Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

[James DiEugenio]

OMG, to bring in Petty's jocular testimony at that phony TV trial is so utterly ridiculous as to be absurd.

This is the guy who said, "It would be nice to have the brain."

LOL, ROTF  

Oh really Chuck?  Would it also be nice to have the actual pictures of the sectioned brain?  Would it also be nice to have the brain weight the night of the autopsy?

Because without any of those things you have no idea of where the bullet(s) entered or exited.

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

OMG, to bring in Petty's jocular testimony at that phony TV trial is so utterly ridiculous as to be absurd.

Yeah, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist digging your claws into Dr. Petty after I posted his '86 testimony. You're as predictable as a morning sunrise. (But, then again, I suppose I'm just as predictable---in an "LN" sort of fashion. So, it's a draw on the "predictability" score.)

Side Note---

Earth to Jim D.:

Just because you love to continually refer to "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986) as a "phony trial", that doesn't mean everybody on the planet has to agree with your assessment of that television program. It's actually a very good mock trial, in which we were able to see real assassination witnesses being examined on TV by a prosecutor and a defense lawyer for the first and only time (not counting the Clay Shaw Trial, which, of course, was not televised).

 

Quote

...without any of those things[,] you have no idea of where the bullet(s) entered or exited.

That is totally wrong (and absurd), Jim. Even without the brain, we know the bullet (singular) entered THE REAR part of the head (and whether it was the "EOP" or the "Cowlick", it was still the REAR of the head, perfectly consistent with a shot coming from Oswald's window in the Depository). The autopsy photos and X-rays prove that "ENTERED THE REAR OF THE HEAD" fact. Plus the autopsy report proves it too (which is a report that almost all CTers think is a total lie from start to finish, of course).

And even without the brain, it's clear that the bullet (singular) exited the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head (toward the front), just as the Zapruder Film clearly and amply demonstrates....

So, Dr. Petty was 100% correct when he said: "It would be nice to have the brain." Yes, it'd be nice. But it's certainly not imperative to have it in order to answer the big questions concerning the head entry and exit locations.

Edited July 27, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ron Bulman]

David, your sequence show's JFK's brain exploding, spraying motorcycle officer Hargis to his left rear.  There wasn't much left to examine, though much has ben made of it.  The bit Jackie grabbed off the trunk, some of the left side with particles in it per the "x-rays"?  Official illustrator Skip Rydeberg describes brains as having the consistency of scrambled eggs.  You do believe his depictions are accurate?

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=PkA%2fq0FR&id=9387E91DE311BFA9C4C5A26C955EBB17B4339D07&thid=OIP.PkA_q0FRceuKFAavwDx8ZQEsCH&q=skip+rydberg+jfk+illustrations&simid=607993364446775928&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=skip+rydberg+jfk+illustrations&ajaxhist=0

[James DiEugenio]

LMAO, 

To use the Zapruder film to declare:

1.) Directionality, and

2.) The number of bullets to the skull

Is a use that is particular to you.  And only you would stoop so low as to use it for those purposes.

The probative evidence concerning those matters would be the autopsy.  But as Martin Hay pointed out in his destruction of your horrendous book, you did not care to examine that area in any depth or scope.

I don't blame you at all for that Davey Boy.  Its a real loser for you and I am glad you know it, since it reveals that you are not ready for the old folks home quite yet.

If I can give you some advice: As you will soon see, that Mexican Embassy letter you are so desperately trying to preserve is also a loser.  Better to depart from that one also. 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

.......

Edited July 27, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

David, your sequence show's JFK's brain exploding, spraying motorcycle officer Hargis to his left rear.  There wasn't much left to examine, though much has ben made of it.  The bit Jackie grabbed off the trunk, some of the left side with particles in it per the "x-rays"?  Official illustrator Skip Rydeberg describes brains as having the consistency of scrambled eggs.  You do believe his depictions are accurate?

