David Von Pein

A severe overstatement by Jim. Way to go, Jimmy Boy! You think TWENTY different people said they saw a huge BOH blow-out at BETHESDA too? Hardly.

Well, the "real" hole was more on the right SIDE of the President's head, not the "top". (But I agree that the "top" of the head was, indeed, affected by the bullet, and some of the "top" part of the head was missing.) But I think the main reason that nobody (that I'm aware of) saw TWO "wounds" (the "real" one at the right-front and the one that was mistakenly perceived to be a "wound" in the right-rear/occipital) is due to the work of Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy on the ride to the hospital. We know from her testimony that she was "trying to hold his head on". So she very likely put the loose flap of scalp back into place as best she could before they arrived at Parkland, thereby concealing it effectively from view. Ergo, nobody said they saw TWO wounds at all. (IMHO.) 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. Dr. McClelland's observations are particularly bizarre (and virtually impossible), as I discuss here.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/head-wounds.html It should have been on your "list" of options for years.....particularly since the head man of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel totally endorses it.... "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]." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History"

And I think I've made a pretty good argument [below] to show that nobody "blacked out" anything in the Z-Film.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

Essentially, you laid out the options I mentioned --- either the Parkland people are correct, or the photos are correct. But, yes, I DO think there's a third option beyond just the two carefully-worded options you are giving us in your post. And that's another thing that makes your "proof" so bogus. YOU'VE decided, on your own, how many options to give us and exactly what those options are going to be. But, IMO, the way you've worded it shows your own bias. Because the Parkland people don't necessarily have to be "mass hallucinating". They were ALL WRONG, yes, when they THOUGHT there was a big HOLE in the back of Kennedy's head. But they didn't "hallucinate" anything. They saw something that FOOLED them into THINKING there was a wound back there, IMO. So, yes, there's a third option.... 3.) The 20 Parkland professionals saw a large amount of blood and gore at the right-rear of President Kennedy's head, and those witnesses were honestly mistaken when they reported that there was a large "wound" in that area of the President's head.

But it's not JUST the authentication of the autopsy photographs and X-rays by the HSCA, Jimmy Boy (which is nice for LNers to have, granted), but there's also the other "photographic" piece of evidence (i.e., "virtual proof") that exists in this case which practically proves, all by itself, that the conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they keep insisting that JFK had a huge hole in his occipital----the Zapruder Film. So, is that film a fake and a fraud too, Jim? In your plethora of appearances since 2006 on Len Osanic's All Conspiracy Radio Network, Inc., I've noticed that you've been hesitant to come right out and admit that you think the Z-Film is phony. Around the edges of your comments, you've hinted at possible Z-Film fakery, but, unlike your CT-loving colleagues, you've stayed away from totally endorsing such a silly notion. Maybe you'd like to now go on the record and state your unequivocal opinion regarding the topic of "Zapruder Film Fakery/Forgery". Eh, Jim? Because if the Z-Film isn't a big fat lie (at least as far as this "BOH" discussion is concerned), then how can you possibly still maintain that President Kennedy had a big hole in the back part of his skull after he was shot in the head? The Z-Film shows no such back-of-the-head blow-out. "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.] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"

Francois is right. You didn't PROVE anything. You merely laid out the two basic options---either the 20 Parkland "BOH" witnesses are right or the autopsy photos/X-rays are right---and you then declared the Parkland witnesses to be the victors. How does that type of judgement actually "prove" that YOU are correct? I have a different opinion. So does Francois. And I will maintain that THIS PAGE of HSCA Volume 7 provides much more of an authoritative and solid foundation for "proving" the Lone Assassin side of this debate than does your "proof" (which, as mentioned, isn't really PROOF at all ---- it's merely your OPINION). But the LN side of this debate has the professional "opinion" of 20 experts in the field of photography, and those 20 people said the autopsy photos and X-rays had "not been altered in any manner". You, Sandy, don't like (or agree with) that conclusion by those 20 photo experts. So, I guess you're going to have to call all 20 of those people "wrong" or "liars". Which term have you chosen to use?

And yet Connally said all this pro-WC stuff on November 23, 1966 (at 6:03 and 7:16). Go figure.... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOak9yQlQ2MWliMGs/view The best part of the above 1966 press conference is when John Connally called Mark Lane a "journalistic scavenger". Hear, hear! DiEugenio and others will no doubt say that Connally (much like Robert Kennedy) was in the habit of saying one thing to the "MSM", but behind closed doors, Connally was saying something entirely different. But after listening to interviews and news conferences with John Connally (like the one above), I begin to wonder about the claims coming from CTers, such as DiEugenio's claim above----"Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds". Is there any audio or video of Connally actually saying anything like that at all? If such audio or video exists, I've certainly never heard or seen it.

I agree.

I've never seen any Kennedy motorcade which featured up to 8 cycles surrounding the limousine either. It was almost always exactly 4 --- two on the right side of the car and two on the left. Four seemed to be the usual number anyway. And that's precisely the number we find in Dallas.

