David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Would 100 millimetres be the same thing as four inches? Yes. Almost exactly 4 inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Would 100 millimetres be the same thing as four inches? Yes. Almost exactly 4 inches. David, this is an old old issue. Please inform me how the autopsy doctors, who had the body for hours and had every necessary measuring device, could nevertheless miss a hole in the cowlick so obvious that a blind man could read it with braille. The Clark Panel and the HSCA did not have the body in front of them. Nothing smells rotten in Denmark? Kindly explain, and thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) You think the autopsy photos AND X-rays are all fakes, Daniel? The photos and X-rays show an entry wound high on Kennedy's head, 100mm. above the EOP. That's the best evidence....and the photos were authenticated via stereo pairing. Kindly explain how the photo-fakers managed to do the impossible by faking many autopsy photos in stereoscopic form? Why not just accept the BEST evidence--these pics?.... Edited June 16, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 16, 2013 Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 You think the autopsy photos AND X-rays are all fakes, Daniel? The photos and X-rays show an entry wound high on Kennedy's head, 100mm. above the EOP. That's the best evidence....and the photos were authenticated via stereo pairing. Kindly explain how the photo-fakers managed to do the impossible by faking many autopsy photos in stereoscopic form? Why not just accept the BEST evidence--these pics?.... Mr. Von Pein And the entry hole Dr. Humes found just "slightly above the external occipital protruberance"? Or are you going to try to make the case that the cowlick, at the top of the skull, is "slightly above" the external occipital protruberance, located at the base of the skull. Don't you ever wish you had been given better materiel to work with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) Don't you ever wish you had been given better materiel to work with? Nah. Not really. I rather enjoy watching you conspiracy buffs trying to deny the obvious. Like the oh-so-obvious S.B.T., Oswald's guilt, and the location of the entry wound in the above autopsy photo. But you can just pretend all the photos are fakes. That usually works pretty well for you guys. Edited June 16, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Don't you ever wish you had been given better materiel to work with? Nah. Not really. I rather enjoy watching you conspiracy buffs trying to deny the obvious. Like the oh-so-obvious S.B.T., Oswald's guilt, and the location of the entry wound in the above autopsy photo. But you can just pretend all the photos are fakes. That usually works pretty well for you guys. Whilst you continue to pretend they aren't. In deciding which view is is correct, how could anybody prefer to believe photos which are fakes over the forty witnesses who saw the hole in the rear of the President's head at Parkland? Were they all mistaken, David? (on second thoughts - no need to reply as we already know your answer.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 You think the autopsy photos AND X-rays are all fakes, Daniel? The photos and X-rays show an entry wound high on Kennedy's head, 100mm. above the EOP. That's the best evidence....and the photos were authenticated via stereo pairing. Kindly explain how the photo-fakers managed to do the impossible by faking many autopsy photos in stereoscopic form? Why not just accept the BEST evidence--these pics?.... David, it doesn't matter if the whole world authenticated the photos. If the autopsy surgeons couldn't find such an obvious hole in the cowlick after hours of searching, it stands to reason the "best evidence" game is over. You know the story of the entrance wound the autopsy surgeons did find. Dr. Boswell said bones brought in after midnight completed a hole in the lower skull near the EOP. David Lifton in Best Evidence asks the appropriate question that has never been answered: how could pictures taken at the onset of the autopsy show a clear entrance wound when whatever entrance wound the autopsy doctors were able to piece together resulted from bones brought to the morgue after midnight? If you can answer that one, you'll be the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 16, 2013 Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 *in my best David Von Pein voice* "LIES ! LIES ! ALL LIES !!! WE HAVE THE BEST EVIDENCE !! DO YOU HEAR ME ??!! THE BEST EVIDENCE, MADE RIGHT HERE IN THE USA BY THE CLARK PANEL AND THE HSCA !!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) *in my best David Von Pein voice* "LIES ! LIES ! ALL LIES !!! WE HAVE THE BEST EVIDENCE !! DO YOU HEAR ME ??!! THE BEST EVIDENCE, MADE RIGHT HERE IN THE USA BY THE CLARK PANEL AND THE HSCA !!!!" The photos are what they are. And they show what they show. I know that fact upsets the conspiracy theorists, but that's just tough. Those pictures will always be on the table to tell us where the wounds were located in President Kennedy's body. And.... "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." -- HSCA Volume 7, Page 41 Pretty simple, actually. But.... "I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd "BOH" [back Of Head] matter regarding the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed "exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-called exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front, causing a massive BOH exit wound. Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy photos and X-rays. Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period. That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this "One Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that President Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of what ANY of the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds." -- David Von Pein; October 16, 2006 Edited June 16, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 ... "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." -- HSCA Volume 7, Page 41 Pretty simple, actually. But.... "I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd "BOH" [back Of Head] matter regarding the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed "exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-called exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front, causing a massive BOH exit wound. Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy photos and X-rays. Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period. That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this "One Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that President Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of what ANY of the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds." -- David Von Pein; October 16, 2006 quoting yourself? Is this what you call sweeping up after yourself these days, from October 16, 2006? 7 years ago? Really, quoting yourself? You should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) Is this what you call sweeping up after yourself these days, from October 16, 2006? 7 years ago? Really, quoting yourself? You should be ashamed. No, David. I merely quoted my 2006 comments so that I wouldn't have to type in all of those exact same words again in this thread. Because my 2006 comments are just as valid and accurate in 2013 as they were then. Nothing's changed. So why shouldn't I use my 2006 words now? (And it saves a lot of typing.) You should try that same method, Healy. You could easily save yourself hundreds of hours of keyboard strokes by merely copying-and-pasting the exact same say-nothing, useless words that you utter in nearly every post you write on all JFK forums. This could be your template (which Healy has repeated hundreds of times on the Internet, not even caring how silly he looks while doing it): Gird your loins, hon. Your devotion to Bugliosi's biggest failure in publishing history ain't gonna save you. BTW, no advertising. You know the rules. * * Healy likes everyone so much, he calls them "hon". Isn't he sweet? Edited June 16, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 16, 2013 Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 Mr. Von Pein Have you put any thought into Mr. Gallup's question? I quote it below just to refresh your memory. Care to have a stab at answering it? _ quote from Daniel Gallup _ " David, it doesn't matter if the whole world authenticated the photos. If the autopsy surgeons couldn't find such an obvious hole in the cowlick after hours of searching, it stands to reason the "best evidence" game is over. You know the story of the entrance wound the autopsy surgeons did find. Dr. Boswell said bones brought in after midnight completed a hole in the lower skull near the EOP. David Lifton in Best Evidence asks the appropriate question that has never been answered: how could pictures taken at the onset of the autopsy show a clear entrance wound when whatever entrance wound the autopsy doctors were able to piece together resulted from bones brought to the morgue after midnight? If you can answer that one, you'll be the first. David, it doesn't matter if the whole world authenticated the photos. If the autopsy surgeons couldn't find such an obvious hole in the cowlick after hours of searching, it stands to reason the "best evidence" game is over. You know the story of the entrance wound the autopsy surgeons did find. Dr. Boswell said bones brought in after midnight completed a hole in the lower skull near the EOP. David Lifton in Best Evidence asks the appropriate question that has never been answered: how could pictures taken at the onset of the autopsy show a clear entrance wound when whatever entrance wound the autopsy doctors were able to piece together resulted from bones brought to the morgue after midnight? If you can answer that one, you'll be the first." If Mr. Gallup is not clear enough for your liking, we can always post the appropriate quotes from Drs. Humes and Boswell for you. Or, do you think they were lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) ~sigh~ Robert P., The photos and X-rays (in tandem) trump all witnesses. Particularly since we know the photos could not possibly have a chance in Hades of being faked, because they exist in stereo pairs. And you can't fake in "stereo" (especially in 1963). But you can always call the 22 members of the HSCA's photographic panel liars if you want to. But I'll refrain from engaging in such silliness, thank you. Edited June 16, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 16, 2013 Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 ~sigh~ Robert P., The photos and X-rays (in tandem) trump all witnesses. Particularly when we know the photos could not possibly have a chance in Hades of being faked, because they exist in stereo pairs. And you can't fake in "stereo". Mr. Von Pein You are not addressing Mr. Gallup's question. Does this mean that you are absolutely at a loss to explain what Drs. Humes and Boswell tell us about the entrance wound at the back of JFK's head and the bone fragment brought in, AFTER the "photos" were taken, that completed a hole in the skull in the region of the external occipital protruberance? If all you are going to do is to keep harping about the photos trumping all other evidence, including the testimony of the doctors performing the autopsy, please do us and yourself a favour by refraining from responding. You really are beginning to make yourself look silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Robert, I accept the best evidence (the photos and X-rays). Obviously, you do not. What more needs to be said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now