Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days


Recommended Posts

I don't think Jackie retrieved anything off the trunk, but even if she did, it's yet another SO WHAT? / WHO CARES? situation that CTers try to make out to be so utterly important. And the reason it's a non-issue (and proves nothing re: directionality of the head shot) is because JFK's head obviously DID go backward violently after Oswald's bullet hit JFK from the REAR --- and nobody's denying the backward movement of the head. Who COULD be stupid enough to DENY that backward movement? It's on the Z-Film for all to see.

So, since the head did move violently backward after the shot, why couldn't a piece of skull or brain tissue have been thrown onto the trunk for Jackie to pick up? Obviously, such a scenario (with Oswald as the lone gunman) is very very possible (although it probably didn't happen).

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

  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

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 invent a hole in the EOP (probably with the imaginative assistance of Patrick J. Speer).

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

 


What do you mean, *I* decided to invent a hole in the EOP? I'm just going on what the THREE autopsists -- with the body in their hands -- reported seeing. The three autopsists who didn't need to be influenced by an exaggerated/fabricated Ida Dox drawing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

What a laugh! Like Jim DiEugenio actually BELIEVES anything in the autopsy report. You think the whole autopsy was a farce (just like you think EVERYTHING about the "official" case was a farce and a fraud and a lie).

So why did you even bother mentioning the autopsy in your above post? You certainly don't actually believe what the autopsy says, right? The autopsy says that JFK was struck twice and only from BEHIND. You think that's a complete lie.

And please don't pretend that I have ONLY relied on the Zapruder Film for my opinions about JFK's head wounds---because I have not done that at all, Jimmy. Here's a conversation I had on March 24, 2007:

 

A YOUNG CONSPIRACY BUFF (STUDENT) SAID:

[After watching the Zapruder Film], out of 35 students in my classroom, 35 said the [head] shot came from the front; 0 said the shot came from the rear.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, heck yes, they all thought that from JUST focusing on the "back and to the left" reaction of JFK on the Z-Film. Cripes, who WOULDN'T?

But out of those 35 classmates of yours, how many have ANY idea what the autopsy report says regarding JFK's head wounds? And how many have ever read the Warren Commission testimony of one James J. Humes, the lead autopsist? Any of them do those things? (I'm doubting they have.)

The "back and to the left" motion of President Kennedy's head is definitive proof of NOTHING with respect to the precise direction from which the bullet came.

The Zapruder Film is ONE PIECE of evidence to look at and evaluate, sure. But why would anybody simply stop after watching the Z-Film, toss up their hands, and say "That's it! He was shot from the front! Let's have lunch!"?

That's silly.

Read the autopsy report and the doctors' statements. Put the pieces TOGETHER. Don't leave them isolated (like most conspiracy theorists seem to want to do).

And there are the autopsy photos too....which tell us this:

There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head -- and it was IN THE REAR of Kennedy's head. Hence, there is no way POSSIBLE that the head shot came from the FRONT.

2007 Source Link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VblF3RCRNis/7VxR3eaMZjIJ

 

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

Sandy,

By "invent", I mean you've decided to ignore the ONLY thing in the autopsy photo(s) which looks anything remotely like a bullet hole (the red spot), and you have, instead, MADE UP FROM NOTHINGNESS (at least as far as looking at the Red Spot Picture is concerned) another "bullet hole" in the EOP of the picture---which, of course, is not visible AT ALL.

That's what I meant.

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

Look at the title of this thread.

Then look at the last 3 pages of posts.

 

Seems we've drifter far afield.  Not that I'm surprised.  But if you want to debate the autopsy and the head wounds, could you do it on a thread about the autopsy and the head wounds? Because I see very little here about Ruth Payne and her typewriter after the first page.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Sandy,

By "invent", I mean you've decided to ignore the ONLY thing in the autopsy photo(s) which looks anything remotely like a bullet hole (the red spot), and you have, instead, MADE UP FROM NOTHINGNESS (at least as far as looking at the Red Spot Picture is concerned) another "bullet hole" in the EOP of the picture---which, of course, is not visible AT ALL.

That's what I meant.

