55 years later...

[Allan Fritzke]

Well, we can't be sure how many, I did exagerrate.  However, the whole event was well orchestrated.    The man was dead.   Did you really need SS present in the room at the time of the autopsy?  Shouldn't they be present outside the room and let the fully capable doctors do their job and make an independent examination? 

Why was the event so controlled by them?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html

Responding to published reports that photo negatives were seized by the FBI and that the FBI took its own photographs, Humes is incredulous. He says, ''Yes, there were FBI and Secret Service people milling about the room. And, at one point, there was an unauthorized Navy corpsman taking photos in the morgue and the FBI quite properly seized and destroyed that film, since the photographer did not have credentials. However, the official photos taken by John Stringer were never touched, and no one from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy photos. These reports are an incredible lie.''

Looking at the above statement released from the ChicagoTribune,  how did an unauthorized Navy Corpsman (unnamed nonetheless), get into the room in the first place, take a bunch of pictures and then have them destroyed.  Their statements lack credibility and don't make sense.  The Chicago Tribune is muddying the waters - why was that?   

Why were there this many SS agents and FBI agents "milling about the room" at the autopsy?  What, they were guarding a dead President now?  Surely you wouldn't expect that.    Is this a routine?    Shouldn't you just wait for the doctors to present the evidence of what they have found.  I could understand waiting outside the door and making sure no one disturbed the process!    Look at the 2 major ones, Greer and Kellerman who seemed to be in charge of the whole event - not even being investigated!   They were part of the crime scene, then they were part of the autopsy scenes as well.  Would they investigate themselves and find themselves guilty of anything?  Were they to be totally trusted?   

When someone gets killed, don't you try and isolate all parties and investigate all venues?  The investigation is a total and adulterated sham in JFK's case.    Assassinations of VIP people (government leaders especially), often are led and orchestrated by those operating close to them - but loyal to someone else!

These eyewitnesses  to the event where totally trusted and not treated as suspects or possible accomplices of the murder.   Total BS in the investigation of anyone's death, especially that of the POTUS where you may have a coup d'etat taking place,  trying to determine the facts!    These people were not only present at the crime scene, emergency room but at the Washington autopsy - maybe Parkland Hospital, as well.  Oh yes!   They needed to be present in the room at every opportunity - they could not wait for any report to be issued, they were part of it and they made sure they were part of the reporting process!

John J. O'Leary: Secret Service agent.
William Greer: Secret Service agent.
Roy Kellerman: Secret Service agent.
Francis X. O'Neill: FBI special agent
James "Jim" Sibert: FBI special agent, assisting Francis O'Neill     

[Steve Logan]

Well, we can't be sure how many, I did exagerrate.  However, the whole event was well orchestrated.    The man was dead.   Did you really need SS present in the room at the time of the autopsy.  Shouldn't they be present outside the room and let the fully capable doctors do their job? 

Why was the event so controlled by them?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html

Responding to published reports that photo negatives were seized by the FBI and that the FBI took its own photographs, Humes is incredulous. He says, ''Yes, there were FBI and Secret Service people milling about the room. And, at one point, there was an unauthorized Navy corpsman taking photos in the morgue and the FBI quite properly seized and destroyed that film, since the photographer did not have credentials. However, the official photos taken by John Stringer were never touched, and no one from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy photos. These reports are an incredible lie.''

Looking at the above statement released from the ChicagoTribune,  how did an unauthorized Navy Corpsman (unnamed nonetheless), get into the room in the first place, take a bunch of pictures and then have them removed.  Their statements lack credibility and don't make sense.   

Why were there this many SS agents and FBI agents "milling about the room" at the autopsy?  What, they were guarding a dead President now?  Surely you wouldn't expect that.    Is this a routine?    Shouldn't you just wait for the doctors to present the evidence of what they have found.  I could understand waiting outside the door and making sure no one disturbed the process!    Look at the 2 major ones, Greer and Kellerman who seemed to be in charge of the whole event, not even being investigated!   They were part of the crime scene and then they were investigating themselves!    When someone gets killed, don't you try and isolate all parties and investigate all venues?  The investigation is a total and adulterated sham.

Eyewitnesses to the event where also trusted and not treated as suspects or possible accomplices.  Total BS in the investigation of anyone's death.  These people were present at the Washington autopsy!!!!!!!  Oh yes.  They needed to be present in the room - could wait for any report!

John J. O'Leary: Secret Service agent.
William Greer: Secret Service agent.
Roy Kellerman: Secret Service agent.
Francis X. O'Neill: FBI special agent
James "Jim" Sibert: FBI special agent, assisting Francis O'Neill   

I have a question. How old are you?

[Bill Chapman]

Well, we can't be sure how many, I did exagerrate.  However, the whole event was well orchestrated.    The man was dead.   Did you really need SS present in the room at the time of the autopsy.  Shouldn't they be present outside the room and let the fully capable doctors do their job? 

