Vincent Bugliosi: The Whole Story

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, Martin. The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED (i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy") position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or any other body landmark.

Do you, Martin, think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or "bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?)

While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November 1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew it.

So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he said this:

"The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von Pein says."

The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's back wound was most certainly located and all sensible people know it.


MARTIN HAY SAID:

You're hilarious, David.

You want everyone to buy the notion that somehow you know better than the 10 forensic pathologists I cited, despite the fact that you don't even know that the "anatomic position" is a standing position! ROFL Brilliant.

You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who has his arms and legs chopped off but still won't admit he's been defeated. But you've been proven wrong whether you want to admit it or not. The wound's precise location on the back cannot be determined by its distance from the mastoid process. That's a cold, hard fact. The HSCA knew it. Finck knew it. Humes knew it. And you know it.

Keep on trollin', David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the head".

OK, that sounds totally reasonable to me. But given those standards, it would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really "fixed", is it?

So the same concerns about the starting point for measurements can still easily be debated even when utilizing Dr. Wecht's "from the top of the head" recommendation. Unless, that is, the body is placed in a standard position, such as the autopsy or "anatomical" position. And the last time I checked, it's not possible for a dead body to STAND UP, and yet we still hear about the "anatomical position" being described in relation to autopsies on human bodies. (Go figure.)

And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head".

DVP

March/April 2015

[Martin Hay]

GUNN: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity, would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process?
FINCK: No.
GUNN: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity.
FINCK: An immobile body structure is a fixed body landmark.
GUNN: Well, for the identification of the location of the wound in the thoracic cavity--
FINCK: Thoracic cavity.
GUNN: --is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark?
FINCK: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move.
GUNN: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say?
FINCK: Yes. (Finck ARRB deposition, p. 45)

Give it up, David. You've got nothing but hot air.

[David Von Pein]

You're funny, Martin.

[Martin Hay]

I'm right, David.

You're wrong.

I can only assume you're feigning amusement to hide your own embarrassment.

[Cliff Varnell]

MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all.

​Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion.....

Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one.

All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung.

Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process:

As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was.

As usual, David, you are completely wrong.

This is a textbook example of "pseudo-debate."

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes settle the issue of the location of JFK's back wound.

This fake debate between Von Pein and Hay gives the impression the issue is in doubt.

It isn't.

There is no debate.

JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- 4 inches below the bottom of the shirt collar.

The round didn't exit.

These are facts a whole lot of CTs need to get over.

LNers will never get over it so there's no point in debating it with them.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Martin Hay]

The re is no debate here, Cliff; "pseudo" or otherwise.

DVP made a factually incorrect claim and I proved him wrong.

Please don't take this off on the same old tangent.

[Kenneth Drew]

DVP is so enamored by Reclaiming History that he now imitates its author.

He thinks that with sheer verbosity and diversion he answers my query. And he also thinks no one will notice that he has not.

Repeat: Where are the errors in Martin's review?

(BTW its absolutely a crack up that you would use the autopsy face sheet. For two reasons. First, that face sheet has caused the official story so much trouble its not funny. Second, its not the original one. You probably don't know that since you don't do any original research.)

He thinks that with sheer verbosity and diversion he answers my query. And he also thinks no one will notice that he has not. But, of course, he's wrong. I think that's his modus operandi. DVP makes an incorrect statement, such as "he's debunked, etc, etc," and when you ask he when and where, he simply repeats the claim. I can say for sure that DVP does not understand the US legal system where it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to 'convict', not to turn loose. DVP, you have to have proof that LHO did it. You have none.

[Robert Prudhomme]

You're funny, Martin.

Davey is like a Timex watch; takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. It might be amusing to watch him if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.

[Kenneth Drew]

MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all.

​Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion.....

Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one.

All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung.

Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process:

As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was.

As usual, David, you are completely wrong.

This is a textbook example of "pseudo-debate."

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes settle the issue of the location of JFK's back wound.

This fake debate between Von Pein and Hay gives the impression the issue is in doubt.

It isn't.

There is no debate.

JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- 4 inches below the bottom of the shirt collar.

The round didn't exit.

These are facts a whole lot of CTs need to get over.

LNers will never get over it so there's no point in debating it with them.

These are facts a whole lot of CTs need to get over. Not quite sure why, that's what most CTer's believe, I think

[Cliff Varnell]

The re is no debate here, Cliff; "pseudo" or otherwise.

DVP made a factually incorrect claim and I proved him wrong.

Please don't take this off on the same old tangent.

The tangent is all yours.

You treat the issue of the back wound as if it were in doubt.

You are wrong.

That you refer to the physical evidence in this murder case as "same old tangent" is most telling.

I like it that you and Von Pein both like to pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist.

[David Von Pein]

I like it that you and Von Pein both like to pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist.

Oh yeah. That's right, Cliff. I am always going around pretending the physical evidence doesn't exist, aren't I? Guns, prints, bullets, witnesses, shells. I never mention any of that stuff, do I?

But apparently the ONLY "real evidence" in the whole case is the clothing of JFK. Right? Nothing else matters. It's all about the clothes (as always), according to One-Note Cliff.

Geez Louise, Cliff. You're obsessed with haberdashery. (Is there a doctor who specializes in that? If so, make an appointment---quick!)

Edited July 11, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all.

​Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion.....

Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one.

All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung.

Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process:

As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was.

As usual, David, you are completely wrong.

This is a textbook example of "pseudo-debate."

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes settle the issue of the location of JFK's back wound.

This fake debate between Von Pein and Hay gives the impression the issue is in doubt.

It isn't.

There is no debate.

JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- 4 inches below the bottom of the shirt collar.

The round didn't exit.

These are facts a whole lot of CTs need to get over.

LNers will never get over it so there's no point in debating it with them.

These are facts a whole lot of CTs need to get over. Not quite sure why, that's what most CTer's believe, I think

Ask Pat Speer, or any darling of the Conference set.

High back wound guys.

The amount of denial on the subject is considerable.

[Cliff Varnell]

*

I like it that you and Von Pein both like to pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist.

Oh yeah. That's right, Cliff. I ALWAYS am going around pretending the physical evidence doesn't exist, aren't I? Guns, prints, bullets, witnesses, shells. I never mention any of that stuff, do I?

None of it can be traced to JFK.

But apparently the ONLY "real evidence" in the whole case is the clothing of JFK. Right?

Correct. It's the extant physical evidence in the case.

Physical evidence -- the body, the clothing -- is paramount in a murder case.

Nothing else matters. It's all about the clothes (as always), right One-Note Cliff?

It's our one point of agreement, David -- JFK's jacket was bunched up just "a little bit."

Geez Louise, Cliff. You're obsessed with haberdashery. Is there a doctor who specializes in that? If so, make an appointment---quick!

Job #1 of the cover-up of Kennedy's assassination was suppression of the physical evidence.

The body was hijacked in Dallas.

There is reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head in the FBI report on the autopsy.

The autopsists were denied access to the clothing.

Your attempt to pretend the clothing evidence doesn't matter is part of the cover-up effort.

And you have a lot of company among CTs.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Mark Knight]

DVP's Secret Blend of 11 Herbs and WC Lies

YOUR words, not mine. But if the shoe fits, lace that puppy up.

[Cliff Varnell]

The Malignant Nature of Pseudo-Debate

by E. Martin Schotz

(emphasis added)

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise -- that there is uncertainty to be resolved – seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions – the media, the universities and the government – once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell