Jump to content
The Education Forum

The forward head movement - an illusion?


Recommended Posts

I've seen the Other versions that uses certain landmarks in the limo yet adjustments are not made for these landmarks as the limo moves to the right of frame...

If I am wrong here, so be it... please let me know where and how... yet to me, if we do some simple alignment,

I think the forward head movement is an illusion..

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So the shot came from the front, period.

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?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the shot came from the front, period.

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?

You are absolutely correct, DVP, and that is why, if you argue with DiEugenio in this fashion, you will defeat him every time.

of course, your position is entirely false, however, because the debate really comes down to the condition of the body, at the time of autopsy.

Commander Humes is no doubt correct when he states that, at the time of autopsy, there was only one entrance wound (at the back of the head) and a much larger hole (which he designated the exit wound) forward of that. But that is definitely not the way the body looked in Dallas.

And, for the life of me--and putting aside (for the moment) the fact that DiEugenio ignores these basic facts--I fail to understand how you can do so.

Your entire argument (with regard to the head wound information you are quoting above) is based on the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy. Specifically, that what was observed at Bethesda (as reported by Humes) is an accurate reflection of the condition of the body (i.e., the head wounding) as it was at Parkland Hospital at Dallas.

Now surely you know better than to disengenously quote Humes in the manner you do.

Surely you do know--or ought to know--that the location and size of large hole in the President's head, at Dallas, was at the BACK of the head, in the occipital area. This is clear from the Dallas medical reports, and testimony--and from my own interviews with those doctors, decades ago.

Surely you do know that the wound, as described by (for example) Dr. Charles Carrico, was 7 by 5 cm, or 35 square centimeters; whereas the large hole described at Bethesda was, according to the diagram drawn by Dr. Boswell at the time of autopsy, a diagram whose authenticity is attested to by the fact that it even had the late President's blood on it, was listed as "10 x 17" or 170 sq. cm.

So that demonstrates a difference--between Dallas and Bethesda observations of the head wound--of more than 400%.

Surely you do know that NO DALLAS DOCTOR OR NURSE described any damage to the "top" of President Kennedy's head, whereas almost the entire top of President Kennedy's head, on the right hand size, was missing at the start of the official autopsy. Moreover, when Boswell testified to the ARRB, he drew a diagram that made that very clear.

Now. . let's turn to the supposed entry wound, as observed at Bethesda.

With regard to the supposed entry wound observed at Bethesda--the supposed "little hole" (actually, part of a hole) that was below the huge hole observed there. . surely you do know that NO Dallas doctor or nurse reported any such wound.

Now of course you surely know these things, and of course you surely must recognize this grotesque difference between the Dallas and Bethesda observations, and yet you blithely go along, quoting the Bethesda observations, when surely you do realize they don't provide valid informaiton as to how this shooting occurred. They simply constitute a verbal picture of the President's head wounding, as it appeared at Bethesda, some six hours after the shooting. But that's all it is--an "after" picture, so to speak. But not a valid picture of the way the head wounds looked at Parkland.

Furthermore, surely you know that there is direct evidence, from the two FBI agents attending the autopsy, that there was surgical intervention of some sort between Dallas and Bethesda, which explains these divergent descriptions.

Surely you do know that FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, wrote in their report, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

Surely you do know that when both FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill testified before the ARRB in September, 1997, they both stood behind their report.

Surely you know that Sibert testified, just as he told me in November, 1966, "The report stands."

Surely you know that when Sibert appeared before the ARRB, he brought with him handwritten notes that talked of this huge hole in the President's head--WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN DALLAS, and noted that "brain had been removed from head cavity."

And, as he told me in our August, 1990 telephone conversation, "That's haunted me for years. . this surgery of the head. . you could look right in there."

Now Mr. DVP, you can play all the games you want with DiEugenio--who apparently doesn't have the insight to realize that the body is the best evidence in a murder case, and to structure any debate with the likes of you accordingly. But you can't play those games with me.

Obviously, because of the way you are utilizing Humes statements, in your "debate" with DiEugenio, its clear that you DO indeed have an appreciation of the body as "best evidence" (even if HE does not).

And so I would just suggest to you, not only in the name of telling the truth, but also to preserve your own credibility, that you stop ignoring the massive amount of evidence that clearly indicates that President Kennedy's wounds --and specifically, the configuration of his head wounds--were altered in the six hour period between his murder and the autopsy.

Also, in responding to this post, try not to engage in insults and name calling, as you do on at your blog site. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates the head wounds were altered--just as I have described above, and as is set forth, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates that the throat wound was also altered--just as I have described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence; with Dr. Perry's trach incision--which he told me, in October, 1966--was "2-3 cm", became a wide gash of "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges."

