Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years
Comments
-
That was the one.
The one where you claimed there was a giant mirror because you embarrassed yourself and got desperate and literally everyone realised what a joke you are.
Yup.
Either you don't understand perspective, which is likely.
Or you live in your own reality and literally see things that aren't real and decide that anyone who doesn't agree is part of the conspiracy. Which is a mental illness and also likely.
I could see it was overexposure or a reflection of light. There no men there. You can believe whatever you like.
The image between the columns is a reflection of the fireman on the left. Hand position and body position is the same Fireman on the right, is in the yellow liquid. You can see the head position and position of the arm is the same. Wreckage is blurred by the resolution of the photo marked by the pink/purple dots.
0 -
-
-
-
According to you. You've demonstrated it will be whatever you've decided it is, reflections, refractions from swamp gas, whatever. You have also demonstrated you will lie, distort - go to whatever lengths necessary to support a vague hunch you have, and then just as easily discard that hunch later.
Again, the truth is entirely subjective to you
Whatever you can make up in your head becomes the "truth", and instead of expressing it as personal opinion (which it is) you present it as fact by "dressing it up" in assertive wording
Below is one of my favourite posts. Ever. Not just on this thread. Any thread, anywhere, ever. In the history of the internet.Cheerful Spring wrote: »Could this be Jack Ruby outside of the TSBD.
Took this image from the Hughes film, seems to be/ the right location.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Nice try but please post in context. I used another image to highlight was it Ruby.
Lol. Hilarious.
Why do you think that that is Jack Ruby?
Other than your inability to tell the difference between your fantasies and real life I mean?
"posting in context" just makes it even more of a joke.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No source, so this is a lie.Cheerful Spring wrote: »Yes they do the last poll 80 per cent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK
With 9/11 its 56 per cent.
This site just has abnormal number of Skeptics, i not sure why that is?
Any progress on that mspaint masterpiece showing Jack Ruby.
Oh no...Cheerful Spring wrote: »Let you in on a secret, people have connected me and said they don't post here because of you. You not liked, you should work on your personality?
Cranks and holocaust deniers don't like me?
0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Nevertheless, according to a 2009 CBS News poll, between 60 and 80 percent of Americans believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy; that is, that there was more than one shooter in Dealy Plaza that November day in 1963.
http://time.com/3422083/jfk-conspiracy-theories/
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
If you say so.Cheerful Spring wrote: »No i got lot of private message why people don't post here and its because of people like you. They can't be bothered. I can handle you and just put up with your nonsense
It makes me very sad that people don't like me.
So that crayon drawing where you show the facial features of Jack Ruby?
Gonna produce that any time soon.
It will be really funny to see you try and bull**** your way through it.
Oh, and "ignoring and dodging questions" is not handling me.
It's proving my position that conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists in general can't deal with basic questions.0 -
If you say so.
It makes me very sad that people don't like me.
So that crayon drawing where you show the facial features of Jack Ruby?
Gonna produce that any time soon.
It will be really funny to see you try and bull**** your way through it.
Oh, and "ignoring and dodging questions" is not handling me.
It's proving my position that conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists in general can't deal with basic questions.
You funny guy :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »You can't face reality. Position you have taken is to deny any evidence that does not support your point of view. When the doctors are all claiming they saw a open wound at the back of the head, then there no reason to carry on like you are doing right now. There not conflicting opinions the people who were there all state they saw a open wound at the back of the head. One person might be mistaken, but when you have least a dozen or more people stating the saw this wound, it can no longer be an error or mistake.
I have backed up my position with video of the doctors who were there. I going to believe the doctors, and nurses are right about this. You can believe whatever you like.
These doctors?
Dr. Baxter - "literally the right side of his head had been blown off".
Dr Perry - "I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head".
"With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?"
Dr. AKIN. "No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull fragments"
"Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?"
Dr. McClelland. "No."
McClellandas on his drawing - "However, I do not believe that the large wound was this far posterior since, one thing I can be certain of, is that we were able to see the majority, if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back on a hospital gurney. The location of the wound represented in the drawing suggests that it would barely have been visible, if visible at all, with the patient laying in such a position."
McClellend after viewing the autopsy photos: "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly".
Dr. Carrico - "there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is incompatible with the injury as I remember it."...."We never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound. Our responsibility was to evaluate the wounds from the standpoint of what might be done to keep the patient alive. . . . The wounds as we looked at them were from the front and top with the patient laying on a gurney on his back."
And...
"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."Cheerful Spring wrote: »You can't face reality. Position you have taken is to deny any evidence that does not support your point of view
Lets not forget the utter hilarity of your post here. For those that missed it - I posted a video of 4 doctors, 3 of whom were pointing to the back right of the head (which doesn't "support my point of view") and 1 of whom pointed to the right side of the head, even approaching the front. So I posted all of the evidence in that regard.