 

I didn't say it is a bullet hole, I said it looked like it could be one. And it is clearly seen a little above and to the right of the whitish pointy thing just above his hairline on the neck. Right where the autopsy report states the hole is.

00.+JFK+Autopsy+Photos+(Animated+GIF+Mon

 

This will be my final post on this topic.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David...

Who gave you the permission to hijack this entire conversation simply because you remain too self absorbed to understand how wrong you and the government's investigations of this event are.

DVP, you have about as much credibility as DJT...   One little lie after the next until truth no longer exists....

COINTELPRO well played Dave...  

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Look at the title of this thread.

Then look at the last 3 pages of posts.

 

Seems we've drifter far afield.  Not that I'm surprised.  But if you want to debate the autopsy and the head wounds, could you do it on a thread about the autopsy and the head wounds? Because I see very little here about Ruth Payne and her typewriter after the first page

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Not according to Dr. Petty....

 

The HSCA's interpretation of the open-craniun photographs have the entire brain being removed through a five-inch skull cavity (unless you want to say, without evidence, that previously-separated skull fragments were pieced together for the taking of those photographs). 

They also operated under the false (or at least unevidenced) assertion that a bullet striking near the EOP would necissatily cause severe damage to the cerebellum.

There's about just as many relevant experts who examined the the x-rays and couldn't identify any particular entry. 

Oh, and the cowlick entry theory directly contradicts Finck's repeated statement that he could examine the entry within the inact, empty cranium, and NOT as a previously-separated portion of skull bone. 

Petty, along with Cornwell, personally coerced Humes into going along with their pet theory about the cowlick. As Lifton has said, Humes was so angry about this he saw his hands physically trembling as he was walking out of his deposition. He went right back to saying the wound was near the EOP, probably starting with his interview with Livingstone. He never truly changed his mind, as he told the ARRB.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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? ....

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg  ------JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg

 

Oh my God. Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Stringer specifically denied that that was the entry wound. Boswell firmly told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration in the scalp related to the large head wound, while the rest just suggested it was clotted blood. 

The red spot is about 12 mm and circular-teardrop shaped, while the wound in the autopsy report is an elliptical 15 x 6mm. 

If none of the "dark spots" within the hairline on the BOH photos are the wound, then it could just as easily be barely hiding under some hair. There are also missing autopsy photographs, so no matter how you look at it, you can't use the BOH photos as an argument for the cowlick entry theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can I suggest we follow the lead by Mark?

Davey did it again.

Sandy opened up a new thread on the weirdness of Baden.  We should move the discussion of the autopsy there.

Sorry I kind of started it, but in my very first comment I suggested moving to the "tracking oswald part 5" thread for this subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I don't think Jackie retrieved anything off the trunk, but even if she did, it's yet another SO WHAT? / WHO CARES? situation that CTers try to make out to be so utterly important. And the reason it's a non-issue (and proves nothing re: directionality of the head shot) is because JFK's head obviously DID go backward violently after Oswald's bullet hit JFK from the REAR --- and nobody's denying the backward movement of the head. Who COULD be stupid enough to DENY that backward movement? It's on the Z-Film for all to see.

So, since the head did move violently backward after the shot, why couldn't a piece of skull or brain tissue have been thrown onto the trunk for Jackie to pick up? Obviously, such a scenario (with Oswald as the lone gunman) is very very possible (although it probably didn't happen).

I Care.  As well as many others.  Still 60-80% of us find the officially proposed and defended version illogical and irreconcilable.  So What?  So it affects us all,  the effects of it carried forward throughout Our Government to this day big time.  Presidents don't travel in open motorcades through downtown Dallas or anywhere else anymore.  I still care for my children and grandchildren though they don't understand.  Yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

It was a 180 day visa, but Oswald did not apply for it.  Is That what someone new to the subject or thread should conclude? Mr. Josephs.  I realize their is much more detail.

I won't speak outright for David, but If you read his brilliant Mexico City work, the point is that the evidence is a cobbled together mass of manufactured, manipulated and forged garbage. The visa documentation is inconsistent with the official story; in this case, I believe, the HSCA Lopez report.

Edited by Michael Clark
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...