David Von Pein

Bill Kelly, Do think JFK's head is physically moving forward a little bit between Z312 and 313 here? Or do you think this movement is merely an illusion? ....

No. Now, answer a question of mine, Jimbo: Do you think ITEK Corp. lied in 1975 when they concluded that there was 2.3 inches of measurable movement forward of JFK's head between frames 312 and 313 of Mr. Zapruder's home movie?

IMO, that is a ridiculous argument, and for this reason: Frame 312, which is just an instant before the bullet hits JFK in the head, is probably the clearest frame in Mr. Zapruder's whole film (it's certainly one of the very clearest and non-blurred frames in the whole 26-second home movie, at any rate). So, to believe that the forward head movement between Z312 and Z313 is caused by the film being "blurred" or "smudged" (smudged? WTF?), we'd have to believe that this blurring occurred immediately after one of the very clearest of all frames in the entire Zapruder film had just been exposed through Mr. Z's camera. Now, I'm no photography expert, and I suppose such blurring is possible under the right circumstances, but I think a key to knowing that the "blurring" theory at Z313 is not valid is by looking at Z312, which is a beautiful frame, with no blurring whatsoever. It would seem to me, therefore, that BOTH Z312 and Z313 would need to contain some degree of substantial blurring in order for any such theory to be plausible concerning the forward head movement being caused by merely blurring of the film frames. Also: What do you suppose the odds are of such a theory being accurate? I.E., a separate "blurring" event occurs on the film at the exact instant when President Kennedy just happens to get struck in the head by a bullet and his head appears to be moving forward slightly. It appears to me that certain conspiracy theorists will do anything and propose virtually any alternate theory in order to deny the obvious fact that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the head by just one bullet--which was a bullet that came from behind.

HENRY RYBKA, DON LAWTON, AND SECRET SERVICE CONFUSION AT LOVE FIELD: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html

Bull. The Warren Commission and all the rest had the same data and the same witnesses you have had since you started your absurd body-alteration odyssey in 1966. They knew about the contradictory statements made by the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses (even the WC back in '64).* They just had a little more common sense than some authors had when it comes to alleging things that the WC, et al, knew were simply impossible occurrences from the get-go -- such as stealing the President's body and whisking it away to Walter Reed without a single non-conspirator noticing. That type of activity just could not have happened. Therefore, there IS another explanation to explain the contradictory witness statements. Your explanation is the most extraordinary (I think even you, yourself, DSL, will agree with that). While all other explanations are far less extraordinary. * = Just one example of the WC knowing about the contradictory witnesses is this WC testimony supplied by Dr. Robert McClellend: Dr. McCLELLAND -- "The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head." Haven't you ever asked yourself this one very pertinent question when assembling your body-altering theory, Mr. Lifton: Why on Earth would any conspirators have even WANTED to do things the way you think they did them on 11/22/63 -- i.e., having to steal the body of the victim so that they can rearrange the wounds? In other words, haven't you ever wondered WHY these goofy and overworked plotters didn't just SHOOT JFK FROM THE REAR TO BEGIN WITH, in order to avoid all the cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus that you say was required of them later in the day? If that basic, fundamental question about the plot to murder the President hasn't crossed your mind since 1966, I have to wonder why it hasn't.

Daniel, What makes you so sure the red-spot photo was taken at the onset of the autopsy? John Canal, among others, insist that picture was taken later on--after the brain was removed from JFK's head. (And please don't tell me you think there was no brain in JFK's head at all when he arrived at Bethesda at 8 PM.)

Well, Jim, since I think the ONE and ONLY wound of entry in President Kennedy's head was, indeed, in the cowlick area....then, yes, the doctors at Bethesda HAD NO CHOICE but to have seen the bullet hole in the cowlick area (regardless of their differing testimony which places that wound elsewhere on JFK's head). This opinion of mine really isn't all that surprising to you, is it James? In fact, this same opinion about the bullet hole being in the cowlick is not JUST my opinion--it's an opinion shared by many, many "LNers", including the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, the four members of the Clark Panel, plus Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, and many others. So why are you so shocked? In the final analysis (as the HSCA determined at 7 HSCA 41, which is a page of the HSCA volumes that you will continue to disregard until you breathe your last conspiracy-tinged breath), the red-spot photo isn't lying to us. The wound IS where that autopsy photo shows it to be -- in the cowlick. And that's where the beveled wound in the skull is located, too. And you cannot prove that photo is a fake. Nor can any other conspiracist. Period.