Cheerful Spring takes a screen grab of only 3 doctors and leaves out the one doctor who was pointing to the right side! Completely ignores it!
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109159599&postcount=1015
Fabulous.Cheerful Spring wrote: »Gerald Posner, is a terrible researcher, he manipulates evidence to support his theory
0 -
These doctors?
Dr. Baxter - "literally the right side of his head had been blown off".
Dr Perry - "I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head".
"With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?"
Dr. AKIN. "No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull fragments"
"Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?"
Dr. McClelland. "No."
McClellandas on his drawing - "However, I do not believe that the large wound was this far posterior since, one thing I can be certain of, is that we were able to see the majority, if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back on a hospital gurney. The location of the wound represented in the drawing suggests that it would barely have been visible, if visible at all, with the patient laying in such a position."
McClellend after viewing the autopsy photos: "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly".
Dr. Carrico - "there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is incompatible with the injury as I remember it."...."We never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound. Our responsibility was to evaluate the wounds from the standpoint of what might be done to keep the patient alive. . . . The wounds as we looked at them were from the front and top with the patient laying on a gurney on his back."
And...
"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."
Lets not forget the utter hilarity of your post here. For those that missed it - I posted a video of 4 doctors, 3 of whom were pointing to the back right of the head (which doesn't "support my point of view") and 1 of whom pointed to the right side of the head, even approaching the front. So I posted all of the evidence in that regard.
Cheerful Spring takes a screen grab of only 3 doctors and leaves out the one doctor who was pointing to the right side! Completely ignores it!
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109159599&postcount=1015
Fabulous.
Dr Akin and Dr Baxter are not describing the wound in your quotes.
Lets take a look at the human brain
brain.
The parietal part of the brain extends to the back of the skull, its to left of the ear. If you take a look at the Zapruder film, most of the damage is near the frontal lobe and temporal lobe. The parietal area and occiptial area of the brain is untouched and no damage
Lets look at what Dr Carrico said at the Warren commission. He claiming there was a head wound at the lower back of the head. You think the doctors don't know the difference between the parietal area and occipitial?
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - Sure.
This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from this wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thats because you can't see the left of his skull on the Zapruder film.
Because to be able to promote his silly theory he has to lie. It doesn't hold any water otherwise. He also has to selectively omit and ignore things. Such as the hilarity of him ignoring the doctors conflicting opinions and that amazing post when he posted only 3 of them.
For the "Zapruder film is fake" theory to stand up you have to believe that:
- Zapruder and Philip Willis were in Kodak in Dallas in the same time yet "they" altered the Zapruder film but not the Willis photo showing
what some nuts (including Cheerful Spring) say is a shooter. Here.
- "They", using 1963 technology, in a small photo development office, altered a home movie in a matter of minutes in front of 20 witnesses.
- "They", using 1963 technology, were able to edit a video that stands up to modern digital scrutiny.
- "They" had to guess what to alter as the autopsy hasn't happened yet. At 6pm when Zapruder got the film back JFK s body was still in
transit.
- "They" were sure that of all of the 80 or so cameras there that day, none of them captured what "they" had just edited as that would have
immediately exposed a cover up.
- The Muchmore and Nix movies were altered too.
So none of that makes any sense, he has to tell blatant lies. Im still not sure why theres a need for the crude MS Paint diagrams but they're so stupid and funny Im not complaining.
I talking about Kennedy's head at the rear near the left side of his ear. I can see this side of the head is not damaged. The doctors all said there was a wound at this side.
I listen to what the doctors have to say. Visually apparent the Zapruder film does not show a massive wound at the parietal area and occipital area of the brain. I expected you guys would ignore that, after all, you see a man with no legs and arms standing in a yellow liquid.
Why would they alter the Willis Photo? It does not show the shootings taking place? It appears to show a shadow of a man behind the wall? Why would they need to erase it does not show him with a gun?
More nonsense from Nal. Who are these 20 people who viewed the original 8mm Zapruder film? Nal I have provided evidence and you have not of people who saw the Zapruder film in its original state. They described different events not seen in the Zapruder film that we see today on Youtube. You ignored that and keep babbling away. Is that not proof and we must include the doctor's claims, the video was altered?
I told you the Zapruder film was altered at Hawkeye Kodak lab in New York, not in Dallas. False pretence the Zapruder film has obvious problems. People with better expertise than I have done extensive work on it and have shown the Zapruder film was altered.
You obviously don't understand how the timelines panned out. The Zapruder frames were not released until 1975. They had 12 years to sit back and wait and see if any new explosive footage emerged. That highly unlikely to happen after a few years, never mind 12 years. Why would they have to care about 80 cameras that never recorded the shootings? You just throw it out there as if its useful info when it is not.
Autopsy happened before any video alternation occurred
0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement