I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Rob Caprio]

Too bad none of these people ever mentioned actually touching and investigating a clean wound, there is a reason why we have autopsies and this is why autopsies aren't based on vague recollections from the Emergency room.

A lot of the autopsy photos were taken in stereo pairs and can be viewed with stereo glasses and show a perfect 3D scene, or an easier way to view these photos is the following gif which connects the same body parts like skin, ears, hair and the overall shape of Kennedy's head in 3D space and because each set of all these parts are relatively an equal distance from the camera both images combined produce a series of mathematically correct interim images that when inserted into an animation produces a smooth rotation. So in a nutshell if there was any imaging tampering whatsoever there is no way to recreate this smooth rotation.



JohnM

Desperate much?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Perhaps you should read these comments.

*********************************************

The Warren Commission (WC) said that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was shot from behind ONLY, thus, NO wounds should have been seen on the backside of JFK?s  head (save for a small entrance wound), but many witnesses did see such a wound.

How can the WC defenders explain this?

It's already been explained, you just don't want to accept it. You have two groups of witnesses who describe the wounds differently. So, to resolve this you look at the authenticated autopsy photos and x-rays which show no wound where the Dallas doctors said it was. Nor do any of the films. So, the doctors were wrong. As John M. explained, the doctors statements are examined carefully and their earliest observations are given more weight, their statements are not as contradictory as CTs make them out to be. All of this is explainable and understandable unless you have a bias toward conspiracy.

[Rob Caprio]

It's already been explained, you just don't want to accept it. You have two groups of witnesses who describe the wounds differently. So, to resolve this you look at the authenticated autopsy photos and x-rays which show no wound where the Dallas doctors said it was. Nor do any of the films. So, the doctors were wrong. As John M. explained, the doctors statements are examined carefully and their earliest observations are given more weight, their statements are not as contradictory as CTs make them out to be. All of this is explainable and understandable unless you have a bias toward conspiracy.

I dont have to accept false explanations. All these witnesses, and Chief Curfy too, saw a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head. End of story.

No panel of experts in the late 1970s that didn't even see the body can alter this fact.

[John Iacoletti]

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

They only used color photos in their analysis.

What, the gouge verified by photographic experts

How many times are you going to lie about this?  No photographic expert identified the rifle in the backyard photos as C2766 to the exclusion of any other rifle.

In the following GIF, the squiggly yellow lines show the gouge in C2766.

No it doesn't.  It shows your biased imagination.

[John Iacoletti]

So in a nutshell if there was any imaging tampering whatsoever there is no way to recreate this smooth rotation.

He claims with no evidence whatsoever.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I dont have to accept false explanations. All these witnesses, and Chief Curfy too, saw a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head. End of story.

No panel of experts in the late 1970s that didn't even see the body can alter this fact.

Well, we have gone about as far as we can with this debate. You accept the evidence you prefer, which is ok-you can do that. But the "best evidence" in this instance is the authenticated autopsy materials and the films (which all match) especially the Zapruder film. Eyewitnesses do make mistakes and that fact is proven by studies.

[Rob Caprio]

Well, we have gone about as far as we can with this debate. You accept the evidence you prefer, which is ok-you can do that. But the "best evidence" in this instance is the authenticated autopsy materials and the films (which all match) especially the Zapruder film. Eyewitnesses do make mistakes and that fact is proven by studies.

Wrong. The best evidence was, and always will be, the body and that didn't agree with the extant autopsy X-rays and photographs.

Your comments about doctors and nurses trained in gunshot wounds not being able to identify what they saw on November 22, 1963, is just absurd. If what you said was true then all gunshot victims would have to die to have their wounds assessed properly at an autopsy. Just silly.