One of the biggest mistakes made by the autopsists, in addition to the silly mistake of not calling up Parkland while JFK was still on the autopsy table to ask somebody in Dallas if the trach covered a bullet hole, was when they decided not to measure the entry wound's "north/south" distance from the EOP. They put in a detailed lateral measurement (2.5 cm.), but then they decided to merely say "slightly above" when talking about the other measurement. Crazy. I'm also of the opinion that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were always hesitant to admit they made an (obvious) 4-inch error with respect to the location of the entry wound. Much like the four Parkland doctors were very hesitant to admit their errors in front of the PBS-TV cameras in 1988. And Dr. McClelland's theory about the President's scalp is just loony as all get out. I've also always wondered how McClelland, who was situated at the head of the ER table at Parkland, could have possibly been LOOKING STRAIGHT DOWN at JFK's face and yet still claim he was STARING DOWN into a great-big hole at the BACK of JFK's head. That's simply....impossible. More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html McClelland in 2009 (80-minute in-depth interview; very, very good too): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

I believe the autopsy picture. It's the best evidence for the location of the wound. Plus there's the fact that the HSCA's FPP [via the audio file linked below] said the cowlick wound lines up perfectly with the beveled entry wound in the skull (i.e., 100mm. above the EOP). http://www.box.net/shared/n4n1j7meua

Many people think the red-spot picture was taken late in the autopsy, after JFK's brain had been removed. I, for one, have no idea exactly when it was taken.

Funny, isn't it, Mr. Lifton, that the HSCA and the WC and the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel "ignored" the very same evidence that has led you down the "body alteration" path? Now, who should I go with -- the FOUR above-mentioned official Government panels who were assigned the task of looking at the JFK murder case (or various peripheral aspects of it at least)? Or should I go with David S. Lifton, a person who thinks that all the shots came from the FRONT of JFK in Dealey Plaza, and who also thinks the President's body was altered with lightning-like swiftness and efficiency, even though the stealing of JFK's body was literally impossible to do, given the timeframe and the witnesses surrounding the alleged "interception" of the body? Call me goofy -- but that's not really a very tough choice, DSL.

No, I can't explain it. But there would be no reason to falsify ANYTHING via your theory. A bullet entering at EOP level could exit higher than it entered. The bullet could easily have changed trajectory after striking the skull. In fact, I believe the bullet did change direction after entering JFK's head at the cowlick. If it hadn't, it would have likely exited JFK's face. But we know his face was intact. I don't know why most people think a bullet that strikes a human skull can't change direction after impact.

BOH Addendum: Daniel, You'd probably be interested in John Canal's theory about JFK's scalp being stretched in the red-spot photo. Canal thinks that the actual entry hole is much lower than it appears in that photo, but due to this "stretching" of the scalp, the picture gives the false impression that the entry wound was four inches higher than it really is. Canal totally ignores the fact that the HSCA's FPP determined that the red-spot photo lines up nearly perfectly with the hole in the skull of JFK, with both wounds measuring 100mm. above the EOP.

So, Daniel, you think that there was actually a NEED to fake the red-spot photo? Question: Why would there possibly be any need to fake the photo if the autopsy doctors were telling the truth in the autopsy report? Did a bunch of photo-fakers just want something to do after the autopsy? Also -- do you really think the HSCA photographic panel was wrong (or lying, as a unit) when they said this at 7 HSCA 41?: "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

No, it doesn't "follow" at all. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever. Where are you going with this, Daniel? You seem to be implying that the doctors did not tell any falsehoods regarding their mutual conclusion that JFK was only shot from behind, but yet you seem to want to believe that the "red spot" autopsy photo is a "fake". This makes no sense at all. If there was, in fact, a beveled entry wound in the back of the President's SKULL (which, of course, there was, as Dr. Humes fully explained to the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the ARRB, and to CBS News in 1967), then quite obviously there HAD to be a corresponding wound of entry in the scalp of JFK as well (whether or not the doctors initially noticed such a wound early in the autopsy or not). So, no, the red-spot autopsy photo is definitely not a fake, and your argument about that photo being a fake due to some late-arriving bones doesn't make a bit of logical sense either (for the reason I just mentioned above). Or would you now like to say that Humes, et al, lied about the beveled wound of entry in the SKULL of President Kennedy?

Of course it's the same wound, Jimbo. And that's because we KNOW (via ALL the autopsy doctors) that there was ONLY ONE wound of entry in JFK's head. Period. Therefore, even with some discrepancy (4 inches or so) as to the exact piece of real estate that that wound occupied on JFK's head--it was still the one and only entry wound in JFK's head. Would you now like to argue that JFK was shot in the back of the head TWICE on Nov. 22nd? (That'd make an interesting theory, huh?)

