JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

Cheerful Spring · 15-02-2019 1:51pm

Nal doesn't understand the information in the link he posted. It has always been the position of JFK conspiracy researchers these photographs were taken after the autopsy., they are fake.

The Warren Commission and HSCA claimed they were taken during the official autopsy done by Boswell and Humes and Finck.

Nal did not notice they were measuring wounds in the back also and you can see the head was undamaged. They are fake autopsy photos introduced to hide the fact Kennedy suffered a large wound to the rear of the head.

Cheerful Spring · 15-02-2019 2:06pm

Nal just latched onto what the author said and believed it.

I believe this why Nal got excited.
NOT taken during the autopsy, but actually taken after the autopsy and, more importantly, taken after the morticians had reconstructed the BOH in preparation for a possible open-casket viewing. It was clear that during the reconstruction process, the BOH opening had been closed and the entry wound in the President’s scalp, probably inadvertently, “moved” higher

This just author opinion. No evidence provided.

The author ignores the Warren Commission used these photographs to convict Lee Oswald as the lone gunman. Why would they use reconstruction photographs to link the shooting to Oswald? It nonsense plain and simple.

The Nal · 15-02-2019 2:49pm

Sorry I shall post as you do so you understand.

Here we go:

We know that the autopsy photos weren't faked. We know that the scalp was pulled back into position. Its obvious.

The Nal · 15-02-2019 5:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal just latched onto what the author said and believed it.

I believe this why Nal got excited.
NOT taken during the autopsy, but actually taken after the autopsy and, more importantly, taken after the morticians had reconstructed the BOH in preparation for a possible open-casket viewing. It was clear that during the reconstruction process, the BOH opening had been closed and the entry wound in the President’s scalp, probably inadvertently, “moved” higher

This just author opinion. No evidence provided.

lol. Lets not revisit your Doug Horne posts where you believed absolutely everything he said in a podcast. Including the conclusions of a documentary that hasn't even been made yet. A man who believed the driver could've shot JFK.

And then when it was pointed out that he had some ridiculous beliefs, you asked for evidence and the evidence was from your 2nd favourite researcher (James DiEugenio - whos name you couldn't get close to spelling correctly) who thinks Horne is full of shít! Couldn't make it up.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I like Jim Eugeloni work also. He, not the only JFK researcher I like.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The author ignores the Warren Commission used these photographs to convict Lee Oswald as the lone gunman. Why would they use reconstruction photographs to link the shooting to Oswald? It nonsense plain and simple.

They were wrong. They were wrong about lots of things.

You of course only quoted one of the articles I posted because the other one provides a lot of detail, fact and common sense. Some of it conflicting. However the morticians testified the scalp was stretched and sutured closed in preparation for an open-coffin funeral.

John Stringer. Autopsy photographer, to the ARRB.

Q: Did you take any photographs of the head after scalp had been pulled down or reflected?
A: Yes.

Read end note 8 from the link you posted above. People who were there testifying photos were taken at different times. People popping in and out etc.

So there you go. Evidence the scalp was repositioned. Undermined. And all of this evidence concludes that the shot came from behind. The only issue is where the entry wound was at the back of the head.

Theres more evidence in this post than you have provided in all 94 pages of this thread combined.

Makes a lot more sense than different studios superimposing four films in a few hours - in 1963 lol - so they're identical to the autopsy photos (which themselves were faked), two brains, two coffins, dozens spontaneously agreeing to a cover up - none of this with any evidence and none of them knowing if it would expose a plot as they hadn't a clue if anyone else had footage of the shooting.

Dohnjoe · 15-02-2019 6:38pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have nothing to show that why you will not post it for everyone to read. You are spreading bull**** on this thread and obvious to everyone but your supporters.

