Jump to content
The Education Forum

Question for DVP re the bullet entrance on the back of the head


Recommended Posts

V.B.'s opinions as to medical evidence are worth the opinions of anyone here.

Only three pathologists examined JFK's remains. The others simply don't count. Why? They didn't see the remains and relied on materials never tested under the Rules of Evidence.

The autopsy report in the National Archives is not an original. It is third-generation, based on what I've read.

DVP, you want to nail Oswald. I wish you were right. So do some evil individuals who keep the secrets of the JFK assassination hidden from public view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the evil individuals are motivated more to protect some people rather than nail someone else, I'm thinking. right?

do some wish it was Oswald...? wondering why...

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole topic, of course, is only an academic one in the first place. Because even if by some miraculous act of God or prestidigitation and the bullet hole of entry in President Kennedy's cranium was located low on his head, instead of high on his head as the photographs amply illustrate, it wouldn't change the status of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt one solitary bit. Because either entry site on JFK's head is still perfectly consistent with a conclusion of Oswald shooting the President from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.

Back to Vince for a moment....

"Is it possible we are talking about two separate wounds to the back of the head? No. All seventeen pathologists said there was only one gunshot wound to the back of the president's head. So, by definition, we have to be talking about the same wound. Moreover, the fourteen pathologists who followed the three autopsy surgeons were able to demonstrate that the wound they found was the same wound (same dimensions) the autopsy surgeons described in their report." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 395 of "Reclaiming History"

Do you really think about this stuff before you cut and paste it, David? In this very thread, you have pointed out that the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP believed the photos of Kennedy's brain proved that any entrance low on the head did not connect to the exit on top of the head.

It only follows then that an entrance in this location proves there were two head wounds and thus two shooters.

Do you think it's just a coincidence, then, that both panels went-a-hunting for an entrance wound high on the head, and settled on a location which everyone who saw the wound refused to sign off on, and that the HSCA ended up threatening Dr. Humes (and only Dr. Humes) into playing along, and that he immediately returned to claiming the wound was low on the back of the head?

I mean, is the pattern not readily evident? I know that if you discovered Mark Lane had threatened witnesses, and forced them to change their story, you'd doubt the accuracy of their story. So why the double standard? Why is Humes, to you, credible when he played along with Cornwell, but not to be trusted when he later spoke to JAMA and the ARRB?

Oh, that's right, you think you see a bullet hole in the photo. And you could never be wrong about this, no matter how many witnesses to the autopsy say you were wrong, and no matter how many medical experts visit the archives and conclude you were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think about this stuff before you cut and paste it, David? In this very thread, you have pointed out that the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP believed the photos of Kennedy's brain proved that any entrance low on the head did not connect to the exit on top of the head.

As I said, I merely was emphasizing that if a "miraculous act of God" had occurred which confirmed the LOW entry location, that fact would not suddenly result in Oswald being innocent. Either entry locale is consistent with Oswald firing from behind.

There's ONE entry wound in JFK's head. There is no dispute on THAT fact, as Vince Bugliosi points out in the RH excerpt I cited earlier. And we know that that ONE entry wound was in the BACK of the head---not the FRONT of the head.

We can argue all year long about exactly WHERE that ONE entry wound was located. I can SEE the bullet hole in the photos (and not just the color picture; I see it in the B&W photo too, without doubt). The bullet hole is the red spot. And I find it somewhat amusing that even YOU, Patrick Speer, admit that the "red oval" does, indeed, "resemble" a bullet hole. And yet, incredibly, you also say that the red spot cannot possibly be the actual bullet hole, even though you will stipulate to the fact that there was ONE single bullet hole of entry in the back of the President's head.

Oh, well.