The Rydberg drawings are awful. I've said that for years. The biggest mistake made by the Warren Commission was their failure to examine (in detail) the autopsy photographs and X-rays. That was a huge blunder on their part, no doubt about it. And that's why we have to be satisfied (as far as the Warren Report and the 26 volumes are concerned anyway) with those awful Rydberg drawings, which have caused more harm than good for decades, prompting even more people to scream "Cover Up" at the top of their lungs. But when the autopsy photos did finally become available to the masses (albeit in bootleg form), we can see that the WC was right anyway --- i.e., JFK was shot only from BEHIND --- just as the autopsy said.

But it looks like you, Ron, believe in the conspiracy myth that Jackie was retrieving a piece of JFK's head off of the trunk of the limousine---which is merely a theory that has never been proven to be a fact. Yes, there's Clint Hill's testimony, but beyond that, there's merely amateur Z-Film interpretation of Jackie Kennedy's movements on the trunk and what those movements SUPPOSEDLY mean. I have my own ideas on the matter, as expressed here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Jackie+Trunk

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

James DiEugenio said:

To use the Zapruder film to declare:

1.) Directionality, and

2.) The number of bullets to the skull

Is a use that is particular to you. And only you would stoop so low as to use it for those purposes.

The probative evidence concerning those matters would be the autopsy. But as Martin Hay pointed out in his destruction of your horrendous book, you did not care to examine that area in any depth or scope.

I don't blame you at all for that, Davey Boy. It's a real loser for you and I am glad you know it, since it reveals that you are not ready for the old folks home quite yet.

You're as hilarious as ever, "Jimmy Boy". You just implied that I—DVP—am the only person in the history of the world who has ever utilized the Zapruder Film to demonstrate that JFK was struck in the head by only ONE bullet, with that single bullet coming from behind (per the Z-Film).

All I can say to you after you made this weird and flat-out ludicrous claim....

"Only you would stoop so low as to use it [the Zapruder Film] for those purposes."

....is Huh?? (and maybe WTF??)....because virtually EVERY Lone Assassin believer in the world at one time or another has utilized Abraham Zapruder's 26-second home movie to bolster his or her arguments about President Kennedy being hit in the head only one time from behind, including such prominent LN authors as Gerald Posner (see Page 475 of "Case Closed", 1994 paperback edition) and Vincent Bugliosi (see the many references made to the Z-Film as it relates to Bugliosi's arguments concerning the fatal head shot in "Reclaiming History", including the excerpt printed below)....

"It had to be pure oversight on the part of someone at the HSCA to not publish this enhanced [high contrast] reproduction of Z313...for this reproduction is almost, if not equally, as dramatic as that of the head snap to the rear, only it shows vivid, graphic evidence that the fatal shot to the head at Z312—313 was fired from the rear. As can be clearly seen, the terrible spray of blood, shell fragments, and brain matter a millisecond after the president was shot appears to be to the front. I now had more than enough evidence, of every species I would possibly need, to demonstrate to the jury [at the mock trial in London in 1986] that at the all-important moment of impact, Kennedy's head was pushed forward, not backward, proving the head shot came from the rear." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 486 of "Reclaiming History"

But, amazingly, apparently (per James DiEugenio) it is David V.P.—and ONLY me—who has used the Zapruder Film as a tool of "head shot analysis" and study. How about that folks? Jimmy says that I'm all alone when it comes to that type of Z-Film analysis. Incredible.

My goodness, if Jim's memory is so bad he can't even remember that major authors like Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi have (many times) utilized Mr. Zapruder's amateur movie to buttress their arguments pertaining to JFK's head wounds, then perhaps Mr. DiEugenio is ready for the place that he just said I'm not quite ready to reside in just yet—the "old folks home".

I'll get you a rocking chair, Jim.

Addendum....

And for Jim D. to suggest, as he did above, that no conspiracy advocate has ever used the Zapruder Film to try and support their position that JFK was shot in the head from the front (and with multiple bullets, per many different CTers) is a suggestion that is not only dead wrong, it's downright bizarre!

I can't count how many times I've talked to CTers who have insisted, based on their own subjective Z-Film "analysis", that the film is providing the absolute PROOF that JFK was struck in the head from the front, thereby proving that a conspiracy existed to kill the President in Dallas.

