David Von Pein

Mainly because the BEST EVIDENCE---the authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays (in conjunction with the Zapruder Film and JFK's autopsy report)---PROVES for all time that there was no large BOH wound. Period. Mark VII. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

You think that your claim that has the autopsy pictures being fakes is a "reasonable explanation"? I beg to differ. Such a conclusion is not "reasonable" at all. Far from it. It's nothing but utter desperation. And, furthermore, such a conclusion has been proven to be incorrect. Just check out 7 HSCA 41 yet again. (But you think all 20 experts on that Photo Panel lied their eyes out, don't you? Which is yet another unreasonable conclusion to reach, of course.) And that's what we're left with most of the time with JFK conspiracy theorists ---- a series of unreasonable explanations and wholly unsupportable conclusions.

Before this ridiculous thread gets closed by the moderators, allow me to once again inject some SBT common sense into the proceedings..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Ultimate In SBT Denial By Conspiracy Theorists

Who's the fifth "nutter"?

Cliff is hilarious. He thinks the SBT is "destroyed" by merely looking at the testimony of Miss Willis and Nellie Connally. Give me strength to continue.

Paul Baker is going to be heartbroken! He didn't have the honor of being called a "single bullet fraud" by The Weaponizer. (Although, for some reason, Varnell seems to think Paul has posted in this thread.)

Same here. But if some Government agency wants to start paying me for stuff I've been saying online for years for free----hey, I'm all for that! Sign me up now!

For the record.... Dr. Michael Baden made that statement [repeated below] on January 8, 2000, in a telephone conversation he had with Vincent T. Bugliosi. That was 21 years after the HSCA closed up shop. In all of those 21 years, you don't think Baden had seen (or been made aware of, at least) the last paragraph printed on this 37th page of HSCA Volume 7? Well, I guess you could be right, Sandy. But I'm a tad dubious.

But, Sandy, remember that it's not just ONE photo that had to have been faked----it's many photos. Plus several X-rays. Plus the Zapruder Film. (Do you think the Z-Film is a fake too? Because it certainly doesn't show a big BOH blowout.) As for the autopsy photos that would have to be faked if JFK really had a huge hole in the back of his head.... In addition to the more-widely-published color BOH picture, there's also at least one black-and-white picture that shows the equivalent of the color version. Is this photo faked too, Sandy? And I can see individual strands of JFK's hair in the RIGHT-REAR of his head, so the idea endorsed by many CTers that the right-rear was "blacked out" on this photo is not a valid or reasonable argument at all, because as anyone can easily see---it hasn't been "blacked out" at all....

And yet that very same House Select Committee went ahead and concluded there was probably a conspiracy anyway, eh? And they concluded that Ruby probably had some help entering the DPD basement too. Some "cover-up" that was. It's just another example of how the conspiracy theorists of the world make very little (common) sense.

But we can now get a few members of David Lifton's fan club to chime in here with their theory about how JFK's body was surgically altered before the official autopsy began. (If there are any Lifton fans still left at this forum; I'm not sure there are.) Which brings up another fascinating question for those people who might still be in the Lifton "Body Altering" camp.... If JFK's body was altered via "surgery of the head area" before the body ever got to Bethesda ---- then how could any of the witnesses at Bethesda have seen any large wound in the BACK of Kennedy's head? I thought that was the main reason for such covert surgery---to rearrange all the wounds so that the "real" BOH wound would be totally hidden from view at the "second" autopsy. Right? So why do we have any Bethesda "BOH" witnesses at all? Makes no sense (if you believe in Mr. Lifton's fairy tale, that is).

Here are some of my thoughts on the "BOH" matter that I've archived over the last few years at my website (blog).... https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1092.html https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-550.html Many more.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

It's in HSCA Volume 7, Page 37 (linked below).... https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm But even Vince Bugliosi agreed that the HSCA's conclusion about the Bethesda witnesses is "so incorrect it can only be categorized as strange".... "In an assertion by the HSCA forensic pathology panel that is so incorrect it can only be categorized as strange, someone (no one, thus far, has admitted authorship) wrote, "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the [autopsy] photographs; none had differing accounts" (7 HSCA 37). However, though they clearly were wrong, several autopsy witnesses thought the exit wound was to the right rear or rear of the president's head." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 408-409 of "Reclaiming History" (Footnote) (Emphasis on the word "All" is Bugliosi's own emphasis.)

Maybe you'd better listen to this again, Jim. Here's my YouTube version of it....

The CE903 photo taken in the Dallas garage is adjusted to account for the 3.15-degree downward slope of Elm Street, making the angle through JFK's body equal to 17.72 degrees downward (as opposed to just over 20 degrees if the car had been photographed out on Elm Street). And Gerald Ford's "move" wasn't really a physical "move" of the wound at all. It was merely semantics. It was Ford realizing that the original language couldn't possibly be accurate --- "entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder". Ford knew that if the bullet had really entered ABOVE the shoulder, it must have entered the "neck", not the "back". Hence the change. And it made things worse, because, as we can see via the autopsy photo, the bullet did not enter the "neck". It entered the "back" (pretty much right AT the level of the shoulders). Hence, the CTers have now been given a perfect reason to shout "Cover-up" at the top of their lungs as they get to accuse Gerald Ford of playing fast and loose with the evidence, when all he really was doing was trying to make things more accurate. But since Ford never saw the actual back-wound photo, he was really just guessing. The real "culprit" is whoever wrote that first draft of the wound location. That person had it wrong and Ford was merely trying to correct it.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

The Murder Of Lee Harvey Oswald (KRLD-TV Raw Footage) (29 Minutes).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/15fRgLHN9YB8mflAPQc-ehMyrOCoBuKJ6/view

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.

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] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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. ------

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

Are you saying that the 8-minute press conference video I posted also should have contained Connally saying something about "needing closure"? Did Joseph McBride cite the 11/23/66 Connally News Conference as his source for that "closure" comment? If not, do you have a video or audio clip of Connally saying that? Or is it just a text quote coming from a CTer? Just curious. Big deal. IMO, he almost certainly got most of his SBT criticism from his wife, Nellie, who never believed the SBT either. But, as I have been saying for many years, John Connally is (literally) the VERY LAST PERSON in the world who can say FOR SURE whether he and JFK were struck by the same bullet ---- and that's because: John Connally, as he himself has said, did not see JFK at any time after the shooting started. I truly think that I could have convinced John Connally of the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory in about 2 minutes if I could have shown him my webpage linked below. After viewing those Z-Film clips, Mr. Connally would have had no choice but to say to me ---- "I was wrong. I can see now that I was reacting to the shot that hit me as early as Z225. Thanks for the clips, DVP." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

Explain how anyone could "look down into" a big hole in the occipital if JFK was lying FACE UP the whole time? Did those 20 Parkland professionals have X-ray vision or something? ~big shrug~