot JFK in the back of the head while shooting from about street level (or even lower), creating the "upward" trajectory? That situation couldn't have happened, of course. So I'm not really sure where you can go with the "upward" arrow on the Face Sheet. And after reading Dr. Boswell's testimonies that you supplied above, I'm not too sure Boswell even knew for sure what the arrow was supposed to indicate. His remarks during his HSCA interview are particularly unclear....

Dr. BOSWELL -- "That just meant up. It wasn't intended to indicate direction or anything."

What the heck is that supposed to mean? I have no idea what he's talking about there. Do you?

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

23 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

 

Also, the Rydberg drawings finalized the pathologists' official opinion that a bullet had coarsed anatomically upwards through the head.

CE 388: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_388.pdf

This was despite Arlen Specter's 4/30/1964 memo to J. Lee Rankin saying "The Commission should determine with certainty whether the shots came from above" (HSCA H 6 p. 92 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83#relPageId=98&tab=page).

Here is Humes trying to remain honest on this point in his Warren Commission testimony without specifying that the area of exit had to be confined to the right parietal bone.

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Humes, can you compare the angles of declination on 385, point "C" to "D", with 388 "A" to "B"?
Commander HUMES - You will note, and again I must apologize for the schematic nature of these diagrams drawn to a certain extent from memory and to a certain extent from the written record, it would appear that the angle of declination is somewhat sharper in the head wound, 388, than it is in 385.
The reason for this, we feel, by the pattern of the entrance wound at 388 "A" causes us to feel that the President's head was bent forward, and we feel this accounts for the difference in the angle, plus undoubtedly the wounds were not received absolutely simultaneously, so that the vehicle in which the President was traveling moved during this period of time, which would account for a difference in the line of flight, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Aside from the slight differences which are notable by observing those two exhibits, are they roughly comparable to the angle of decline?
Commander HUMES - I believe them to be roughly comparable, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you state for the record an approximation of the angle of decline?
Commander HUMES - Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate somewhat, Doctor Humes, on why the angle would change by virtue of a tilting of the head of the President since the basis of the computation of angle is with respect to the ground?
Commander HUMES - I find the question a little difficult of answering right off, forgive me, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - I will try to rephrase it. Stated more simply, why would the tilting of the President's head affect the angle of the decline? You stated that was--
Commander HUMES - The angle that I am making an observation most about is the angle made that we envisioned having been made by the impingement of the bullet in its flight at the point of entry. This angle we see by the difference of the measurement of the two wounds.
Therefore, this is--we have several angles we are talking about here, unfortunately, this is-the angle of which we speak in this location, "A" to "B", and it is difficult.
I have to retract. Since we feel from their physical configurations, wounds 385 "C" and 388 "A" are entrance wounds, if there wasn't some significant change in the angulation of the President's head with respect to the line of flight from these missiles, the physical measurements of 385 "C" and this 388 "A" should be similar. They aren't, in fact, dissimilar in that there is a greater angulation in 388 "A". Therefore, there has to be either a change in the position of the vehicle in which the President is riding with respect to the horizontal or a change in the situation of the President's head. I believe that the exhibits submitted earlier, the photograph.--
Mr. SPECTER - I believe the ones were given to you so far. excuse me, you are right, 389.
Commander HUMES - 389, in fact at this point shows the President's head in a slightly inclined forward position, and I am not enough aware of the geography of the ground over which the vehicle was traveling to know how much that would affect it.
Mr. SPECTER - If you were to be told that there was a distance traversed of approximately 150 feet from the time of Point "C" on 385 to Point "A" on 388, and you would assume the additional factor that there was a slight angle of decline on the street as well, would those factors, assuming their to be true, help in the explanation of the differences in the angles?
Commander HUMES - I think that they would make the figure as depicted in 388 quite understandably different from 385.
Mr. DULLES - Was it possible, in view of the condition of the brain to point with absolute accuracy to the point of exit there? I can see that the point of exit in 385 can be clearly determined. Is it equally possible to determine the point of exit in 388?
Commander HUMES - No, sir; it was not, other than through this large defect because when--
Mr. DULLES - Therefore, that angle might be somewhat different.
Commander HUMES - Might be somewhat different, sir. I think we made reference to that somewhat earlier. The fragments were so difficult to replace in their precise anatomic location--
Mr. DULLES - That is what I thought, but I wasn't sure.
Commander HUMES - That is correct.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Desperation.

[Micah Mileto]

28 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks for the Boswell testimony, Micah. (I hadn't memorized it, obviously.)

But since JFK's head was tilted quite a bit FORWARD at the moment of the head shot, I think it would be quite possible for there to have been an UPWARD trajectory when the angled is calculated when JFK was in the "autopsy position" (i.e., erect).

Anyway, what point are you trying to make, Micah? Are you saying you think somebody shot JFK in the back of the head while shooting from about street level (or even lower), creating the "upward" trajectory? That situation couldn't have happened, of course. So I'm not really sure where you can go with the "upward" arrow on the Face Sheet. And after rwading Dr. Boswell's testimonies that you supplied above, I'm not too sure Boswell even knew for sure what that upward arrow was supposed to indicate. His HSCA testimony is particularly unclear....

Dr. BOSWELL -- "That just meant up. It wasn't intended to indicate direction or anything."

What the heck is that supposed to mean? I have no idea what he's talking about there. Do you?

 

Since the brain was never sectioned, the autopsy pathologist's opinion of an upwards head trajectory only remains a testament to locations of the wounds in the scalp and skull. The locations of the small wound in the scalp and skull is the main point here, not hypothetical bullet paths. Maybe the EOP wound and large head wound were created by different projectiles.

https://i.imgur.com/tpfhS7S.jpg

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Micah Mileto