Surely you are aware of this data, right?

The fact of the matter is that there is clear, incontrovertible, and credible evidence that the President's body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, just as I have described in Best Evidence: it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag; it left in a ceremonial casket, and arrived in a shipping casket.

Mr. DiEugenio, who relies on certain of his "medical advisors" for his data and his ideas, apparently doesn't want to use this data in dealing with you. Apparently, he'd rather avoid all this by simply subscribing to some hypothesis that the Bethesda doctors simply lied. But you, who obviously recognize the primacy of the body as evidence (at least you appear to, from the way you rely on that CBS interview of Humes) have a responsibility, it seems to me, to tell the full and complete story of the body, and not just quote the part that suits your fancy.

Mr DVP: You cannot have it both ways.

If you are going to cite the body as "best evidence" and utilize the Bethesda description to refute DiEugenio's arguments, then you must recognize that the Bethesda description does NOT comport with the Dallas description; you must recognize that it does not describe the way the President's body looked in Dallas.

It is as simple as that.

Contrast those descriptions and its very clear what happened here: someone altered the President's wounds.

By citing Commander Humes' interview with Dan Rather as you did, you have already demonstrated that you have a keener appreciation of what is important concerning the medical evidence than does DiEugenio.

You understand that it all comes down to the President's body.

Now please demonstrate that you can apply that same appreciation of what is relevant to the most important evidence in the case--the President's body, and just HOW it looked immediately AFTER the shooting, when it was in Parkland Hospital, lying there before a group of doctors and nurses.

I invite you step up to the plate and confront the Dallas/Bethesda discrepancies.

I know you can do it, Mr. DVP.

In doing so, you will have to look at the facts, and surmount the name calling and ignorance of your hero, Mr. Vince Bugliosi. Try setting aside all that, and just look at the facts

I know you can do it.

Just follow the best evidence.

Its the memorial day weekend. . give it your best shot.

Make my day.

DSL

5/28/11 4:35 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the shot came from the front, period.

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?

DVP, this is a follow-up of David Lifton's note to you, a citation from p. 325 of Best Evidence (Chapter 13): "Peters:...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. Specter: What did you notice in the occiput? Peters: it seemed to me that in the right occipitoparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in that area. Specter: Did you notice any home below the occiput, say, in the area below here? Peter: No, I did not..."

"I [Lifton]asked Peters what he thought Specter meant by that question, by a hole 'below the occiput.' 'It was my impression,' Peters told me,'he was sreferring to the wound at the back of the neck...And I didn't see any wound back there.'

"I asked: 'In other words, the wound you saw in the occiput was low enough that if he [specter] went any lower, he'd alreay be down in the neck?' 'Yeah, that's right,' replied Peters. I should have known this from studying Grant's Atlas of Anatomy, but I first understood it completely during my call to Peters. To eliminate any misunderstanding, I rephrased my question. 'Picture a wound located two and a half centimeters to the right of the external occipital protuberance'--this was Humes' location for the entrance wound, 2.5 cm to the right, and then 'sl;ightly above'--'where would that be in relation to where you saw Kennedy's[wound]?

'That would be about the center of it, maybe,' said Peters.

DVP, this was a phone call from DAvid Lifton to Dr. Peters 11/12/66, a time early enough for their to be a minimum of memory pollution due to external influence. Peter's account is evidence that the entrance wound in the back of the head was either manufactured or HUmes was lying about its placement on the head. Best, Daniel

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that most people understood using an out-dated and thoroughly discredited document like the official autopsy as reference material was pretty worthless.

Haven't there been enough of the doctors and medical staff, as well as the "governmental presence" in DP to confirm shots from the front, regardless of what the autopsy report, xrays and phony photos tell us?

I have no problem with physics telling us that force is meet with equal force so it would be natural for his head to push slightly back against the oncoming bullet..... but we're not going to rely on the autopsy report on this matter...

this would be the single most important thing to exclude from the autopsy... and why, imo, Humes burned his and Finck's notes.

I also think the graphic is pretty self evident... the lines follow the shoulders, ears and back...

and it's obviously a shot from the front...

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't there been enough of the doctors and medical staff, as well as the "governmental presence" in DP to confirm shots from the front, regardless of what the autopsy report, xrays and phony photos tell us?

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

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the Other versions that uses certain landmarks in the limo yet adjustments are not made for these landmarks as the limo moves to the right of frame...

If I am wrong here, so be it... please let me know where and how... yet to me, if we do some simple alignment,

I think the forward head movement is an illusion..

