Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence  (Read 1042 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Clear Evidence of Alteration in the JFK Autopsy Skull X-Rays
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2022, 01:57:58 PM »
Humes labored under several restraints during his interview with the HSCA FPP. He was especially handcuffed when it came to the rear head entry wound because he had to pretend that the back-of-head autopsy photo showed how the head looked during the autopsy, when Humes knew it did not. He did not dare tell the FPP that, as we now know from the ARRB evidence, the back-of-head photo was taken after the mortician had reconstructed the skull after the autopsy, and that there was a sizable hole in the right occipital-parietal area, i.e., the right-rear part of the skull.

Humes had no way of knowing when he spoke with the FPP that Dr. Boswell would later admit to the ARRB that there was considerable bone missing from the right occipital-parietal area. Boswell even drew a diagram on an artificial skull to portray the missing bone, and the wound that he drew looks nothing like the WC and HSCA illustrations of the large head wound. And, needless to say, his description and diagram prove that the back-of-head autopsy photo is a deliberate misrepresentation of how the back of the head looked during the autopsy.

Boswell also told the ARRB that the rear head entry wound was exactly where the autopsy report says it was and that he had never changed his mind about its location. When Boswell was asked specifically about the Clark Panel's finding that the entry wound was in the cowlick, he replied, "I never believed this." I should mention that the autopsy face sheet likewise shows the entry wound next to the EOP and nowhere near the cowlick.

In the process of explaining the rear head entry wound, Boswell made a startling, historic disclosure: he explained, in some detail, that part of the wound was in one of the skull fragments that arrived during the autopsy and that the other part of the wound was in the intact part of the skull. When Boswell said this, the interviewer, ARRB general counsel Jeremy Gunn, asked several specific follow-up questions to ensure he understood what Boswell was saying:

Quote
Q: So does that mean that it was your understanding that the piece of bone that is drawn at the bottom of page 2 is showing part of the entrance wound in the back of the skull?

A: Yes. . . .

Q: You're referring to the bottom of page 2 on Exhibit 1?

A: Yes, should fit right there. . . .

Q: Dr. Boswell is now being shown Exhibit MI 15, which are x-rays taken of fragments arriving from Dallas during the course of the autopsy.

A: And I think this is an x-ray of this piece showing the wound of entrance there, part of it.

Doug Horne has discussed this historc new information in his book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

But Humes could not, dared not, explain that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the skull fragments that arrived from Dallas and that when this fragment was put in place on the skull the complete entry wound was then formed and visible. He could have blown the cowlick entry site out of the water with this information, but this information would have wreaked havoc on the back-of-head autopsy photo and on the skull x-rays and would have begged the obvious question of why there is no fragment trail going from the EOP, or even any fragments near the EOP, on the extant skull x-rays.

Plus, admitting that part of the entry wound was in one of the skull fragments that arrived from Dallas would have revealed that one of those fragments was occipital bone.

Incidentally, when asked about the 6.5 mm object, Boswell said, "We did not find one that large. I'm sure of that." Of course not, since the 6.5 mm object was never in the skull and was added to the A-P skull x-ray after the autopsy. That's why the autopsy report does not even mention it, even though it is the largest and most obvious "fragment" on the A-P x-ray and even though the autopsy report mentions a much smaller fragment.

Finally, I should mention that regarding the white patch, one of the controls that Dr. Mantik used was one of JFK's previous skull x-rays. In several of his articles and in his new book, he provides a side-by-side view of the two x-rays, and even a layman can see that there is no white patch on the earlier JFK skull x-ray. The clincher, however, is the OD measurements of the white patch, which prove it cannot be genuine.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2022, 08:44:39 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Clear Evidence of Alteration in the JFK Autopsy Skull X-Rays
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2022, 01:57:58 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Clear Evidence of Alteration in the JFK Autopsy Skull X-Rays
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2022, 12:21:44 PM »
Speaking of the rear head entry wound, some people here may not be aware that in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, rejects the cowlick entry site identified by the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP and argues that the rear entry wound was where the autopsy doctors said it was: about 4 inches below the cowlick site and slightly above the EOP (pp. 165-180)!

However, in a sad display of pseudo-scholarship, Sturdivan deals with the impossible trajectory posed by the EOP site by theorizing that the alleged FMJ bullet, after supposedly entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle (after allegedly having been fired from the sixth-floor snipers nest), magically made a sharp right turn and also veered markedly upward to exit the upper-front part of the right parietal bone (p. 180, Figure 54). No, Im not kidding. This is actually his theory.

Yet, surely Sturdivan knew better. Surely he knew that not one of the bullets in the WCs head-shot ballistics tests veered so markedly, either horizontally or vertically. Surely he knew that brain tissue could not have caused such a drastic change in the bullets horizontal and vertical trajectory. And surely he that there is no way that the high fragment trail could have been made by an FMJ bullet striking the EOP at a downward angle of 15 degrees.