Why was the event so controlled by them?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html

Responding to published reports that photo negatives were seized by the FBI and that the FBI took its own photographs, Humes is incredulous. He says, ''Yes, there were FBI and Secret Service people milling about the room. And, at one point, there was an unauthorized Navy corpsman taking photos in the morgue and the FBI quite properly seized and destroyed that film, since the photographer did not have credentials. However, the official photos taken by John Stringer were never touched, and no one from the FBI even had a camera, let alone the intention to take autopsy photos. These reports are an incredible lie.''

Looking at the above statement released from the ChicagoTribune,  how did an unauthorized Navy Corpsman (unnamed nonetheless), get into the room in the first place, take a bunch of pictures and then have them removed.  Their statements lack credibility and don't make sense.   

Why were there this many SS agents and FBI agents "milling about the room" at the autopsy?  What, they were guarding a dead President now?  Surely you wouldn't expect that.    Is this a routine?    Shouldn't you just wait for the doctors to present the evidence of what they have found.  I could understand waiting outside the door and making sure no one disturbed the process!    Look at the 2 major ones, Greer and Kellerman who seemed to be in charge of the whole event, not even being investigated!   They were part of the crime scene and then they were investigating themselves!    When someone gets killed, don't you try and isolate all parties and investigate all venues?  The investigation is a total and adulterated sham.

Eyewitnesses to the event where also trusted and not treated as suspects or possible accomplices.  Total BS in the investigation of anyone's death.  These people were present at the Washington autopsy!!!!!!!  Oh yes.  They needed to be present in the room - could wait for any report!

John J. O'Leary: Secret Service agent.
William Greer: Secret Service agent.
Roy Kellerman: Secret Service agent.
Francis X. O'Neill: FBI special agent
James "Jim" Sibert: FBI special agent, assisting Francis O'Neill   

In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

He cites the (rather) large number of people in the autopsy room as evidence of a conspiracy. Imagine what he would think if the room had been cleared?

It seems obvious (to me) that if you're faking the autopsy then you wouldn't want people like the SS and the local morgue and other unknowns watching you conduct the fraudulent procedure.

This is a classic example of how if you want to believe in a conspiracy then no matter what the situation is - lots of people, few people and anything in between - is evidence of the act.

[Allan Fritzke]

Bill, that is a circular argument of sorts!  A dog chasing it's tail never catches it!

In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

Don't sidetrack.  Answer my question!!  How can you conduct a proper investigation of any event if you are in charge of it,  part of it and are investigating yourself even though you were part of the crime scene?    Think about it.  If you are in charge of the entire investigation (of yourself nonetheless),  how is the process not biased?

A proper investigation would have involved an independent inquiry into his death, something which was circumvented by those SS players involved.  By removing the body, vehicle etc. out of the hands of the Texas jurisdiction, you are bypassing protocol and the rule of law!   That is what happened in this case!  Why not let a standard lawful investigation run its course.   If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear by the process.  However, if you are guilty, I guess you don't want that investigation to take place!

The conspiracy comes in from the fact that you allow Greer and Kellerman to be part of the investigation team.  These are possible suspects.  These were people at the very crime scene!  Post independent agents instead.   How did the "Navy Corpsman" get in there with a camera and then have his rolls of film destroyed?  Who was controlling this scene?  We know who was controlling the crime scene and it certainly wasn't the President!

[Paul May]

Allan, simply ridiculous reasoning.  How can you not see that?  Regardless of who investigated, the conspiracy mentality doesn?t change.  As an example, a group of independent photo experts, the best America had at the time authenticated the autopsy photos as Real. REAL.  Yet, 55 years later your side is STILL arguing against that FACT.  This demonstrates the absurdity of conspiracy theory. I don?t recall who made the following statement yet it rings so true.  I apologize up front if it?s not verbatim but it?s close:

The most amusing part of the Kennedy event for me is the sheer number of people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. The ballistics is just one example.

[Jon Banks]

Allan, simply ridiculous reasoning.  How can you not see that?  Regardless of who investigated, the conspiracy mentality doesn?t change.  As an example, a group of independent photo experts, the best America had at the time authenticated the autopsy photos as Real. REAL.  Yet, 55 years later your side is STILL arguing against that FACT.  This demonstrates the absurdity of conspiracy theory. I don?t recall who made the following statement yet it rings so true.  I apologize up front if it?s not verbatim but it?s close:

The most amusing part of the Kennedy event for me is the sheer number of people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. The ballistics is just one example.

It doesn?t help that until recently at least, experts and Prosecutors have been dishonest about the reliability of Forensic Science. It?s highly subjective (junk science in some cases) and only in the past decade or so have many of the problems with Forensic Science been brought to light.

https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-flaws-in-forensic-science/