The Assassination of JFK

[LunarRay]

I've already dealt with that here. If you go back and read my posts you'll see that the "gaping hole in the back of the head" has been thoroughly debunked.


There wasn't a hole in the windshield. There was a crack.



Or, there was one shooter from the back who fired off three shots. A fragment of the third shell is believed to have hit the windshield and caused the crack. Lead residue was recovered from the inside surface of the windshield.

Saying something has been debunked is rather strong language considering there exists evidence to the contrary.
I think the best argument against a conspiracy is found in Vince Bugliosi's tome. He addresses every issue. I think it is 2007 circa. Bring a cart to carry it.
There are lots of counter arguments but it seems that folks pick on one issue and write a book on that and don't spend the years it takes to do what Vince did.
Exhibit 399 (the bullet) does look pristine compared to the Commission attempt to duplicate it... look at the three bullets that make up the cotton shot, the goat rib shot and the cadaver wrist shot... each looks more deformed than the next and all lost way more that 1 1/2% of their 161 gram beginning weight. In fact, Connelly had more than that remaining in his body. That is a problem to the eyes of many. The scientific method demands the ability to duplicate the issue... It cannot be done in this case... honestly, imo.

 

[kylebisme]

FBI Agent Robert A Frazier took the the photo:

Ah, in D.C. 13 hours later, plenty of time for the evidence to have been tampered with.

Which of the three shots was that from?

I doubt there were only three shots.

Who wrote it then, and why did the three sign it?

Did they write it or not? If so, why do you doubt the accuracy of their statement. Were they lying?

I'll quote myself:

That affidavit describes a head wound like the Warren Commission claimed rather than the HSCA claims you referred to previously... I'm not claiming the three men who signed that affidavit were lying, just weak-minded enough to sign an inaccurate affidavit written by God knows who.

Understood?

You know, I'm new to this whole JFK conspiracy debate.

I'd speculated that you hadn't rightly reviewed the evidence before attempting to defend the official story, and I thank you for confirming my suspicion.

I'm not saying that the Rydberg drawing is dead on accurate...it's not.

Then quit pestering me to address an affidavit which describes the wounds as depicted in the Rydberg drawing that neither of us consider accurate. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

However, one thing is absolutely clear: neither of the two show a gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head.

Sure, illustrations showing a gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head can be found here.

 

[Loyalist]

Ah, in D.C. 13 hours later, plenty of time for the evidence to have been tampered with.

LOL! The limosine was under guard that whole time .

I doubt there were only three shots.

Why? Only three could be heard. All of the evidence points to the existence of only three shots.

I'll quote myself:

I'm not claiming the three men who signed that affidavit were lying, just weak-minded enough to sign an inaccurate affidavit written by God knows who.
​

Understood?

weak-minded

adjective

1. Displaying a complete lack of forethought and good sense: brainless, fatuous, foolish, insensate, mindless, senseless, silly, unintelligent, witless. See ability/inability, planned/unplanned.
2. Having only a limited ability to learn and understand: backward, dull, simple, simple-minded, slow, slow-witted. Informal soft. Offensive feeble-minded, half-witted, retarded. See ability/inability.

Umm...oooook..

I'd speculated that you hadn't rightly reviewed the evidence before attempting to defend the official story, and I thank you for confirming my suspicion.

Actually, I reviewed enough of the evidence to know that the official story is what really happened. In defending that official story, I don't have to ignore well established facts and irrefutable evidence. There's no need to make outrageous claims about forged or altered autopsy photos and x-rays, and film reel of the actual assassination itself. I don't have to assume that three professional pathologists were liars or just dim-witted. I don't have to create an extra shot and then leave the ballistics of it and whatever happened to it unexplained. I don't have to claim that the limosine windshield was swapped out and replaced with another under the noses of the unknowing and or apparently blind agents who were guarding it. I don't have to ignore the official White House garage logs. I don't have to brush aside the testimonies of numerous Secret Service agents who were either with the limo from Parkland to the White House or who had viewed it soon after it got to the White House. I don't have to explain how all of the brain matter and blood got on the windshield and hood of the car from a front head shot. I don't have to rely on "Johnny come lately" nutbars who show up twenty or thirty years after the fact claiming to have "seen this" or "heard that".