Blindly mirroring criticism of yourself is another strange deflection technique you've recently started to use. It's bizarre childlike behaviour (you'll use that one too)

You blatantly make stuff up on the spot (lying), have been directly caught doing this many times, but when called out you appear to make up more lies and then (bizarrely) start accusing the person of catching you out as a "liar". This is real Alex Jones type extreme behaviour

Anyway, let's try again

Who pulled the trigger of which gun that fired which bullet that resulted in JFK's death according to you?

Where was this person located when they pulled the trigger and what time was it exactly?

How many shots did they fire total? where are the cases and bullets and what condition are they in? (including the bullet(s) that hit JFK)

Cheerful Spring · 15-02-2019 7:02pm

The Nal wrote: »

lol. Lets not revisit your Doug Horne posts where you believed absolutely everything he said in a podcast. Including the conclusions of a documentary that hasn't even been made yet. A man who believed the driver could've shot JFK.

And then when it was pointed out that he had some ridiculous beliefs, you asked for evidence and the evidence was from your 2nd favourite researcher (James DiEugenio - whos name you couldn't get close to spelling correctly) who thinks Horne is full of shít! Couldn't make it up.

They were wrong. They were wrong about lots of things.

You of course only quoted one of the articles I posted because the other one provides a lot of detail, fact and common sense. Some of it conflicting. However the morticians testified the scalp was stretched and sutured closed in preparation for an open-coffin funeral.

John Stringer. Autopsy photographer, to the ARRB.

Q: Did you take any photographs of the head after scalp had been pulled down or reflected?
A: Yes.

Read end note 8 from the link you posted above. People who were there testifying photos were taken at different times. People popping in and out etc.

So there you go. Evidence the scalp was repositioned. Undermined. And all of this evidence concludes that the shot came from behind. The only issue is where the entry wound was at the back of the head.

Theres more evidence in this post than you have provided in all 94 pages of this thread combined.

Makes a lot more sense than different studios superimposing four films in a few hours - in 1963 lol - so they're identical to the autopsy photos (which themselves were faked), two brains, two coffins, dozens spontaneously agreeing to a cover up - none of this with any evidence and none of them knowing if it would expose a plot as they hadn't a clue if anyone else had footage of the shooting.

Let's be real, you dismissed Stringer testimony earlier in this thread. I think his credible.

This what he revealed publically to David Clifton a JFK researcher.

Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?"

Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part." Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "

Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?" Stringer: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes.

Stringer is also confirming a large wound in the right rear where the autopsy doctors saw the wound. An exit wound.

Nal ignores there were 46 Eyewitnesses who saw this large right rear head wound at Bethesda and Parkland.

How was the scalp repositioned when there was a massive blowout of the head stretching all way back from the parietal to the occipital bone?. Skin and bone are missing.

Nal again ignores the Warren Commission used these images to blame Oswald for the Shooting. You know damn well Nal the Warren Commission claims there was only a tiny few cm hole in the back of the head.

Cheerful Spring · 15-02-2019 7:25pm

Please show us where they stretched and fixed the wound in the right rear of the head.

You can even see this photo is part of the same collection of fake autopsy photos. Where they reconstructing the back wound also?

The Nal · 16-02-2019 12:14pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal again ignores the Warren Commission used these images to blame Oswald for the Shooting. You know damn well Nal the Warren Commission claims there was only a tiny few cm hole in the back of the head.

You are a time waster. I said they were wrong. In my last post. On this page! You utter laughing stock.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 11:46am

The Nal wrote: »

You are a time waster. I said they were wrong. In my last post. On this page! You utter laughing stock.

Not so. I just highlighted the stupidity of your arguments.

Was it a small wound at the rear or a large wound at the rear? Vague statements by you they got it wrong in no way explains anything.

The images I posted above were part of the collection of autopsy images used to convince the American public Oswald shot at Kennedy from the TSBD. You can even see the small entry hole in the first image. The Warren Commission said this was entry hole for the bullet.

