I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The current autopsy photographs and X-rays do not match the wounds seen by witnesses who viewed the body. It is clear that you put more weight with the HSCA then the contemperaneous witnesses.

Even IF they were authentic (and they're not based on the PH witnesses and others), how do they prove that LHO was the shooter as you claim?

Pardon me butting in but you can't rely on witnesses. Studies by Elizabeth Loftus and others have shown that. So, yes I put more weight with the HSCA. And other evidence shows LHO was the shooter who was firing from the rear. And before you ask for proof, check Bugliosi's list of evidence for LHO being the shooter or David Von Pein's website or book.

[Fred Litwin]

You didn't answer it. None of those experts were at the autopsy in 1963, thus, they could only go by what they were told. Their supposed authentication of what they were provided means nothing since they have no idea if they truly depict the wounds seen on 11/22-11/23/63.

The current autopsy photographs and X-rays do not match the wounds seen by witnesses who viewed the body. It is clear that you put more weight with the HSCA then the contemperaneous witnesses.

Even IF they were authentic (and they're not based on the PH witnesses and others), how do they prove that LHO was the shooter as you claim?

Not true Four Dallas doctors examined the autopsy x-rays and photos and told the NOVA science show on PBS that the photos and x-rays were consistent with what they saw. But, I would never expect all the eyewitnesses at parkland to agree - after all they were frantically trying to save Kennedy, not examine their wounds. And, that is why they all have a variety of different viewpoints as to what they saw. The best evidence is the autopsy x-rays and photographs and they clearly prove that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind.

As for Oswald, there's lots of time to get there. I'm trying to get agreement on the autopsy x-rays and photographs.

Have you read the documentation I referenced?

[Rob Caprio]

Fred has been avoiding that question for 4 pages now...

Yep. I guess we are expected to just believe him and ignore the evidence.

[Rob Caprio]

Pardon me butting in but you can't rely on witnesses. Studies by Elizabeth Loftus and others have shown that. So, yes I put more weight with the HSCA. And other evidence shows LHO was the shooter who was firing from the rear. And before you ask for proof, check Bugliosi's list of evidence for LHO being the shooter or David Von Pein's website or book.

Silly. These witnesses were trained professionals in dealing with gunshot wounds. Also, how difficult is it to notice a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

You have provided NO supporting evidence and Bugliosi certainly didn't provide any supporting evidence. How could either of you do so when the WC didn't provide any?

Good grief -- David Von Pein wrote a book? It must be full of belly laughs.

[Rob Caprio]

Not true Four Dallas doctors examined the autopsy x-rays and photos and told the NOVA science show on PBS that the photos and x-rays were consistent with what they saw. But, I would never expect all the eyewitnesses at parkland to agree - after all they were frantically trying to save Kennedy, not examine their wounds. And, that is why they all have a variety of different viewpoints as to what they saw. The best evidence is the autopsy x-rays and photographs and they clearly prove that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind.

As for Oswald, there's lots of time to get there. I'm trying to get agreement on the autopsy x-rays and photographs.

Have you read the documentation I referenced?

The Dallas doctors would have nothing to do with the autopsy to know if the X-rays and photographs are genuine. In terms of the wounds I am curious -- who were these four doctors?

The old, "they were trying to save his life" excuse. How does a doctor save someone's life if they don't know what wounds the patient suffered?

The best evidence is the body, but unfortunately the SS seized the body without jurisdiction and rushed it to a military controlled hospital for the autopsy.

[Fred Litwin]

The Dallas doctors would have nothing to do with the autopsy to know if the X-rays and photographs are genuine. In terms of the wounds I am curious -- who were these four doctors?

The old, "they were trying to save his life" excuse. How does a doctor save someone's life if they don't know what wounds the patient suffered?

The best evidence is the body, but unfortunately the SS seized the body without jurisdiction and rushed it to a military controlled hospital for the autopsy.

You're not answering the question I asked?  Did you read the documents I referenced. You are so anxious for me to cite evidence. I have. Have you read what
I posted?  And I still ask the question - have you ever read the HSCA supporting volumes of evidence?

[Bill Brown]

The best evidence is the autopsy x-rays and photographs and they clearly prove that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind.

...and from above.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Silly. These witnesses were trained professionals in dealing with gunshot wounds. Also, how difficult is it to notice a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

You have provided NO supporting evidence and Bugliosi certainly didn't provide any supporting evidence. How could either of you do so when the WC didn't provide any?

Good grief -- David Von Pein wrote a book? It must be full of belly laughs.

The Dallas doctors were there to save JFK's life, not to make detailed observations on the wounds. That's what an autopsy is for.