Then quit pestering me to address an affidavit which describes the wounds as depicted in the Rydberg drawing that neither of us consider accurate. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I already got your view of the Pathologists. You don't believe that they were liars. You think that they were just dim-witted. I won't "pester" any further on the matter.

Sure, illustrations showing a gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head can be found here.

Umm...I don't know if you noticed or not but the illustrations don't match up with the photo there. What's up with that?

 

[Loyalist]

Exhibit 399 (the bullet) does look pristine compared to the Commission attempt to duplicate it... look at the three bullets that make up the cotton shot, the goat rib shot and the cadaver wrist shot... each looks more deformed than the next and all lost way more that 1 1/2% of their 161 gram beginning weight. In fact, Connelly had more than that remaining in his body. That is a problem to the eyes of many. The scientific method demands the ability to duplicate the issue... It cannot be done in this case... honestly, imo.

I disagree. The scientific method does not demand an exact duplicate. While an exact duplicate is theoretically possible, the practicality of ever being able to achieve it is pretty out of range. One could expect to get fairly close however.

 

[kylebisme]

The limosine was under guard that whole time .

Which is irrelevant in situations where foxes might be guarding the henhouse, and that the limo was whisked away from the city which the crime took place alone suggests that possibility. Further evidence makes as much blatantly obvious, though the extent of evidence tampering is reasonably debatable.

Why? Only three could be heard. All of the evidence points to the existence of only three shots.

It depends on how one considers the evidence. I don't believe in magic (bullets or otherwise), I'm familiar with various methods for suppressing the sound of gunfire, and I'm not affected by the psychological issues discussed here. As you apparently differ from me in all three respects, our disagreement here is to be expected.

weak-minded

Note the primary entry in the dictionary section of your link, as that is the manor in which I used the term.

Actually, I reviewed enough of the evidence to know that the official story is what really happened.

You obviously have done some review of attempts to defend the official story, but proved yourself willfully ignorant of evidence to the contrary. This is exemplified by the fact that not only did you demonstrate obliviousness to mention of the many testimonies of a large wound in the back of the head and such, but further your dismissal of the documentary I linked presenting such evidence as "minutes of my life totally wasted" after only watching the first segment. Also, It's of particular irony that you dismiss a documentary which shows Al981 and I claimed it shows as a waste of your time after you'd wasted my time by directing me to a webpage which you admit doesn't show what you'd claimed it did.

In defending that official story, I don't have to ignore well established facts and irrefutable evidence.

Rather, you cite contradictory evidence while ignoring what such contradictions suggest about the integrity of the chain of evidence, and the well established fact that the vast majority of the earliest witnesses report a large wound in the back of the head. You also pointed to an article which doesn't prove what you'd claimed, ignore the primary definition of a word to misrepresent what I've said, and engage in all sorts of other nonsense to defend your position of misplaced faith in what is irrefutably a cover-up.

I disagree. The scientific method does not demand an exact duplicate.

You aren't disagreeing with him, but rather strawmanning him by inserting "exact" into his argument while dodging what he actually said.

Anyway, while this thread has been going, I stumbled across and read How Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong. The essays mostly just summarize facts I've long been familiar with, but mention some that were new to me as well, and do a fine job of explaining the situation. So, if you ever take an interest in researching the evidence against the official story, I recommend that as a good place to start.

 

[al981]

LOL! You haven't been paying attention to detail. "Side", 'lateral", "temporal". Did you not hear those descriptions in the video? Also, just look at your image above. Some of those are indicating the parietal and temporal regions and one even appears to have his hand over the upper parietal area that this image shows as the entrance point.

