David Von Pein

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.

....which only exists in the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists like you, Jimmy. The autopsy report proves there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". The testimony and post-1963 interviews of ALL THREE AUTOPSY DOCTORS prove there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". The autopsy photos and X-rays prove (for all time) that there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". And--the Zapruder Film proves for all time that there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull". Jimmy "Everybody's A xxxx And I Can Prove It" DiEugenio thinks he has defeated ALL of the above. Jimmy, of course, is currently residing in Conspiracy Fantasyland, with the ghost of Jim Garrison serving as Fantasy President and Grand Poobah. To reiterate Jimbo's previous closing salvo -- "What a sorry spectacle."

I just now looked back on the post that John Kelin thinks I have not worded correctly. John's wrong, I worded it perfectly (check between the parentheses): "...Mary Moorman's belief that the FIRST shot (of 3 or 4 total that she said she heard) hit JFK in the head." -- DVP

No, of course not. No shots came from the front, at all. And the photos and X-rays aren't "phony", at all. (The HSCA's photo panel was full of idiots and/or cover-up artists, right David Josephs?) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

To David Lifton, Yes, I know you still believe in the impossible -- i.e., the "impossible" notion that (in a very brief period of time) President Kennedy's wounds were altered and/or rearranged in order to eliminate all evidence of supposed frontal gunshots (all without a single witness ever coming forward--in 47 years--to say that he or she witnessed any such covert surgery on the President of the United States). And, yes, I know you still believe in the Impossible #2 -- i.e., the incredibly silly notion that ALL of the shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 came from the FRONT of the President's vehicle. I just happen to vigorously disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, Mr. Lifton. And I strongly disagree with your theories, DESPITE the opinions and observations of the several Parkland and Bethesda witnesses you interviewed on film in 1980. You will say I'm ignoring those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, such as Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, Aubrey Rike, et al. But, the truth is, I'd rather disagree with people like Paul "No Brains In The Head" O'Connor if the alternative option is to place a single ounce of faith in the outlandish theory that you, Mr. Lifton, have been peddling since 1966. Can I ask you a straightforward question, Mr. Lifton? Do you REALLY and TRULY believe that such "body alteration" on the President's head COULD have been accomplished in such a short period of time on the evening of 11/22/63? Could such perfect head-altering surgery have been performed so that ALL THREE of JFK's autopsy surgeons at the Bethesda autopsy were totally fooled by the covert surgery? Do you really and truly, deep down, today, believe such amazing behind-the-scenes patchwork surgery on JFK's head/body could have resulted in the autopsy report we now find on Pages 538-546 of the Warren Commission Report? I'm virtually certain what your answer will be to my last question, but I thought I'd ask it anyway (for the record). http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com ------------------------- DR. HUMES' COMPLETE 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH DAN RATHER: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

True. But that doesn't change the points I was making in my previous post re Mary Ann hearing multiple shots after the head shot.

Here are some random thoughts regarding Mary Moorman's belief that the FIRST shot (of 3 or 4 total that she said she heard) hit JFK in the head: If the first shot had been the head shot, then (logically) it would not make very much sense for there to have been any more shots AFTER the fatal blow to the President's head--let alone MULTIPLE additional shots being fired into the car. And here's another point to be made on this (probably even a better logical point than the one I just made above) -- As we can see via the Zapruder Film, right after JFK was struck in the head, his head is moving around violently (which, it would seem to me, would have presented a difficult situation for any gunman at that exact point in time, because his head would have been very difficult to keep in the gunman's sights because of its violent movement backward after Z313). And we can also see in the Z-Film that JFK crumples OUT OF SIGHT of ANY gunman in Dealey Plaza within just seconds of the Z313 head shot. So my next logical question for Ms. Moorman (or anyone else who contends that gunmen were still popping away at President Kennedy by firing MULTIPLE SHOTS after Z313) -- What were those gunmen shooting at at that point in time? Jackie? Kellerman? James Tague? Because if it was more than just a second or two after Z313, and shots were still being fired in Dealey Plaza, then those gunmen were certainly not going to have a very clear shot of John F. Kennedy. That's for sure. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html

