Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Forget Oswald and Who....The Number of Bullets & Shooters Proves Conspiracy  (Read 75928 times)

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Advertisement
Can't you read? I said that he asked for photos to be taken.

The photos were not taken. If they had been, Stringer would have noticed that they were missing in 1966. After all, he took the autopsy photos, not Finck as Aguilar claimed. Aguilar falsely claimed that Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone.


Extract from Stringer's testimony to the ARRB.

"Q: Give or take one or two, I presume.
 Stringer: Yeah. There were some views that we - that were taken that were missing.
 Q: Why is it that you say that some of the views that were taken are missing?
 Stringer: We went down to see them two years afterwards, and I remember some things inside the
 body that weren't there.

"https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798#relPageId=27&tab=page

Page 133
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 11:06:38 PM by Ray Mitcham »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Extract from Stringer's testimony to the ARRB.

"Q: Give or take one or two, I presume.
 Stringer: Yeah. There were some views that we - that were taken that were missing.
 Q: Why is it that you say that some of the views that were taken are missing?
 Stringer: We went down to see them two years afterwards, and I remember some things inside the
 body that weren't there.

A signed inventory 3 years after the fact vs a 33 year old recollection. The former trumps the latter any day. The autopsy photos are what they are. Why not just deal with them?

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
A signed inventory 3 years after the fact vs a 33 year old recollection. The former trumps the latter any day. The autopsy photos are what they are. Why not just deal with them?



From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB:  (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.)
 
Mr. Gunn: Okay.  Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Q:  I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?
 
A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way...
 
 
From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB:
 
Q: Okay.  If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head?
 
A:  Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures.  I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 11:17:09 PM by Ray Mitcham »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824


From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB:  (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.)
 
Mr. Gunn: Okay.  Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Q:  I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?
 
A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way...

"Let me rephrase that, when I say 'doctored'. Like the stuff has been pushed back in, and it looks like more towards the end than the beginning. All you have to do was put the flap back over here , and the rest of the stuff is all covered on up."
...............
"I'm not saying that these have been doctored or phonied up in any particular way at all."

 
Quote
From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB:
 
Q: Okay.  If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head?
 
A:  Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures.  I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo.

What he remembered 33 years on was different from what is seen in that autopsy photo. The autopsy photo has been authenticated in more ways than one. Sibert's recollection was clearly faulty.

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Can't you read? I said that he asked for photos to be taken.

The photos were not taken. If they had been, Stringer would have noticed that they were missing in 1966. After all, he took the autopsy photos, not Finck as Aguilar claimed. Aguilar falsely claimed that Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone.

Indeed he was.

"I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry."
----------
"there was only one wound'of entry in the back of the head."
----------
"It was above the external occipital protuberance....2.5 centimeters to the right of the midline."
-- The eminently qualified Pierre Finck

 ;D

In 1966 the person who took the photos, Stringer, doesn't notice any missing.

In 1967 the missile wound expert who examined the body and bullet holes at the autopsy and

requested the photos be made, Finck, notices there are some missing.

They disappeared sometime between 1966 when Stringer reviewed them and 1967 when Finck reviewed

them.




JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Lee Wotton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Timbo's answer for everything is that "They are lying"!!!!!

Apparently he knows more than the doctors and witnesses and when his version doesn't suit his LN fantasy they are lying.

The photos were missing plain as that.

Whoever heard of a ballistics expert at an autopsy not having photos taken of bullet wounds to the head and ensuring they are taken and viewing them to ensure he can provide the expertise he has been asked for.

You are so deranged Tim you are not even thinking like a human being.  You are obsessed an obsessed LN.  Get some help.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Timbo's answer for everything is that "They are lying"!!!!!

Apparently he knows more than the doctors and witnesses and when his version doesn't suit his LN fantasy they are lying.

The photos were missing plain as that.

Whoever heard of a ballistics expert at an autopsy not having photos taken of bullet wounds to the head and ensuring they are taken and viewing them to ensure he can provide the expertise he has been asked for.

You are so deranged Tim you are not even thinking like a human being.  You are obsessed an obsessed LN.  Get some help.

CTer answer for everything: Everything's faked! There's no evidence!

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
;D

In 1966 the person who took the photos, Stringer, doesn't notice any missing.

Correct

Quote
In 1967 the missile wound expert who examined the body and bullet holes at the autopsy and requested the photos be made, Finck, notices there are some missing.

Incorrect.He notices that a couple of photos that he recalls asking to be taken were never taken.

Quote
They disappeared sometime between 1966 when Stringer reviewed them and 1967 when Finck reviewed them.

They never disappeared because they never existed in the first place. However, here are a couple of photos that were taken:





Now, excluding the line that has been added to the bottom one, do you accept those two photos as being authentic? Yes or no.