""Side", 'lateral", "temporal".... and don't forget, each and every single one of the doctors either said "back of the head" or had their handprints on the back of the head, exactly like these drawings recently linked by the OP:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

wow, the official autopsy photos look nothing like those drawings by the doctors. so, now we have the words of the doctors, the hands of the doctors demonstrating a large wound in the back of jfk's head, and the doctors' drawings that also show a large wound in the back of kennedy's head. curious, you see no large wound in that area in the autopsy photos. what?

Dr David Mantik? What is his medical specialty?

I've honestly never done much research on mantik, new material for me:
"David W. Mantik received his doctorate in physics from the University of Wisconsin and was a member on the physics faculty (as assistant professor) at the university before leaving for medical school. He completed his internship and residency in radiation oncology at LAC/USC Medical Center in Los Angeles.

He has also completed fellowships in physics at the University of Illinois and in biophysics at Stanford University, and a junior faculty clinical fellowship with the American Cancer Society."

His paper is linked here (I haven't read it), and I'm curious if there is a paper published debunking his claims:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2339

Joe O'Donnell? ...
Robert Knudsen that O'Donnell talks about?

Hm, if true, it does sound a bit odd that Knudsen couldn't keep his story straight.

Researching a bit more on the supposed photos led me to this... anyone able to comment?
from this link: http://www.jfkmurder.com/knudsen.html

"One set of autopsy photographs, now at the National Archives, has been known to exist for years, and most of the pictures have been published by Robert Groden, but the new testimony documents the existence of at least one other complete set.

In 1977, Mr. Groden had examined the "known" autopsy photographs in the National Archives while he was Staff Photographic Consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He noticed that several photographs were missing from the known inventory and he also discovered and reported to the HSCA that about a half dozen others, that were not in the original inventory, were now present in the Archives' collection. In his report to the HSCA, Mr. Groden reported that he had noticed that some of the photographs, notably those showing the rear of the president's head, had been retouched photographically. The insert lines and contrast changes were quite evident.

.......

In 1997, the review board found and interviewed Saundra K. Spencer, who worked at the Naval Photographic Center in 1963. She was shown the autopsy photographs in the National Archives and found that they were not the photographs that she had processed.

The pictures that she developed and printed had, "no blood or opening cavities." she stated.

The film was brought in by an agent she believed was with the FBI. "When he gave us the material to process, he said that they had been shot at Bethesda and they were autopsy pictures."

She was told, she said: "Process them and try not to observe too much, don't peruse."

........

Mr. Knudsen's observations were identical to those of another autopsy photographer, Floyd Riebe as well as Robert Groden who also reported the alteration of exactly the same photographs, in exactly the same location.

The House Assassinations Committee suppressed both Mr. Knudsen's testimony and Mr. Groden's report of the alteration.

"It is quite important that there were other cameras." said Mr. Groden, "There were four autopsy photographers (and cameras) in all." John Stringer, William Bruce Pitzer, Robert L. Knudsen and Floyd Riebe. Mr. Pitzer was murdered soon after President Kennedy's autopsy to silence him. The existence of the other two or three additional sets of autopsy photographs have been concealed from the public and investigative agencies for thirty-five years.

Additionally, testimony was received by the review board that Mr. Pitzer was, at the time of his death, in possession of a 16 millimeter film of the autopsy which he had taken during the autopsy examination and been working on at the time he was murdered. The film disappeared and has never again surfaced. No one from any of the five governmental investigations has seen any of these other three sets. The only set they've seen contain the doctored photographs which show a photographically rebuilt rear of the head to disguise the large exit wound which was in the back of President Kennedy's head. The proof of at least one more gunman and, of course, a conspiracy."

"

Peters and McClelland eh? Well, either you somehow missed the transcript of McClelland's testimony that I posted or you just chose to ignore it. Here it is again:


Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.
The doctors at Parkland, including McClelland, did not get a good view of the back of Kennedy's head.