You actually believe that the DPD was originally planning on having 18 motorcycles enveloping (or "surrounding") the President's limousine in Dallas?? Come now. There was no such plan. There were the lead cycles (forming the usual "wedge", which was way out in front of the lead cars), and the usual 4 cycles flanking JFK's car to the left and right----which is just exactly the number of cycles (4) that were used in most other pre-11/22 Kennedy motorcades, as can be seen in several photos on this webpage.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html I have never seen any photos of any JFK parade that featured up to 18 motorcycles surrounding his car like a cocoon. That's ridiculous. And take a look at the picture below of a pre-Nov. 22 parade, which features ZERO motorcycles flanking Kennedy's car. Not a moving cycle in sight. Lots of policemen facing the crowds, but no motorcycles flanking the limo. Do you suppose there was a massive "standdown" of security for this JFK motorcade too?....

And the vicious circle continues. And 'round and 'round we go! You say po-ta-toe... And "The Government" perfectly faked the Zapruder Film too (and within about an hour of the shooting too, before the three extra copies were made), eh Ron? Is "fakery" the reason for the Z-Film fully supporting the autopsy photos and the "No Wound At All In The Back Of The Head" scenario? If you conspiracy guys cram any more "fake" stuff into your theories, pretty soon we're going to have a JFK murder case that is composed of nothing BUT "fake" evidence. (Oh, wait! We already do have that, don't we? Just ask Education Forum members David Josephs and Jon G. Tidd....) "Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC." -- David Josephs "I believe the whole of the official record is a fake. Why? If you're going to kill the President of the United States and try to cover it up, you're in a position and willing to fake whatever's necessary." -- Jon G. Tidd

"BOH" Addendum.... There's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman.... ------

It's my opinion that those people who said they saw a big hole in the back of JFK's head most definitely did not actually see what they claimed to see (i.e., a large blow-out in the back of Kennedy's skull). And, as I've stated numerous times on this forum (and others), the reasons I'm certain those "BOH" witnesses must be mistaken are TRIPLE-fold --- the autopsy photos, X-rays, and the Zapruder Film (plus the autopsy report itself and the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons). It really comes down to who (or what) you choose to believe ---- the autopsy photographs & Z-Film .... or .... the many "BOH" witnesses. I don't think there's any way to believe BOTH of those sets of things. Pat Speer might disagree, but after viewing the three pieces of photographic evidence again shown below, and after reviewing all of the statements made by the various Parkland/Bethesda "Back Of Head Wound" witnesses (many of which have been listed by Sandy above), I can't see any way to believe BOTH sets of things/people I mentioned above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/There-Is-No-Large-BOH-Wound http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim's reference above to President Donald J. Trump gives me a good excuse to post this video that I found a few weeks ago lurking on YouTube. It's Off-Topic, yes, but it's worth it because it's so darn hilarious....

Nice! If you've got a Blogger.com account, you can upload unlimited photos (and post the links here).

As far as Cliff is concerned, everything revolves around the clothing of JFK. Nothing else matters to Cliff. He's truly a one-trick Weaponizer.

You think the boy in that picture is JFK's son?! WTF???

The "Bunching Up" Of JFK's Clothing (aka: DVP Vs. "The Weaponizer")..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

No. If the word is plural---liars----it shows up fine. It's only xxxx'ed out if the word is used in its singular form----xxxx. Very odd. And oh so silly.

Except that in the interview with Lane, Bowers added a comment about possibly seeing "a flash of light" or "smoke" near the Knoll. He never said anything about "flashes of light" or "smoke" in his WC testimony. (I just looked.) So that makes me wonder what influence Mr. Lane had on Mr. Bowers prior to that 1966 interview.

Here is Bowers after Mark Lane got ahold of him.... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_YygHvgJjo6OUF4Zm9oUHAwX0k/view

Who do you think you're kidding, Jim? Of course you think the letter is a fake and a fraud. You have no choice BUT to believe it's a fake letter. Why? Because you have said repeatedly in the past that you do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald ever visited the Cuban and Russian embassies/consulates in Mexico City in September of 1963. And since the bulk of Oswald's letter in CE15 deals with Oswald admitting the fact that he did, indeed, go to both of those locations in Mexico City, then how could you possibly NOT think that that letter was totally phony? Or maybe you've changed your mind and you now want to admit that Oswald did, indeed, visit the Cuban and Russian embassies in '63. Is that what you want to do now, James? If not, then you have no choice but to believe that the letter we find with Oswald's signature on it in Commission Exhibit No. 15 is a totally fake document. So why pretend you believe otherwise?

Here's my archived version of it on my website.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-129.html

I'll bring this up again..... What's the "line" that we see on the upper-left back of the motorcycle policeman in the same picture (which is a line that's angled in the same direction as the "antenna" line)?

And you officially became a forensic pathologist in what year, David J.? I missed that info when studying your profile.