~~huge shrug~~

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

A "BOH"-RELATED NOTE:

I recently added an interesting 1964 NBC-TV program to my JFK video collection. It's the 9/27/64 NBC program called "The Warren Commission Report", and I took note of something kind of strange---

While summarizing the evidence in the JFK case (and NBC did a very nice and succinct job of doing that, btw, in the limited time available during that 9/27/64 program), Robert MacNeil of NBC News shows us a hand-drawn diagram of JFK's head wounds [see the photo below], and the entry hole is placed fairly high on the head of the President:

NBC-Head-Wound-Diagram-September-1964.pn

The diagram actually shows the entry wound from two different perspectives (a profile POV [which is not depicted above] and a directly from behind vantage point), with the "from behind" view depicting the entry hole in what looks to me like a VERY HIGH place on Kennedy's head. (The wound is shown too far to the right of the midline, but that's another story.)

But the profile view shows the entry hole to be a bit lower on JFK's head (with the President's head also leaning forward way too far, but, again, that's another argument entirely).

It could just be the angle, or maybe the illustrator of the sketch made an error somewhere, but I found it interesting that NBC-TV would be reporting that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head was located fairly HIGH on his head (based on one of the views presented in that diagram anyway).

I have no idea where NBC would have arrived at any HIGH entry point (as of September '64). They certainly didn't get that kind of information from the autopsy report or the just-released Warren Report.

David Von Pein
May 18, 2009

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

Do you really think about this stuff before you cut and paste it, David? In this very thread, you have pointed out that the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP believed the photos of Kennedy's brain proved that any entrance low on the head did not connect to the exit on top of the head.

As I said, I merely was emphasizing that if a "miraculous act of God" had occurred which confirmed the LOW entry location, that fact would not suddenly result in Oswald being innocent. Either entry locale is consistent with Oswald firing from behind.

There's ONE entry wound in JFK's head. There is no dispute on THAT fact, as Vince Bugliosi points out in the RH excerpt I cited earlier. And we know that that ONE entry wound was in the BACK of the head---not the FRONT of the head.

We can argue all year long about exactly WHERE that ONE entry wound was located. I can SEE the bullet hole in the photos (and not just the color picture; I see it in the B&W photo too, without doubt). The bullet hole is the red spot. And I find it somewhat amusing that even YOU, Patrick Speer, admit that the "red oval" does, indeed, "resemble" a bullet hole. And yet, incredibly, you also say that the red spot cannot possibly be the actual bullet hole, even though you will stipulate to the fact that there was ONE single bullet hole of entry in the back of the President's head.

Oh, well.

~~huge shrug~~

It's just common sense, David.

If some realtors show you a long shot of a city, in which they claim there is a blue house you might like, and then describe this house as a two story house on the waterfront with a two car garage, and the only blue house you can find is a one story house on a mountaintop without a garage, then the realtors are either a) liars b ) grossly incompetent and/or insane or c) looking at a different house, which for some reason you are unable to see. Those are the only three alternatives.

And yet Bugliosi tried to twist his inability to see what the realtors had been talking about into an argument the realtor had been discussing the one story house on the mountaintop all along, even when they filled out paperwork saying it was down on the waterfront. And he tried to do this without acknowledging what inevitably follows...that the realtors were either liars or incompetent.

So what about you, David? Were they liars or incompetent? Or, gee whiz, is is possible, just possible, that there's something you can't see? Like a two story house by the waterfront?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "BOH"-RELATED NOTE:

I recently added an interesting 1964 NBC-TV program to my JFK video collection. It's the 9/27/64 NBC program called "The Warren Commission Report", and I took note of something kind of strange---

While summarizing the evidence in the JFK case (and NBC did a very nice and succinct job of doing that, btw, in the limited time available during that 9/27/64 program), Robert MacNeil of NBC News shows us a hand-drawn diagram of JFK's head wounds [see the photo below], and the entry hole is placed fairly high on the head of the President:

NBC-Head-Wound-Diagram-September-1964.pn

The diagram actually shows the entry wound from two different perspectives (a profile POV [which is not depicted above] and a directly from behind vantage point), with the "from behind" view depicting the entry hole in what looks to me like a VERY HIGH place on Kennedy's head. (The wound is shown too far to the right of the midline, but that's another story.)

But the profile view shows the entry hole to be a bit lower on JFK's head (with the President's head also leaning forward way too far, but, again, that's another argument entirely).

