David Von Pein

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~

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?