DJ

I can't help but see a flick towards zap. This may account for an apparent forward movement. Remembering that the camera is panning on the limo which is moving forward so a proper alignment will always be problematic as, imo, all motion must be considered in three dimensions. Also there is the explosive cavitation of a compromised sealed unit to consider and a momentary expansion (which is quite considerable in relation to the missile diameter.) One could perhaps hypothesise a slowing of the heads forward movement combined with a flick to the right as well as ec 'ripping open' the cranium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

On what basis did you make the claim to me that "You don't even know how many manuscripts Weisberg wrote."

What facts did you have that support that claim?

Of did you just make that up?

Because if you just made that up out of thin air (as we both know damn well you did) then you're no better than anyone else that you accuse of making things up.

So step to the plate, Jim DiEugenio, explain yourselve.

Todd

You know the above--the union of DVP and LIfton, (with Lifton's acolyte Gallup)-- is is the proof of what Lee Farley and Roger Feinman have maintained for decades.

For the purpose of creating a premise for a book, Lifton joined forces with the WC backers.

So here, when DVP utters one of his usual banal and hoary inanities about the autopsy report, LIfton jumps in and says, "You are right Davey and you will always defeat people like DIEugenio with that argument."

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at such an exchange. And I don't know what is worse. DVP quoting from one of the most discredited documents in this case, or Lifton upholding it. DVP using the testimony of a man who is a proven xxxx (Humes) or Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) upholding him.

Davey, did you not hear about Dr. Canada telling Michael Kurtz about the autopsy report being rewritten to deny the avulsive blow out in the back of the head which dozens of people, including Canada, were witness to? Maybe Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) does not like this because its not in his book? But the fact is, one does not need Best Evidence to completely discredit the autopsy in this case.

And DVP knows this since he went spastic when Part Four of my Bugliosi series appeared. Where I did just that without using BE.

BTW, Davey, in addition to the blow out at the rear of the skull, you may want to refer to the shameful directions by Baden to Ida Dox to insert the raised ridges in the phony rendition of the back of the head drawing--which we have in his own writing. You know, that rendition that your hero VB used without telling anyone about Baden's skullduggery?

But Lifton will say, "Good job VInce, that defeats DiEugenio every time. And that is cool since its not in my book either."

Wow. What a sorry spectacle.

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't there been enough of the doctors and medical staff, as well as the "governmental presence" in DP to confirm shots from the front, regardless of what the autopsy report, xrays and phony photos tell us?

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

(The HSCA's photo panel was full of idiots and/or cover-up artists, right David Josephs?)

I can't imagine talking about the agenda of the HSCA, Blakey and ALL it's panels will help your case much, do you David?

Either the panel was full of idiots or the autopsy room at Bethesda was... somebody was seriously wrong about the damage to the head and the authenticity of the photos/xrays created there...

But don't we have to fast forward a few years to get to the truth about the xrays and photos... directly from those who did or sis not take the original products... who developed the original products?

And aren't they pretty unanimous about what we have in the archives is not a true representation of what occurred?

I could quote chapter and verse David but you are probably more aware of the testimony of Crenshaw, Stinger, Reibe, Robinson, Reed, and on and on than I am... The HSCA pulled a quick one with the medical evidence... but could not skate away from the acoustic other than to say no one on the planet was actually invlved in a conspiracy...

just that there was one... :ph34r:

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't there been enough of the doctors and medical staff, as well as the "governmental presence" in DP to confirm shots from the front, regardless of what the autopsy report, xrays and phony photos tell us?

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

btw, David... the link in your post... the man on the far left in the trenchcoat...

E Howard Hunt.... y'know... from Plausible Denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Batter up, Jimbo!

Jim,

On what basis did you make the claim to me that "You don't even know how many manuscripts Weisberg wrote."

What facts did you have that support that claim?

Of did you just make that up?

Because if you just made that up out of thin air (as we both know damn well you did) then you're no better than anyone else that you accuse of making things up.

So step to the plate, Jim DiEugenio, explain yourselve.

Todd

You know the above--the union of DVP and LIfton, (with Lifton's acolyte Gallup)-- is is the proof of what Lee Farley and Roger Feinman have maintained for decades.

For the purpose of creating a premise for a book, Lifton joined forces with the WC backers.

So here, when DVP utters one of his usual banal and hoary inanities about the autopsy report, LIfton jumps in and says, "You are right Davey and you will always defeat people like DIEugenio with that argument."

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at such an exchange. And I don't know what is worse. DVP quoting from one of the most discredited documents in this case, or Lifton upholding it. DVP using the testimony of a man who is a proven xxxx (Humes) or Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) upholding him.

Davey, did you not hear about Dr. Canada telling Michael Kurtz about the autopsy report being rewritten to deny the avulsive blow out in the back of the head which dozens of people, including Canada, were witness to? Maybe Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) does not like this because its not in his book? But the fact is, one does not need Best Evidence to completely discredit the autopsy in this case.