McClelland clearly stated he saw the back of the head wound, cerebellum falling out and all:
"It was in the right back part of the head -- very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table..." http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

As for your assertion that a "partial" view of the back of the head indicates the doctors "did not get a good view of the back of the head", see this jpeg: even with a partial view, the back of the head is still visible, enough so that a large back of the head wound the doctors described is accurate:

Dr. Peters has also confirmed that what he saw was large hole "occipitoparietal region".

And Dr Perry?
I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen AND I DIDN'T INSPECT IT FURTHER. I JUST GLANCED AT IT AND I WENT ON OUTSIDE AND LATER WAS SUMMONED UP TO THE OPERATING ROOM TO HELP IN...

so, because Dr. Perry didn't inspect it "further", you're saying he didn't get a good look at it? and notice Perry's choice of words: "Parietal occipital", "cerebellum", just like the other doctors.

 

[al981]

No, you haven't been showing a coverup with JFK's wounds. You have shown some evidence contradictory with other evidence, about which one theory is a coverup, a far cry from actually proving a coverup. The OJ Simpson defense team claimed to have shown he was innocent, and presented much info to support that theory, but did not show he was innocent, because he wasn't. The glove did not fit, but they did not have to acquit - turns out, he could make his hand swell and did so.

There's no dodging - but I also don't talk much to people who are as rude as you now are, with your inults and baiting.

If there is a conspiracy, you and Kyle are bad champions for showing it. It's a little like having some KKK guy say OJ did it because he's black - he did it, but that's guy's a loon.

You and Kyle show no understanding of the idea of there being evidence with different explanations, or even without explanations, that isn't conclusive.

rofl.

you start going off on some random oj simpson event which has no connection to the topic at hand, followed by the KKK, and haven't addressed evidence such as this which blows away the official autopsy photos:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

yeah, you're damn right i've shown "contradictory" evidence. contradictory evidence that has not been acknowledged by the government because it currently destroys the official autopsy photos. so craig, where's the big hole in the back of the head all these dallas medical personel are drawing and talking about? please point it out in the official autopsy photos, kkthx. if you can't find it, cover-up defined "Ohmigish".

 

[kylebisme]

As for your assertion that a "partial" view of the back of the head indicates the doctors "did not get a good view of the back of the head", see this jpeg: even with a partial view, the back of the head is still visible, enough so that a large back of the head wound the doctors described is accurate:

http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt50/al981/occipito-parietalview.jpg

Those example photos do well to exemplify the absurdity of the "did not get a good view of the back of the head" argument, as if the wound actually was in either of the locations the official story has claimed; the doctors and such would've been able to get an unobstructed look at it. While in fact, they didn't get a good look at it precisely because it was way in the back.

 

[Craig234]

For Al981, besides learning to read when he's cut off, www.dictionary.com has a definition he can use for the word "analogy". Until then, it's one more reason discussion is pointless.

 

[kylebisme]

I'll bet Al knows that people in denial often resort to analogy to avoid addressing the matter at hand, and figure he just doesn't care to humor such nonsense.

 

[al981]

Those example photos do well to exemplify the absurdity of the "did not get a good view of the back of the head" argument, as if the wound actually was in either of the locations the official story has claimed; the doctors and such would've been able to get an unobstructed look at it. While in fact, they didn't get a good look at it precisely because it was way in the back.

heh, good point.

 

[al981]

For Al981, besides learning to read when he's cut off, www.dictionary.com has a definition he can use for the word "analogy". Until then, it's one more reason discussion is pointless.

ah, spends time to write piss poor / useless comparisons ... spends even more time linking to dictionary.com ... yet can't spend 30 seconds to point out where the large back of the head wound is located in the official autopsy photos. craig, please point out to the class what the dallas doctors are referring to

dodge?

 

[Doboji]

Since people like to dismiss me for not being suckered by the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, I figured it would be interesting to see how many here are suckered by the lone gunman story of the JFK assassination. Based on the evidence I've seen, I've no doubt that the fatal shot came from the front, and hence can't rightly believe Oswald acted alone.

