JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

The Nal wrote: »

Who are these witnesses exactly? Evidence please.

Look up Gary Aguilar jfk he compiled all the eyewitnesses accounts.

The Nal wrote: »

Familiar with them yes. You haven't read them. You just believe the number and that they're all "back of the head" witnesses because he claims it and it suits your agenda.

Example: He lists Richard Lipsey as someone who claims a back of the head wound. But if you actually read Lipseys HSCA testimony.....

"It was obvious that one bullet entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his face and pretty well blew away the right side of his head"

Lots and lots like this.

Richard Dulaney at Parkland after viewing the autopsy photos: "I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room."

Thats your problem. You don't have the attention span for this. You just read headlines and factoids and accept them as truth. So gullible.

The problem is your only look at quotes that suit your position. If you look at the visual evidence you see these quotes are out of context and wrong.

This Dr Richard Dulaney. Large wound back of the head. Behind the right ear. Are you blaming Oswald for the large wound in the rear?



Richard Lipsey have not looked up yet, but would not surprise me if his position was the same as the other eyewitnesses large wound back of the head.

The Nal wrote: »

Indeed. So you blindly believe someone elses factoid without even bothering to look any deeper. I see. Very gullible.

Hang on though, Lipsey was at the autopsy so according to you he was involved in the plot as he would have seen the wounds being altered. Same for all the autopsy personnel.

So are you saying you trust their opinions even though they were directly involved in a cover up?

You just posted Dr Richard Dulaney quote trying to claim no large head wound or any alternation happened? Why else would you post the quote out of context?

You just assumed he saw all the autopsy images and then cleared it up for the record no large head wound?

When in actual fact he clearly pointing with his hand to a large wound at the back of the head. Oswald rifle shot did not cause the damage to the rear of the head.

Gary Aguilar complied 46 witnesses accounts they all saw a right rear head wound, end of story. If the autopsy images don't show this wound then the mages are faked and not real.

The Nal wrote: »

To illustrate that things aren't as simple as you make out/would like them to be and to form an opinion you have to be informed. Which you are not.



Just as you believe there were 55 people or whatever who thought shots came from the grassy knoll, your demonstrating your gullibility yet again here. You haven't read about it. You have no knowledge or opinion of your own. You're just copying and pasting someone elses opinion.

That aside, are you saying you trust the autopsy witnesses even though they were directly involved in a cover up?

On the one hand you're believing them saying the wound was at the back of the head but you also believe they were directly implicit in a cover up to hide the wound at the back of the head. Yet then they all go on to testify there actually was a wound there.

24 of those 46 witnesses were at Bethesda. Do you believe them then?

Visual evidence is better evidence than words on paper. You actually see these people showing where the wounds actually was on Kennedy body. Quotes can be manipulated by both sides.

Your own link even stated 54 Eyewitnesses ( Grassy Knoll) Do you read the info in your own posted links?

I think some JFK researchers wrongly accused the autopsy attending doctors. I don't blame them though because there was clear disinformation and misinformation ongoing over the 60 years ie fake autopsy images, x rays and Zapruder film and other stuff.

The evidence was always there in the medical reports and from the witness statements, of a large rear head wound.

The Nal wrote: »

No it isn't. Good evidence is good evidence. Bad evidence is bad evidence.



As can pictures. Which you've proven countless times.



Which link?



Of the 24 people at the autopsy, doctors, army, secret service etc, some/most/all of them would've had to be involved in hiding the rear head wound. Thats your theory.

Yet you're now posting factoids claiming they all saw a wound at the back of the head. So their only job was to hide the rear head wound but then the all immediately come out saying there was a rear head wound, exposing their own plot.

You two first points are just spin not even worth my time.

Was 52 was the number on the link you posted. 84 was the highest number I saw online.



The rear head wound was not hidden. It only is hidden on the fake Autopsy images, fake x rays and Zapruder film. JFK researcher have overlooked the autopsy medical report and are looking for a wound in a certain spot on the head. When it clear from the autopsy report the large wound was a massive wound that spread from the parietal to the occipital bone.

Since they could find not the occipital bone wound on the Zapruder film and Autopsy photos, they made a claim the wounds were altered before the body arrived at Bethesda? Now after doing research that obviously wrong because the autopsy doctors noted the rear head wound at the back of the head.

However, the wound they saw is not shown on any autopsy photo or on the Zapruder film. It clear to me that was the cover-up began getting rid of visual evidence linking another shooter to Kennedy murder.

The Nal wrote: »

But you've read none of their interviews. You just believe the number(s). Incredible.



So when exactly did they alter the Zapruder film and autopsy images?

Who altered them?

Why do the autopsy doctors all concur that Kennedys wounds that they saw on the day match the autopsy photos?

They said "The photographs and x-rays corroborate our visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion".

National Archives Record Number 179-30002-10344.

The report they wrote describes the photos and xrays in detail proving that they examined them clearly and in detail.

Are they lying? I don't understand your theory.

They're saying the allegedly altered photos and xrays are legit. Just as Zapruder and others said the allegedly altered Zapruder film was legit. ie they're saying that the theory that there was alteration is bullshít.

Can you explain?

We have photographs of people rushing towards the grassy knoll. They did not run towards the TSBD to look for Oswald. I have read most of their accounts online. If you actually read them you see most of the people in the area felt the last shot came from the right front. You have a few people who claim differently at the Warren Commission after learning and hearing on the news they captured Oswald and he was the only suspect.

I told you already it was done at Hawkeye Kodak lab in New York. They were doing secret contract work for the CIA. We know for a fact the Zapruder film is not the original.

As I told you already Dino_Brugionihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Brugioni received the original Zapruder film on Sat night and was told by his superiors to make briefing boards for government customers. He was shown the briefing boards in the archives today and he said they're not the ones I made. He did know that someone else had made an entirely new set of briefing boards on Sunday night. He was not informed about it. He then said this, not the film I saw on Sat night and he explained why.

You find many autopsy photos some are real some are fake. We don't know exactly which photographs they were shown. The autopsy doctors at the Warren Commission described finding a large right side rear head wound. If there no head wound showing on the autopsy photos as they described under oath then this is an obvious problem?. Again Arlen Specter main mission was to convict Oswald so I not sure if he actually cared about they discrepancies they found or even noticed or picked up on?

The Nal wrote: »

Yes they did, immediately.



Thats not true. Proves you haven't read them.



All 3 movies were altered there?




They seem to think they match what they saw that day.

https://archive.org/stream/nsia-AutopsyPhotosX-Rays01-01-69To/nsia-AutopsyPhotosX-Rays01-01-69To/Autopsy%201969%2001_djvu.txt




But 55 years have passed since and they've never claimed that the Zapruder film or the autopsy wounds were faked. The Dallas doctors also agreed that they saw in the archives matched what they saw that day.

Yet you think they were faked.

So whats the theory? How were the autopsy photos faked?

The medical evidence was suppressed by the HSCA. Ask any competent JFK researcher they tell you this.

Was an HSCA quote (below) you wrote in another post. Not accurate the way you described it, does not matter I know what you meant.

This a slide of the actual HSCA quote provided by Dr Gary Aguilar



This quote was proven to be false by the ARRB and other JFK researchers have also seen the witness statements given at the HSCA.

Dr Gary Aguliar has another slide which shows where everyone believed the large wound was located. The HSCA lied to cover up government corruption and lying and the manipulation of evidence.

Dr Aguliiar slide/ Parkland hospital Eyewitnesses (HSCA). He has another one done for Bethesda



Zapruder film. You can not find a large gaping wound at the rear of the head. The massive/large wound is in front of the right ear.