None of the images shows the rear large head wound at the right side rear. Debunkers use excuses as you have done they are reconstruction photos of Kennedy's head after the Autopsy. Very little evidence to prove it. Do you claim the scalp was repositioned and pulled down? How does one cover this large wound when it a large gaping hole at the back of the head? Clear a wound like this most of the scalp would be missing? You can only stretch the scalp so much to cover wounds.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 11:59am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Blindly mirroring criticism of yourself is another strange deflection technique you've recently started to use. It's bizarre childlike behaviour (you'll use that one too)

You blatantly make stuff up on the spot (lying), have been directly caught doing this many times, but when called out you appear to make up more lies and then (bizarrely) start accusing the person of catching you out as a "liar". This is real Alex Jones type extreme behaviour

Anyway, let's try again

Who pulled the trigger of which gun that fired which bullet that resulted in JFK's death according to you?

Where was this person located when they pulled the trigger and what time was it exactly?

How many shots did they fire total? where are the cases and bullets and what condition are they in? (including the bullet(s) that hit JFK)

I find it bizarre people like you ignore 46 Eyewitnesses at Parkland hospital and at Bethesda Medical centre observed a large wound to the rear of Kennedy's head.

I would understand your position better if it was just people on the internet making wild claims of a large wound in the rear. That's not the case.

There no possible way 13 highly qualified trauma doctors at Parkland can be mistaken.

How come none of the autopsy doctors at Bethesda said the bullet exited out in front of the right ear? Fact is they backed up the Doctors opinions at Parkland hospital.

The Nal · 17-02-2019 2:11pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I find it bizarre people like you ignore 46 Eyewitnesses at Parkland hospital and at Bethesda Medical centre observed a large wound to the rear of Kennedy's head.

Who are these witnesses exactly? Evidence please.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 2:13pm

The Nal wrote: »

Who are these witnesses exactly? Evidence please.

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

The Nal · 17-02-2019 2:55pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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.

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 3:06pm

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 · 17-02-2019 3:21pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

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?

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 3:35pm

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 · 17-02-2019 3:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gary Aguilar complied 46 witnesses accounts they all saw a right rear head wound,

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?

Cheerful Spring · 17-02-2019 4:39pm

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 · 17-02-2019 5:22pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Visual evidence is better evidence than words on paper.

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You actually see these people showing where the wounds actually was on Kennedy body. Quotes can be manipulated by both sides.

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Which link?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

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.

Cheerful Spring · 18-02-2019 4:44pm

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 · 18-02-2019 9:13pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

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?

Cheerful Spring · 18-02-2019 9:44pm

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 · 19-02-2019 10:46am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have photographs of people rushing towards the grassy knoll. They did not run towards the TSBD to look for Oswald.

Yes they did, immediately.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

All 3 movies were altered there?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You find many autopsy photos some are real some are fake. We don't know exactly which photographs they were shown.

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

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?

Cheerful Spring · 19-02-2019 2:14pm

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.

The Nal · 02-08-2019 12:56pm

Martin Sheen To Narrate Documentary On JFK Death Probe From Original Oswald Investigator

cj maxx · 03-08-2019 11:55pm

I haven't read through the whole thread but I did see a doc on sky about a secret service agent sitting in front of jfk . He was wasn't very proficient in handling his weapon , and after the car braking/speeding up may have discharged his weapon.

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 2:10am

cjmc wrote: »

I haven't read through the whole thread but I did see a doc on sky about a secret service agent sitting in front of jfk . He was wasn't very proficient in handling his weapon , and after the car braking/speeding up may have discharged his weapon.

Select Committee on Assassinations- a government body ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia. Warren commission was not final verdict, despite what people think. Of course the FBI came out later to muddy the waters claiming a part of the evidence was invalid ( the acoustic police bike evidence) still there no clear outcome as the the committee experts are world renowed experts about acoustics and their opinion is valid and FBI of course has lot to lose and motive to lie and confuse the issue, as they are accused of covering up evidence it was political hit ordered by people in the CIA and the Mafia. Last enquiry was the ARRB and they unearthered new evidence hidden by the Dallas Police and FBI- bullets found in the area of grassy knoll and Dealey Plaza and lot of documents that contradict the official account.