It could just be the angle, or maybe the illustrator of the sketch made an error somewhere, but I found it interesting that NBC-TV would be reporting that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head was located fairly HIGH on his head (based on one of the views presented in that diagram anyway).

I have no idea where NBC would have arrived at any HIGH entry point (as of September '64). They certainly didn't get that kind of information from the autopsy report or the just-released Warren Report.

David Von Pein

May 18, 2009

I suspect they were guessing, based upon the WC's conclusions, which had been leaked. It simply made no sense to them that a bullet would enter low on the head and explode out the top of the head, so they placed the entrance near the top of the head. They did something similar with the first bullet. It made no sense to them that a bullet fired from above would impact on the back and exit from the neck, so they placed the back wound at the base of the neck.

They were wrong on both counts.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect they [NBC-TV] were guessing, based upon the WC's conclusions, which had been leaked. It simply made no sense to them that a bullet would enter low on the head and explode out the top of the head, so they placed the entrance near the top of the head.

Yes, you're probably right. Good for NBC for using common sense. They got it right. Good job.

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

So what about you, David? Were they liars or incompetent? Or, gee whiz, is is possible, just possible, that there's something you can't see? Like a two story house by the waterfront?

Oh for Pete sake, Pat. How can you not see the absurdity in your argument? You and I both know there's a bullet hole there on JFK's head SOMEPLACE. We can see what even YOU say "resembles a gunshot wound" [Pat Speer quote from 6/10/15].

And yet I'm supposed to IGNORE the Clark Panel AND the HSCA's FPP AND the thing that "resembles a gunshot wound" and start looking around for the "real" bullet hole---which cannot be readily seen at all in the photo? (Which makes me, again, wonder why that ruler is being placed next to that red spot if it really ISN'T the bullet hole? Was the person holding the ruler fooled too?)

It's ridiculous.

BTW, I'm going to start calling Pat Speer "Mister Analogy". Pat's got an analogy for all occasions.

(Just an observation. Not an insult, mind you. I do that same thing a lot too.) :)

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

So what about you, David? Were they liars or incompetent? Or, gee whiz, is is possible, just possible, that there's something you can't see? Like a two story house by the waterfront?

Oh for Pete sake, Pat. How can you not see the absurdity in your argument? You and I both know there's a bullet hole there on JFK's head SOMEPLACE. We can see what even YOU say "resembles a gunshot wound" [Pat Speer quote from 6/10/15].

And yet I'm supposed to IGNORE the Clark Panel AND the HSCA's FPP AND the thing that "resembles a gunshot wound" and start looking around for the "real" bullet hole---which cannot be readily seen at all in the photo? (Which makes me, again, wonder why that ruler is being placed next to that red spot if it really ISN'T the bullet hole? Was the person holding the ruled fooled too?)

It's ridiculous.

BTW, I'm going to start calling Pat Speer "Mister Analogy". Pat's got an analogy for all occasions.

(Just an observation. Not an insult, mind you.) :)

You still haven't answered the question, David. Whenever a CT expresses an opinion at odds with the recollections of the most reliable witnesses and/or the conclusions of an expert, you get all sarcastic and go after them with similar questions. Apparently, you think the more a layman contradicts an official finding, the easier it is to discredit them with the public.

But here, in this instance, it is YOU who have adopted a position at odds with both the only witnesses...AND the latest experts. It appears you are doing so, moreover, out of some misguided loyalty to Vincent B, who was wrong on so many things, this thing most especially.

So, please answer the question. When the autopsy doctors said the autopsy photos demonstrated that the bullet entered in the location determined at autopsy, and failed identify the red oval as this entrance wound, were they lying, or just incompetent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, please answer the question. When the autopsy doctors said the autopsy photos demonstrated that the bullet entered in the location determined at autopsy, and failed [to] identify the red oval as this entrance wound, were they lying, or just incompetent?

Incompetent or just plain ignorant (on this point anyway). Isn't that fact blatantly obvious? To me it is.

BTW, this isn't a case of my being "loyal" to Vincent Bugliosi. I was a believer in the "cowlick entry" years before Vincent's book came out.

Edited by David Von Pein
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...