I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[John Mytton]

That's a conclusion, not evidence.  I've read the HSCA reports.  How/where did they determine when the autopsy photos they looked at were taken?

I have a few comments on the HSCA analysis.

- They looked only at color photos most of which the public does not have access to.
- They identified the body in the photos where the face is visible as JFK based on the measurements of certain facial landmarks, but included the handwaving of differences by attributing them to gravity, postmortem alterations (?), and cranial damage.
- Then using the newly made conclusion that an autopsy photo showing the face was JFK, they claimed to identify the back photo where the face is not visible as also being JFK based on the claim that they have the same visible bloodstains, abrasions, and wrinkles in both.  I could find no pictorial illustration of these common features in any of the HSCA materials.

I've read the HSCA reports.

Really?

- They looked only at color photos most of which the public does not have access to.

 

and cranial damage.

Kennedy's head had missing pieces of skull and what was left was fractured.

- Then using the newly made conclusion that an autopsy photo showing the face was JFK, they claimed to identify the back photo where the face is not visible as also being JFK based on the claim that they have the same visible bloodstains, abrasions, and wrinkles in both.  I could find no pictorial illustration of these common features in any of the HSCA materials.

Measurements.



Abrasion.



Wrinkles.



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

  yourself.

Abrasion.

Wrinkles.

Well, I see yellow arrows.  I don't see any indication of how what they point to are uniquely identical.  This is the magic gouge all over again.

[Fred Litwin]

When you or Fred show that the HSCA were provided with the X-rays and photographs that were taken on November 22-23, 1963, then this will mean something. The extant versions do NOT match the wounds seen by numerous trained eyewitnesses.

There is no such thing as a trained eyewitness.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

When you or Fred show that the HSCA were provided with the X-rays and photographs that were taken on November 22-23, 1963, then this will mean something. The extant versions do NOT match the wounds seen by numerous trained eyewitnesses.

There is an extensive discussion of the Dallas doctors by the HSCA and they dealt with it. The Dallas doctors certainly are "trained" but not to be eyewitnesses. Law enforcement personal are trained to make off the cuff observations but doctors are not.

[John Mytton]

  yourself.

Well, I see yellow arrows.  I don't see any indication of how what they point to are uniquely identical.  This is the magic gouge all over again.

yourself.

Thanks for posting that they also looked at the black and white photos, you said "They looked only at color photos...".

I don't see any indication of how what they point to are uniquely identical.

I don't expect you to see anything.

This is the magic gouge all over again.

What, the gouge verified by photographic experts and refuted by an "Internet Warrior", that gouge?
In the following GIF, the squiggly yellow lines show the gouge in C2766.



Here's a larger section and we can see the pristine surface at 1 and 1a as compared to 2 and 2a.



JohnM

[Fred Litwin]

There is an extensive discussion of the Dallas doctors by the HSCA and they dealt with it. The Dallas doctors certainly are "trained" but not to be eyewitnesses. Law enforcement personal are trained to make off the cuff observations but doctors are not.

Here is what four doctors at Parkland told NOVA:

Richard Dulaney
"I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room."

Marion Jenkins
"Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day."

Robert McClelland
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . . "

Paul Peters
"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain.

[John Mytton]

Here is what four doctors at Parkland told NOVA:

Richard Dulaney
"I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room."

Marion Jenkins
"Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day."

Robert McClelland
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . . "

Paul Peters
"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain.

 



The Back of Head eyewitnesses were not very consistent.



But the real eyewitnesses are all a lot more consistent.



JohnM