This documentary compiles much of the evidence I've based my conclusion on, and also provides some reasonable speculation into possible conspirators. So, for those who've never taken time to look at the evidence, I recommend watching that, and please feel free to ask questions in regard to anything presented in it.

By the way, for those of the herd mentality, polling consistently shows a wide majority of the population doesn't buy the offical story of JFK.

Did we fake the lunar landing too?

 

[kylebisme]

Best I can tell from all the evidence I've seen; no, the Moon landings weren't faked. Are you faking being a pea-brained goon, or does that come natural to you?

 

[JD50]

ah, spends time to write piss poor / useless comparisons ... spends even more time linking to dictionary.com ... yet can't spend 30 seconds to point out where the large back of the head wound is located in the official autopsy photos. craig, please point out to the class what the dallas doctors are referring to

dodge?

Craig and I have clashed many times in P&N over the past few years, but he completely owned you and you're too stupid to realize it. You can't even comprehend a simple analogy.

 

[al981]

Craig and I have clashed many times in P&N over the past few years, but he completely owned you and you're too stupid to realize it. You can't even comprehend a simple analogy.

that was a piss poor analogy, and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

swelling of oj's hand relates to destruction of evidence, and the dallas doctors all contradicting the official autopsy photos? that makes zero sense.

here you go jd50, since you wanted to mouth off: on the official autopsy photos of jfk, point out the large wound that all these dallas doctors have drawn and testified to seeing:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

go ahead. you claim to comprehend a "simple analogy". surely you can comprehend what the dallas doctors have drawn. point out where the large back of the head wound is located.

inc dodge?

edit: cmon, you can do it your buddy craig has been dodging it the entire thread! blankdodge dodged, he's gone from the thread. loyalist tried, but couldn't refute what the doctors have stated.

 

[Loyalist]

Which is irrelevant in situations where foxes might be guarding the henhouse, and that the limo was whisked away from the city which the crime took place alone suggests that possibility. Further evidence makes as much blatantly obvious, though the extent of evidence tampering is reasonably debatable.

There isn't any evidence that makes a switch of windshield by the secret service blatantly obvious. None. Zero. Nada.

It depends on how one considers the evidence. I don't believe in magic (bullets or otherwise), I'm familiar with various methods for suppressing the sound of gunfire, and I'm not affected by the psychological issues discussed here. As you apparently differ from me in all three respects, our disagreement here is to be expected

.

Magic bullets eh? Remind me why I'm supposed to believe in magic bullets.

 

[Loyalist]

""Side", 'lateral", "temporal".... and don't forget, each and every single one of the doctors either said "back of the head" or had their handprints on the back of the head, exactly like these drawings recently linked by the OP:

"Side", "lateral" and "temporal". You failed to address those.

I've honestly never done much research on mantik, new material for me:
"David W. Mantik received his doctorate in physics from the University of Wisconsin and was a member on the physics faculty (as assistant professor) at the university before leaving for medical school. He completed his internship and residency in radiation oncology at LAC/USC Medical Center in Los Angeles.

He has also completed fellowships in physics at the University of Illinois and in biophysics at Stanford University, and a junior faculty clinical fellowship with the American Cancer Society."

His paper is linked here (I haven't read it), and I'm curious if there is a paper published debunking his claims:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2339

Just as I suspected. He was expounding on something that was outside his area of expertise.

McClelland clearly stated he saw the back of the head wound, cerebellum falling out and all:
"It was in the right back part of the head -- very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table..."

McClelland, according to his own testimony, couldn't have gotten a clear view of the back of Kennedy's head.

As for your assertion that a "partial" view of the back of the head indicates the doctors "did not get a good view of the back of the head", see this jpeg: even with a partial view, the back of the head is still visible, enough so that a large back of the head wound the doctors described is accurate:

LOL! You're joking,right?

Dr. Peters has also confirmed that what he saw was large hole "occipitoparietal region".

so, because Dr. Perry didn't inspect it "further", you're saying he didn't get a good look at it? and notice Perry's choice of words: "Parietal occipital", "cerebellum", just like the other doctors.