Jim, even you yourself have done that very thing you are claiming that only I have done (re: "directionality") --- you have stated in the past your belief that the Zapruder Film shows that JFK was shot in the head from the front, when you said this nine years ago:

"The only part of the head that looks like it's being impacted is the front." -- James DiEugenio; November 27, 2008

So, once again, we're treated to a Pot/Kettle moment from a conspiracy theorist named James DiEugenio.

Thanks, Jim.
 

Edited July 27, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

That is totally wrong (and absurd), Jim. Even without the brain, we know the bullet (singular) entered THE REAR part of the head (and whether it was the "EOP" or the "Cowlick", it was still the REAR of the head, perfectly consistent with a shot coming from Oswald's window in the Depository).

David,

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA had to move the entrance wound from the EOP to the cowlick in order for the trajectory from the TSBD snipers nest to work??

Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was at the EOP. Yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who saw only a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA had to move the entrance wound from the EOP to the cowlick in order for the trajectory from the TSBD snipers nest to work??

But that's only because the HSCA (Thomas Canning) didn't factor in the possibility of the bullet being slightly deflected and therefore CHANGING DIRECTIONS after entering JFK's skull, which is a scenario that is very likely, IMO. That bullet, after hitting the back of the head at full velocity, likely didn't stay on the EXACT same trajectory. That can make all the difference in the world. (See Dale Myers' analysis on this point --- http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm.)

 

Quote

Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was at the EOP. Yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who saw only a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?

Huh? Why are you saying the HSCA experts "saw only a drawing of the head"? The HSCA didn't ONLY have the Ida Dox drawings at their disposal. They also had full access to all of JFK's original first-generation autopsy photographs and X-rays (and they even published the X-rays in their 12 volumes of supporting evidence). And it was those actual AUTOPSY PHOTOS (not the Dox drawings) that convinced the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel that the entry wound in JFK's head was located about four inches (3.9 in.) above the EOP. And the Clark Panel's 1968 examination of the autopsy materials supported the "cowlick" entry as well....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

Where does the entry wound appear to be in these photos below, Sandy? Low on the head or high on the head? Or don't you see a bullet hole at all here? ....

  ------

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA had to move the entrance wound from the EOP to the cowlick in order for the trajectory from the TSBD snipers nest to work??

But that's only because the HSCA (Thomas Canning) didn't factor in the possibility of the bullet being slightly deflected and therefore CHANGING DIRECTIONS after entering JFK's skull, which is a scenario that is very likely, IMO. That bullet, after hitting the back of the head at full velocity, likely didn't stay on the EXACT same trajectory. That can make all the difference in the world. (See Dale Myers' analysis on this point --- http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm.)

David,

Let me restate the questions so that you can't ignore the points I'm trying to make (by focusing instead on other, unimportant points).

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA moved the entrance wound location from the EOP to the cowlick?

Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was near the EOP. And yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who were shown a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?

 

 

Here is the drawing the HSCA experts were shown. Note the exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole:

 

And here is the photograph which doesn't show the hole:

 

And lest you counter by saying that the color back-of-head photo does show a hole in the cowlick...

Here is a gif that shows it is not a hole at all, but rather is a small clump/curl of hair:

 

[David Von Pein]

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Doesn't it give you pause that the HSCA moved the entrance wound location from the EOP to the cowlick?

Yes, it gives me "pause". But what the heck am I supposed to do about it? The HSCA did what they pretty much had to do, and they concluded what they pretty much had to conclude, given the nature of the photos and X-rays (plus the re-examination by the HSCA of the Clark Panel's findings).

 

Quote

Doesn't it bother you that the autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- saw that the wound was near the EOP. And yet their judgement was trumped by the HSCA experts who were shown a drawing of the head with an exaggerated/fabricated cowlick hole?

Once again, why on Earth are you saying something so silly? The HSCA did NOT rely on the Dox drawing to reach its conclusions at all. They relied on the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY PICTURES & X-RAYS, which most certainly DO show a hole in the BOH, 100mm. above the EOP, as measured by the Clark Panel.