Anyway it highly unlkely it was a secret service agent who shot him- this be witnessed by people and other agents in the cars behind. A shot coming from hidden area make more sense.

The Nal · 04-08-2019 12:12pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Select Committee on Assassinations- a government body ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia.

Simply not true. Liar. You know thats a lie. Anyone can google this quickly to see you're lying. Why would you lie about something that can be so easily disproved? It makes you look like a complete fool. You liar.

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report

The acoustic evidence has been thoroughly proved as invalid. They were wrong. You know this. Scientifically proven as fact and widely accepted as such. Didn't happen.

cjmc wrote: »

I haven't read through the whole thread but I did see a doc on sky about a secret service agent sitting in front of jfk . He was wasn't very proficient in handling his weapon , and after the car braking/speeding up may have discharged his weapon.

That was a theory based on poor copies of the Zapruder film which has since been debunked having viewed the original.

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 2:46pm

The Nal wrote: »

Simply not true. Liar. You know thats a lie. Anyone can google this quickly to see you're lying. Why would you lie about something that can be so easily disproved? It makes you look like a complete fool. You liar.

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report

The acoustic evidence has been thoroughly proved as invalid. They were wrong. You know this. Scientifically proven as fact and widely accepted as such. Didn't happen.

That was a theory based on poor copies of the Zapruder film which has since been debunked having viewed the original.

You're wrong actually. The national crime syndicate is a collection of diverse crime families who operate across America. This includes Irish, Italian and Jewish crime families. The committee just stating they have know evidence they were all involved.

They however don't preclude individual members maybe have bee involved ( ie Mafia crime family was involved)

Committe verdict was this
I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy

Acoustic evidence is not invalid. The spikes on the dicatabelt actually match up perfectly in line with three of the known rifle shots. The evidence is not faulty.

There six spikes in total- Oswald alleged three match the timing of Oswald firing his rifle and location of Kennedy limo.

Three other spikes appear unknown are also rifle shots. Six shots in total.

The Nal · 04-08-2019 3:44pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You're wrong actually. The national crime syndicate is a collection of diverse crime families who operate across America. This includes Irish, Italian and Jewish crime families. The committee just stating they have know evidence they were all involved.

They however don't preclude individual members maybe have bee involved ( ie Mafia crime family was involved)

Committe verdict was this
I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy

OK so you admit you were lying when you said "Select Committee on Assassinations- a government body ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia."

That never happened. Its a lie. You lied. I don't know why. You've posted something, being caught out on it and then posted again confirming your own lies. Wild behaviour.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Acoustic evidence is not invalid. The spikes on the dicatabelt actually match up perfectly in line with three of the known rifle shots. The evidence is not faulty.

There six spikes in total- Oswald alleged three match the timing of Oswald firing his rifle and location of Kennedy limo.

Three other spikes appear unknown are also rifle shots. Six shots in total.

Proved as false 40 years ago. Its been widely accepted as such. You know this.

H.B. McLain was not where he had to be for the acoustic evidence to have any validity. You know he wasn't where they thought he was. Theres proof that he wasn't where he had to be. Countless photos and videos. Proof. Fact. As soon as that was proved, the HSCAs conclusion is the same as the Warren Commission.

You know this. This information is available to anyone. Its fact.

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 4:07pm

The Nal wrote: »

OK so you admit you were lying when you said "Select Committee on Assassinations- a government body ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia."

That never happened. Its a lie. You lied. I don't know why. You've posted something, being caught out on it and then posted again confirming your own lies. Wild behaviour.

Proved as false 40 years ago. Its been widely accepted as such. You know this.