And DVP knows this since he went spastic when Part Four of my Bugliosi series appeared. Where I did just that without using BE.

BTW, Davey, in addition to the blow out at the rear of the skull, you may want to refer to the shameful directions by Baden to Ida Dox to insert the raised ridges in the phony rendition of the back of the head drawing--which we have in his own writing. You know, that rendition that your hero VB used without telling anyone about Baden's skullduggery?

But Lifton will say, "Good job VInce, that defeats DiEugenio every time. And that is cool since its not in my book either."

Wow. What a sorry spectacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...in addition to the blow out at the rear of the skull...

....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."

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, David... the link in your post... the man on the far left in the trenchcoat...

E Howard Hunt.... y'know... from Plausible Denial.

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.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the above--the union of DVP and LIfton, (with Lifton's acolyte Gallup)-- is is the proof of what Lee Farley and Roger Feinman have maintained for decades.

For the purpose of creating a premise for a book, Lifton joined forces with the WC backers.

So here, when DVP utters one of his usual banal and hoary inanities about the autopsy report, LIfton jumps in and says, "You are right Davey and you will always defeat people like DIEugenio with that argument."

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at such an exchange. And I don't know what is worse. DVP quoting from one of the most discredited documents in this case, or Lifton upholding it. DVP using the testimony of a man who is a proven xxxx (Humes) or Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) upholding him.

Davey, did you not hear about Dr. Canada telling Michael Kurtz about the autopsy report being rewritten to deny the avulsive blow out in the back of the head which dozens of people, including Canada, were witness to? Maybe Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) does not like this because its not in his book? But the fact is, one does not need Best Evidence to completely discredit the autopsy in this case.

And DVP knows this since he went spastic when Part Four of my Bugliosi series appeared. Where I did just that without using BE.

BTW, Davey, in addition to the blow out at the rear of the skull, you may want to refer to the shameful directions by Baden to Ida Dox to insert the raised ridges in the phony rendition of the back of the head drawing--which we have in his own writing. You know, that rendition that your hero VB used without telling anyone about Baden's skullduggery?

But Lifton will say, "Good job VInce, that defeats DiEugenio every time. And that is cool since its not in my book either."

Wow. What a sorry spectacle.

While it is true the avulsive wound described in Dallas is not mentioned in the Bethesda autopsy report, I in particular find any insight into the hows and whys useful, which is why I quoted Dr. Peters from chapter 13, Best Evidence. Judging from the "McClelland" drawing in 1966, I would say Peters' observation is corroborated-- Humes location of the entrance wound in the back of the head would be in the middle of the hole in the back of Kennedy's head.

This alone does not imply the autopsy was a fraud. For if a shot did hit Kennedy where Humes said it did, and a second shot from the front created the avulsive wound, and sent the site of the first shot into the street, only to be picked up and later to appear at Bethesda around midnight ( for that is when Boswell tells us that bones came in which indicated for the first time a bullet entrance wound in the back of the skull) then there might be a reconciliation between the observations at Parkland and Bethesda.

For two reasons this is problematic. The most important is the size of the wound observed at Bethesda, with the accompanying mention of surgery. With the size problem one can add Jenkins' observation to Law (p. 80 ITEOH)that the brain more or less fell out into Humes' hands, and led Jenkins to believe that the brain had been removed and replaced before Humes attempts to remove the brain. Then there is another problem, presented to those who view the Z-film as genuine. If a second head shot created the avulsive wound, thus blasting bone from Kennedy's head in the area of the first shot struck, then we would expect to see evidence of such a shot in the extant film. There should be an explosion out the rear of Kennedy's head larger than the initial explosion seen in 313, which would explain the avulsive wound and missing bone in the back of the head, bones which later appear around midnight and is used by the autopsy doctors to conclude an initial shot to the head around the external occipital protuberance. Remember ITEK concluded 313 shows no debris directed behind Kenendy. So where in the present film can we explain the avulsive wound seen at Parkland? What makes the problem worse is testimony at Bethesda as to where most of the damage to Kennedy's brain was: in the back. Robinson (quoted in Horne Volume II p. 612) said a large percentage of the brain was missing "in the back," and described the condition of the brain in the damaged area as having the consistency of soup. How does missing brain exit the back (avulsive wounds), from the front? Because that's the only place we see ejecta in the extant film.

So it may be, Jim, that you have demonstrated that the present autopsy report is a fraud, but that is logically distinct from the evidence that the body was intercepted (and film as well). You posit and either/or; why not a both/and? Respectfully, acolyte(?!) Daniel

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...