And both autopsy pictures (the color one and the B&W one) definitely DO show a hole in the BOH, high on the head. I see it in both photos. And it's especially visible in BOTH pictures when viewing the animated GIF image. (A "curl of hair"?? That's funny.)

Edited July 27, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Davey:

What I said was the following, which, as you always do, you left out:

The probative evidence for directionality, and the number of bullets that hit the skull would be the autopsy, not the Z film. (Although your directionality issue seems to be discredited by a little matter called "back and to the left"- which you try to make disappear.)

You can go ahead and check the original post itself.  But that is what I was saying. And I will say it to any WC fanatic.

And for you to quote that utterly discredited part of Bugliosi's book, where he relied on a photo expert, Cecil Kirk, who worked for the WC to decide on autopsy matters, well that says a lot about both him and you. Because your own medical expert, DI Maio, discredits Kirk. (See Reclaiming Parkland, p. 61)  I mean I know you did not read my book Davey Boy, but sorry its there.  And  Reclaiming Parkland supersedes and obliterates Reclaiming History on virtually  every major point VB tries to make.  Only a knee-jerk acolyte like yourself could not see that VB was, almost throughout, recycling warmed over WC apologias which did not stand up to scrutiny.

Two last points: 1.) Ida Dox was told by Baden to gussy up that HSCA photo to make the cowlick area look like it had been perforated.  People who have seen the original photos, which you have not, will tell you that what she rendered in the picture is not there in reality.  2.) Jackie Kennedy was reaching across the trunk for the debris from JFK's skull, which she later handed to the attending physicians at Parkland.  And there are multiple witnesses on this. Just like the motorcycle cop who said he was hit by blood and tissue so hard.  (Please do not recycle Posner's BS on this one. )

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, it gives me "pause". But what the heck am I supposed to do about it? The HSCA did what they pretty much had to do, and they concluded what they pretty much had to conclude, given the nature of the photos and X-rays (plus the re-examination by the HSCA of the Clark Panel's findings).

 

Once again, why on Earth are you saying something so silly? The HSCA did NOT rely on the Dox drawing to reach its conclusions at all. They relied on the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY PICTURES & X-RAYS, which most certainly DO show a hole in the BOH, 100mm. above the EOP, as measured by the Clark Panel.

And both autopsy pictures (the color one and the B&W one) definitely DO show a hole in the BOH, high on the head. I see it in both photos. And it's especially visible in BOTH pictures when viewing the animated GIF image. (A "curl of hair"?? That's funny.)

 

So. . . .

You believe that the THREE autopsists -- who held the body in their hands -- were so blind that they could not see the cowlick hole that you say is "most certainly" there. (I'm with the autopsists... I don't see a hole there either. I DO see what might be a hole near the EOP though.) And you believe that the THREE autopsists were so blind that they could not see the cowlick hole in the x-rays. And you believe that the THREE autopsists DID see a bullet hole near the EOP that did not actually exist. The one they discussed in an HSCA hearing, saying that the bullet penetrated the scalp and then skidded along the skull (tunneling under the scalp, as they put it). You believe that that hole and the tunneling were figments of their imaginations. All THREE of them. (It's amazing how all three imagined the same things!)

Oh... and you believe that the Ida Dox drawing with the exaggerated/fabricated hole served no purpose when shown to the HSCA experts.

Um. . .  okay, whatever you say Dave.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy,

See my point above.  It was Baden, the HSCA expert, who told Dox to do the alterations to the photo to make it appear to be a perforation at the cow lick.

But that does not mean anything to Davey Boy. Nor does the fact that VB printed the Dox photo in his book to represent the "entrance wound". (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 157)

Altering evidence, and then using altered evidence to mislead the reader is fine with Davey.  That is why he is Davey.

[David Von Pein]

So, Sandy, you think that the ONLY THING that even slightly resembles a bullet hole (the "Cowlick" entry wound, of course) is really a "curl of hair" (a bloody "curl", evidently?)....and you've decided to, instead, invent a hole in the EOP portion of the autopsy photos (probably with the imaginative assistance of Patrick J. Speer).

Um. . .  okay, whatever you say, Sandy.

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by David Von Pein