H.B. McLain was not where he had to be for the acoustic evidence to have any validity. You know he wasn't where they thought he was. Theres proof that he wasn't where he had to be. Countless photos and videos. Proof. Fact. As soon as that was proved, the HSCAs conclusion is the same as the Warren Commission.

You know this. This information is available to anyone. Its fact.

Yes they did. You are unable to understand the language used or on purpose refuse to accept it?

National Crime Syndicate is a wide network of organised crime families spread right across America- you obviously don't get this yet?. The commitee said the evidence doesn't preclude- individual members involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

You just ignored this. Conspiracy means more more people are involved.

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy

Was never proven false. The spikes match perfectly with the three alleged shots that impacted Kennedy and Connelly. H.B. McLain was on a bike- we don't know if he speeded up to get there in time. It poor science using a video that cut off before the shooting to tell where he was was exactly at the time of the shooting. Motorcade turned the corner slowly and that would given the bikes time to catch up.

The Nal · 04-08-2019 4:21pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes they did. You are unable to understand the language used or on purpose refuse to accept it?

National Crime Syndicate is a wide network of organised crime families spread right across America- you obviously don't get this yet?. The commitee said the evidence doesn't preclude- individual members involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

You just ignored this. Conspiracy means more more people are involved.

Where did they say "ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia." Evidence please. Link the part of the report where they said that.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Was never proven false.

Yes it was. Conclusively.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The spikes match perfectly with the three alleged shots that impacted Kennedy and Connelly. H.B. McLain was on a bike- we don't know if he speeded up to get there in time. It poor science using a video that cut off before the shooting to tell where he was was exactly at the time of the shooting. Motorcade turned the corner slowly and that would given the bikes time to catch up.

Absolute rubbish. Its the worst piece of evidence in any of the conspiracy theories. Someone is whistling on the tape at one point. H.B. McLain said he didn't think it came from his radio. And even if it did, he wasn't where he had to be for the theory to stand up. Its nonsense. Complete rubbish.

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 4:40pm

The Nal wrote: »

Where did they say "ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia." Evidence please. Link the part of the report where they said that.

Yes it was. Conclusively.

Absolute rubbish. Its the worst piece of evidence in any of the conspiracy theories. Someone is whistling on the tape at one point. H.B. McLain said he didn't think it came from his radio. And even if it did, he wasn't where he had to be for the theory to stand up. Its nonsense. Complete rubbish.

Just did so

Another finding.
House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that organized crime had the "motive, means and opportunity" for planning an assassination attempt.

Are you trying to claim it was not the Mafia they are referring to?

And here another clear example of the CIA providing false testimony and they tried to prevent the course of justice and were enaged in a campaign to descredit the HSCA.

Robert Blakey, The Chief Counsel of the Committee, later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice.

Cheerful Spring2 · 04-08-2019 4:52pm

In the same 2003 interview, Robert Blakey, issued a statement on the Central Intelligence Agency:

...I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald.... We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA–Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976–79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.[30]

The Nal · 04-08-2019 4:58pm

Yep. Waffle. Proving your own lies.

JJayoo · 06-08-2019 12:23am

I did it, I shooted him in the face pow pow

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 1:02am

The Nal wrote: »

Yep. Waffle. Proving your own lies.

I posted what people said who were actually there hearing the evidence. You just ignore this and think your opinion is more valid then theres.

HSCA concluded it was most probably a conspiracy and organised crime familes were involved.

CIA was not implicated but evidence then emerged years later, the CIA liason George Joannides testimony at HSCA was just a ploy by the agency to cover up and hide all evidence Oswald was involved with US intelligence.

Oswald clearly is a intelligence asset. There spots in his life that clearly show this to be true even when he was arrested the first call he tries to make was an ongoing call to former intelligence officer who lived in Raleigh North Carolina.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 9:39am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I posted what people said who were actually there hearing the evidence. You just ignore this and think your opinion is more valid then theres.