"A defect in the right occipital-parietal area".
What Does "Occipital" Mean?

 

[Loyalist]

Could The Parkland Doctors Have Seen the Back of Kennedy's Head

 

[Loyalist]

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound," recalls Dr Carrico. "We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders and you could not see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken." (Case Closed, 309-10) ​

 

[LunarRay]

IF you look to an xray of JFK's skull you'll see fractures all over the place. For the sake of my posit let's assume there is but one projectile entering JFK's head. Ok... now close your eyes and see the projectile enter.. let's say from the front and above the left eye by about oh... 2 2/3 inches it makes its way to the back of the head and exits. The skull is fractured into many sections as the brain matter 'explodes'. BUT the skull bits are still stuck to the scalp and the scalp is still more or less attached but ripped in such a fashion that one can replace the scalp and the attached skull bits more or less into their original location before the event.
I think this is what we have with Kennedy. I think you can witness both conditions stated and be right IF one bit of scalp/skull is flopping down and the other view when it is replaced.
The issue, I guess, is regarding from where did the projectile come. I think one can look to the physics that the skull xray's suggest. And ask this question: Why would the rear of the head sustain the depicted fractures from an entry wound from the rear. It would appear to me that the transmitted forces would cause that damage if the projectile entered from the front.
It seems to me there are two conflicts though regarding the brain itself. One is the statement that it was preserved in solution and the other from the guy charged with removing the brain stating that there was no brain there.. 'a small hand full' of brain tissue is all that remained. That sort of suggests an explosive round may have been used... and that sorta eliminates Oswald if true.

 

[kylebisme]

There isn't any evidence that makes a switch of windshield by the secret service blatantly obvious.

Sure, but one can't rightly expect a cover-up to make blatantly obvious what can be accomplished discreetly. Regardless, I'm not saying the windshield must have replaced or even tampered with, only that reports from early witnesses suggest such possibilities.

Magic bullets eh? Remind me why I'm supposed to believe in magic bullets.

I don't know of any good reason to believe in magic bullets, but that's as fitting of a description of the single bullet theory in the official story as anything.

"Side", "lateral" and "temporal". You failed to address those.

Rather, he's addressing them in the context of mention of "cerebellum" and such, while you have to keep ignoring that context to move the wound way up far beyond were cerebellum would be exposed, and cherry pick from the few early witness who've suggested otherwise.

Could The Parkland Doctors Have Seen the Back of Kennedy's Head

They could only see part of the wound, because he was laying on his back and the wound was on the back right of his head. Again, if the wound were in either of the two locations the official story has claimed, they would've had an unobstructed view of it.

...the guy charged with removing the brain stating that there was no brain there.. 'a small hand full' of brain tissue is all that remained.

Who said that?

 

[Doboji]

Best I can tell from all the evidence I've seen; no, the Moon landings weren't faked. Are you faking being a pea-brained goon, or does that come natural to you?

Getting emotional?

What about the Holocaust did that happen? I'm just trying to get an understanding how many of these conspiracy theories you buy into.

The only one I've ever spent anytime reading about is 911... just because I find the truthers to be utterly insulting. As for JFK, I haven't done much reading... I've seen one or two history channel specials... and frankly I just don't care that much. We will NEVER be able to 100% say for sure what happened. JFK at least I believe it was possible that someone else did the shooting.. unlikely though.

I'm too busy worrying about real life things that matter though. It is fun to poke you in the eye every once in the while though.

 

[LunarRay]

Who said that?

The Autopsy guy who's job is to remove the brain... I think his name is Paul O'conner.

Edit: Paul K. O'Connor

 

[LunarRay]

I don't know of any good reason to believe in magic bullets, but that's as fitting of a description of the single bullet theory in the official story as anything.

Ya know there is an execellent angle from the 3rd floor of the Daltex building that at the moment Connally was hit lines up with Kennedy and Connally and the line from that building is precise within a degree from the window to the back and neck and Connally's armpit... It seems to me anyhow.