No. Not really. Your case is not compelling--and for one very big reason (for me anyway). I argued some of these same basic points with John Canal in the last few years, and I'll repeat the same thing for you: In my opinion, the was simply no good enough reason for any of the autopsy doctors to want to fake any of their conclusions regarding the autopsy of the deceased President of the United States. You can say that the above italicized declaration is merely a lowly "LNer" trying to cop out. But that's my true and honest opinion about the matter nevertheless. Of course, when discussing the "BOH" issues with John A. Canal, I must also add that he (like me) is convinced that Lee Oswald was the one and only shooter of JFK. But John has some additional (and quite strange, IMO) opinions regarding the autopsy and the testimony of Humes and Boswell. He thinks the doctors deliberately "underestimated" the damage to the back of JFK's head--even though those doctors knew beyond ALL doubt that JFK was struck in the head only from behind. Canal thinks it would have been impossible for the doctors to have conveyed in their reports and testimony any type of BOH damage in JFK's cranium without having lay people automatically thinking that Kennedy had been shot from the front--even though Humes, et al, would also be declaring in those reports and testimony that Kennedy WAS, in fact, shot only from the rear. Weird, huh? More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Daniel Gallup: In the final analysis: What difference does it really make as to WHEN the autopsy surgeons made the definitive conclusion that there was just one wound of entrance in JFK's head, with that definitive conclusion being that the one and only bullet entry wound on Kennedy's head was located in the BACK of the head, not the front of the head? And that definitive and irrevocable conclusion* is reflected in many, many places, such as the testimony of all three autopsists and the verbiage that we find in the final autopsy report which was signed by all three autopsy physicians (which is a report that means zilch to a lot of conspiracy theorists, who have no choice but to believe in all kinds of shenanigans and fakery--if those CTs believe that ANY frontal bullet hit JFK, which 99% of all conspiracists do believe, of course). * = Which is still definitive, even though there is, indeed, a discrepancy between the autopsists and the photos concerning where on the back of the head the entry wound was located. But either location is still located in the rear of the head, not the front, which totally destroys the theory that JFK was hit in the head from the Grassy Knoll. And regardless of exactly WHEN during the 11/22/63 autopsy the doctors concluded that the wound of entrance on JFK's head was located "2.5 centimeters to the right of and slightly above the EOP", conspiracy theorists are forced to live with the fact that the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors concluded that Kennedy was NOT SHOT FROM THE FRONT. The conspiracy mongers won't accept the fact that the entry wound was at the rear of the head, of course. They'll insist that a bunch of stuff was faked and/or that Boswell, Humes, and Finck were ALL liars. But, as I've stated many times in the past: the constant whining and protests of conspiracists couldn't possibly matter less when stacked up against the mountain of evidence that indicates that President Kennedy was shot only from behind on November 22nd, 1963. And there's also Dr. Boswell's face sheet, which indicates that the only wound of entry on JFK's head was in the BACK of the head. Do you think it matters exactly WHEN Dr. Boswell made out this face sheet? Whether it was early or late in the autopsy, what difference does it really make? The bottom-line fact is: this face sheet exists, and it verifies (for all time) that JFK had only TWO wounds of entry on his whole body--and they were both on the BACK side of the President....including the detailed "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement provided by Boswell on this face sheet concerning the upper-back wound, which is another very important measurement that virtually all conspiracy theorists spit on (and totally ignore):

WTF? What on Earth do the bones being brought in have anything whatsoever to do with the entry hole in the outer SCALP of JFK as seen in the picture below? Are you seriously saying that Boswell said that this red spot (which is so obviously the one and only wound of entrance on the back of JFK's head) couldn't be seen until the bones were brought in from Dallas to reconstruct the underlying skull of the President? That's nuts. ADDENDUM: Interesting HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck in March '78: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-finck.html

Probably, Bill. But I'm not positive.

===================================================================

Oh, come now, Daniel. How could Lifton's body-altering scenario be deemed anything OTHER than "perfect" when we find these words (which Mr. Lifton obviously believes are totally false words) in Dr. Humes' completed autopsy report?: "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." But Lifton believes the exact OPPOSITE happened to John Kennedy in Dealey Plaza -- i.e., Lifton thinks that ALL of the shots came from the exact OPPOSITE direction--from in front of JFK. And yet we find those words above in the autopsy report authored by Dr. J.J. Humes. Plus: How could Mr. Lifton's outrageous body-altering theory be considered to be anything BUT perfect when we find the following two autopsy pictures in evidence today, which depict a perfectly INTACT rear of the scalp on JFK's head and a wholly INTACT rear (occipital) portion of Kennedy's cranium?: You can't get much more "perfect" than that, Daniel. And you somehow DON'T think that Humes, Finck, and Boswell were "fooled" by the covert surgery that Lifton suggests occurred? Then why do we find the "from above and behind" verbiage in the autopsy report if Humes and company weren't "fooled"?* You've got to be kidding me. * = And, unless Mr. Lifton has decided to accept Doug Horne's additional nonsense regarding Dr. Humes, Lifton does not believe that the Bethesda autopsy surgeons were part of the body-altering team that switched President Kennedy's wounds around on 11/22/63.

I agree, Pat Speer. Mary Moorman could have blasted the lying Jean Hill much, much more than she did in her May 24th interview, but instead she kept her lip buttoned (for the most part). I commend Mary Ann for being as restrained as she was during her iAntique.com interview with regard to Jean Lollis Hill.

LOL. (Laughing last--and long, Ray.)

LOL. I thought Howie was one of the tramps. But now he's standing in the middle of the street in the Cancellare photo wearing a trenchcoat. LOL.