HSCA concluded it was most probably a conspiracy and organised crime familes were involved.

CIA was not implicated but evidence then emerged years later, the CIA liason George Joannides testimony at HSCA was just a ploy by the agency to cover up and hide all evidence Oswald was involved with US intelligence.

Oswald clearly is a intelligence asset. There spots in his life that clearly show this to be true even when he was arrested the first call he tries to make was an ongoing call to former intelligence officer who lived in Raleigh North Carolina.

Try stick to one point. You said "Select Committee on Assassinations- a government body ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia"

Just pointing out that its not true. HSCA said it was likely a conspiracy based on the now debunked acoustic evidence. They never ruled that he was "killed by the mafia".

Robert Blakey: "If the acoustics come out that we made a mistake somewhere, I think that would end it."

Acoustic evidence aside, they came to the same conclusions as the Warren Commission.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 12:58pm

The Nal wrote: »

Try stick to one point. You said "Select Committee on Assassinations- a government body ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia"

Just pointing out that its not true. HSCA said it was likely a conspiracy based on the now debunked acoustic evidence. They never ruled that he was "killed by the mafia".

Robert Blakey: "If the acoustics come out that we made a mistake somewhere, I think that would end it."

Acoustic evidence aside, they came to the same conclusions as the Warren Commission.

It doesn't matter what you think. We know the Warren Commission claimed Kennedy was shot by Oswald and he acted alone.

HSCA concluded it was most probably a conspiracy involving organised crime. Everyone but you is able to recognise they blamed the mafia. Edit add Kingmob to the list!

Ascoutic evidence was never debunked, it was disputed evidence. Constantly saying otherwise does not change the facts.

King Mob · 06-08-2019 1:00pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

HSCA concluded it was most probably a conspiracy involving organised crime. Everyone but you is able to recognise they blamed the mafia.
.

Nope. It's pretty clear that's not what they said based on the quote you provided.
I think it's a case of your poor reading ability again.

banie01 · 06-08-2019 1:12pm

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. It's pretty clear that's not what they said based on the quote you provided.
I think it's a case of yourpoor reading ability again.

It's an issue on every single thread CS or their new alter ego gets involved in.

They are clearly a non native English speaker.
They lack the comprehension of nuance and Syntax and the effect they can have on meaning, even the difference that context of a remark can make is lost on them.

They seem to regularly misinterpret documents and prose, and then latch onto that as their breakthrough moment of proof and understanding.

I've said this to CS multiple times, and each time it's swerved and avoided as where they are from doesn't matter.
I'd agree with that, the "where" doesn't.
What does matter IMO is that CS at least acknowledges that their comprehension, particularly of technical/legal English is not to sufficient standard to be relied on to break open a conspiracy.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 1:25pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Ascoutic evidence was never debunked, it was disputed evidence. Constantly saying otherwise does not change the facts.

Nope its been completely debunked. HB McClain was not where he had to be for the evidence to have any validity. Simple.

The HSCA said he had to be in a very specific spot at the time of the first shot and we now know that he wasn't in that spot so the acoustic evidence is invalid.

"If you could prove to me that there was no police officer in the place where he had to be, you would falsify [the acoustics evidence]." -- G. Robert Blakey

Well here you go
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/report_download.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOBAFqeaKgw&t=1385s

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 1:30pm

banie01 wrote: »

It's an issue on every single thread CS or their new alter ego gets involved in.

They are clearly a non native English speaker.
They lack the comprehension of nuance and Syntax and the effect they can have on meaning, even the difference that context of a remark can make is lost on them.

They seem to regularly misinterpret documents and prose, and then latch onto that as their breakthrough moment of proof and understanding.

I've said this to CS multiple times, and each time it's swerved and avoided as where they are from doesn't matter.
I'd agree with that, the "where" doesn't.
What does matter IMO is that CS at least acknowledges that their comprehension, particularly of technical/legal English is not to sufficient standard to be relied on to break open a conspiracy.