So Jim just totally ignores the autopsy report, which verifies (for all time) that JFK had just ONE entry wound in his head--in the REAR. I wonder how photo/film analysis can get around this irrevocable fact?: "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." -- Page 6 of John F. Kennedy's Official Autopsy Report http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/head-wounds.html -------------- And then there are Dr. Humes' comments on CBS in 1967 (which Mr. DiEugenio is forced to either ignore or pretend Humes is a rotten xxxx): DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?" DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir." RATHER -- "And that was where?" DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly." RATHER -- "And the exit wound?" DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull." RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is." RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?" DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html BTW, ITEK Corp., in 1975, physically MEASURED the forward movement of JFK's head that occurs between frames 312 and 313. It's a MEASURABLE movement forward. Or is ITEK full of rotten liars (or incompetent boobs) too?

In the Bronson slide (above), I've been wondering recently who the two women in black dresses are who are located to the left (east) of the Newman family? Anybody know?

Beats me. That's a mystery indeed. Anyway, in her 5/24/11 interview with Gary Stover, she did say that she stepped into the street TWICE prior to the President's car arriving in Dealey Plaza. She took pictures of two different motorcycle police officers prior to JFK's car getting into the Plaza....and she said that she was IN the street when she took both of those pictures. Mary also made a specific point in her May 24 interview to say that the second motorcycle policeman she snapped a photo of was in the CENTER LANE of Elm Street, thereby allowing her to step into the street without risking getting run over. Obviously, such was not the case when she took her famous picture of President Kennedy at the time of the fatal head shot. There were motorcycles taking up the left (south) lane. No way she'd be in the street at that point. Mary Moorman has given very few interviews since '63. She gave at least two on 11/22/63 and was part of the CBS-TV program "November 22nd And The Warren Report" in 1964 -- see my webpage on Moorman and Jean Hill HERE to see or hear all of those interviews. In the KRLD-Radio interview linked above, Moorman does, indeed, say she had "stepped out in the street, we were right at the car" at the time of the fatal shot. Why she would use those exact words "in the street" is a mystery, because it couldn't be more obvious from the Zapruder Film that she was not "in the street" at all. She was very CLOSE to the street, yes. But she certainly wasn't "in the street". Perhaps she meant to say she was "at the curb of the street", instead of using the word "in". ~shrug~

We don't need Mary's recollection to verify (beyond all doubt) where she was standing when she took her famous Polaroid picture. The Zapruder Film answers that question for all time -- she was not standing out in the street; she was standing on the grass (as was companion Jean Hill). Moreover, as the Altgens Z255 picture confirms, it would have been virtually impossible for Moorman or Hill to have been physically IN THE STREET at the approximate time of the head shot, because they probably would have been run over by the outboard motorcyclist on the south side of the limousine. There's no way that either woman would have even WANTED to step into the street at that moment (unless they had a curious desire to be struck by a motorcycle at that moment in time). MARY MOORMAN'S 5/24/2011 INTERVIEW (IN MP3 FORMAT): http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html

Well, Lee, since the HSCA was desperately LOOKING FOR A CONSPIRACY in the Kennedy case (and they "found" a bogus one too, via the acoustics charade), I'd expect them to say exactly what YOU guys have been saying for years about CE399 & the SBT--if such things were true and could be backed up with something other than sheer CTer speculation and wishful thinking. That's what I would expect the HSCA to say re these matters. Unfortunately, however, for the CTers who think the SBT is a fraud and that CE399 was planted/subbed, the HSCA came to the same conclusion (generally) about 399 and the SBT that the WC came to -- i.e., the HSCA agreed with the WC that one bullet wounded both limo victims and that that ONE BULLET was Warren Commission Exhibit No. Three-Niner-Niner. So, Lee Farley, I guess you'll just have to live with the undeniable fact that BOTH of the official committees who were assigned to thoroughly investigate John Kennedy's murder came to the very same conclusion regarding these two important questions: 1.) Is the Single-Bullet Theory a valid theory? WC answer: Yes. HSCA answer: Yes. and 2.) Was CE399 the bullet that wounded both JFK and John Connally on 11/22/63? WC answer: Yes. HSCA answer: Yes. Maybe a third official investigation will be the charm for the anti-SBT conspiracy mongers. Ya think? Or do you think that a third panel would be just as corrupt and dishonest as the first two were?