Opposite i worry about you. It clearly understand by everyone involved with JFK research the HSCA concluded it was probably a conspiracy involving organised crime.

You obviously not bright enough to figure out whom they referring to.

banie01 · 06-08-2019 1:33pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Opposite i worry about you. It clearly understand by everyone in JFK research the HSCA concluded it was probably a conspiracy involving organised crime.

You obviously not bright enough to figure out whom they referring to.

See what I mean.

I know what you are trying to say.

But your phrasing and Syntax is so poor, that anyone not familiar with your scattergun phrasing will be struggling to immediately understand you without rereading and making a guess or 2.

But you carry on CS, you and your English dictionary will break open JFK, 9/11, UFO's and you may even figure out where Jimmy Hoffa is buried yet!

The Nal · 06-08-2019 1:35pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Opposite i worry about you. It clearly understand by everyone involved with JFK research the HSCA concluded it was probably a conspiracy involving organised crime.

You obviously not bright enough to figure out whom they referring to.

So why would you say "ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia"?

Now you're saying probably a conspiracy involving organised crime. Such desperate garden variety conspiracy theorist wording.

Whats wrong with fact?

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 1:48pm

banie01 wrote: »

See what I mean.

I know what you are trying to say.

But your phrasing and Syntax is so poor, that anyone not familiar with your scattergun phrasing will be struggling to immediately understand you without rereading and making a guess or 2.

But you carry on CS, you and your English dictionary will break open JFK, 9/11, UFO's and you may even figure out where Jimmy Hoffa is buried yet!

I posted what their conclusions are.

That you are unable and can't decipher their language it not my problem

HSCA conclusions facts not your interpretation
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."

I broke it down for you guys in this thread.
National Crime Syndicate is a collection of organised crime families spread out across America. It an organistion a group. The commitee then said then we don't preclude-" individual members" involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

I understood what they saying here, you obviously don't. If i am wrong please highlight were exactly and rambling abouts not understanding the english language is meaningless. Who is the HSCA referencing here if not the Mafia?

King Mob · 06-08-2019 1:54pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I broke it down for you guys in this thread.
National Crime Syndicate is a collection of organised crime families spread out across America. It an organistion a group. The commitee then said then we don't preclude-" individual members" involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

That doesn't mean "We rule that Kennedy was killed by the mafia."

I don't think you know what "preclude" means.
Define it please.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 2:00pm

The difference is the Warren commission claimed Lee Harvey acted alone there was nobody else involved.

The HSCA said based on the evidence available to them- they don't preclude, in other words rule it out individual members of an organised crime syndicate were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy. This is very different stance taken by the HSCA.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 2:09pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I posted what their conclusions are.

That you are unable and can't decipher their language it not my problem

HSCA conclusions facts not your interpretation
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."

I broke it down for you guys in this thread.
National Crime Syndicate is a collection of organised crime families spread out across America. It an organistion a group. The commitee then said then we don't preclude-" individual members" involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

I understood what they saying here, you obviously don't. If i am wrong please highlight were exactly and rambling abouts not understanding the english language is meaningless. Who is the HSCA referencing here if not the Mafia?

Yes exactly. So based on since debunked acoustic evidence, they say its impossible to rule out that a member of the mafia may have been involved in a possible conspiracy. They can't say either way. In the same way they can't preclude that it was a 20 stone woman from Japan.

Clearly, again by something you posted, that does not mean "that Kennedy was killed by the mafia"

This isn't even semantics. Its just lies.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 2:09pm

The Nal wrote: »

So why would you say "ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia"?

Now you're saying probably a conspiracy involving organised crime. Such desperate garden variety conspiracy theorist wording.

Whats wrong with fact?

HSCA did not say agree with the Warren commission findings, you know this.

They concluded and Nal you know this.

Quote
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

Comments