Sturdivan says nothing about the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays. The autopsy report says this fragment trail started at the EOP and extended to a point just above the right eye. If Sturdivan had addressed this issue, he would have been forced to explain (1) why this low fragment trail does not appear on the extant x-rays, (2) why there are no fragments near the EOP, and (3) how three autopsy pathologists could have confused the plainly visible and obvious high fragment trail for a trail that started about 3 inches lower, especially when they had the EOP as a reference site, as well as the hairline and the cowlick.

The only fragment trail on the extant x-rays is above the debunked cowlick entry site but does not extend to or from the cowlick; rather, it consists of a cloud of fragments in the right frontal region, and from that cloud it dissipates upward toward the back of the head without reaching the cowlick. Now, just try to imagine how in the world a bullet that entered at the EOP, at a 15-degree downward angle no less, could leave such a fragment trail.

It is worth mentioning that Dr. Pierre Finck, the only board-certified forensic pathologist of the three autopsy doctors, insisted to the HSCA and the ARRB that he saw the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report. He told the HSCA that it was 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP. When the FPP showed Finck the back-of-head photo that has a small reddish spot in the cowlick, he refused to say that this was the entry wound, insisted that the back-of-head photo was shot from a distorted angle, and said that the photo did not show the wound that he saw on the body itself (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, pp. 82-102).

Then, the FPP members pressed him about the red spot on the back-of-head photo and showed him enhanced and colorized versions of the red spot, but Finck would not budge, and at one point he even asked how the photographs had been authenticated as coming from the autopsy:

Quote
Dr. Finck. I don't know what it [the red spot] is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy? (p. 89)

Finck added that he asked for pictures to be taken of the rear head entry wound from outside the skull and from inside the skull, a standard autopsy procedure, but that he never saw such photos in the collection of autopsy photos that he reviewed. When asked specifically if the red spot was any kind of a wound or defect, Finck said no:

Quote
Mr. Purdy. One final question. At the time of the autopsy do you recall anything at the upper area where the red spot is at the caldic? Do you remember anything that would correspond to that red spot?

Dr. Finck. No. No, there was only one wound of entry in the back of the head. (p. 94)

Then, the FPP showed Finck the autopsy skull x-rays and asked him to locate the entry wound on the x-rays. Finck said the x-rays were not a good source to identify the entry wound and that the body was a better source:

Quote
The value of the X ray films and why I asked for the X ray films is to have a whole body survey, not to be told afterwards that there could have been an intake bullet and that was the reason for those multiple X ray films. As far as location of wounds, this is not as good a source as the dead body itself. (p. 95)

Then, the FPP tried to get Finck to identify the track of the bullet, i.e., the course of the bullet, based on the fragment trail on the skull x-rays. Finck would not take the bait and gave the astounding answer that he could not identify a track!

Quote
Dr. Petty. No, that is not quite what I asked. Can you tell where the penetrating gunshot wound went? I am not I asking for entrance or exit but the course.

Dr. Finck. The track. I cannot identify a track. (p. 96)

Now, think about this: Finck was saying that on the x-rays that they were showing him, he could not discern a bullet track; however, he insisted that at the autopsy, there was a fragment trail that went from the EOP to the right orbit (i.e., just above the right eye).

Next came some crucial and surprising questions from FPP member Dr. George Loquvam. Dr. Loquvam made the logical point that if a bullet entered at the EOP, the photos of the brain would show damage to cerebellar tissue but that they show no such damage.

Loquvam may not have realized that he was treading on dangerous ground because he was pointing out a brazen contradiction between the autopsy report and the autopsy photos of the brain.

In his first response to Loquvams crucial question, Finck floated the strange argument that a bullet could have entered at the EOP without damaging brain tissue and without even causing any bleeding (hemorrhaging)! Loquvam was incredulous at this response and replied, You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue? Finck could not explain this contradiction and replied that he could not answer the question:

Quote
Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?

I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (p. 97)

The problem was that Finck knew that the autopsy photos of the brain are bogus, that the brain shown in those photos is not and could not be JFKs brain, but of course Finck did not dare cite this fact in defense of his placement of the rear head entry wound.

Doug Horne, among other scholars, has detailed the evidence that shows that there is simply no way, absolutely no way, that the brain in the autopsy photos of the brain could be JFKs brain. The evidence for this finding is so strong that even George Lardner of the Washington Post has taken it seriously:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/

I should add that Sturdivan says nothing about the stark contradiction between the EOP entry site and the autopsy photos of the brain.







« Last Edit: December 05, 2022, 04:11:51 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
Re: Clear Evidence of Alteration in the JFK Autopsy Skull X-Rays
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2022, 05:14:14 AM »
Dr. James Humes, the chief pathologist at the JFK autopsy, stated in the autopsy report that the lateral skull x-rays depicted a bullet-fragment trail that went from the rear head entrance wound slightly above the EOP to the purported exit site just above the orbit of the right eye. However, the extant lateral skull x-rays show no such fragment trail; instead, they show a clear fragment trail that goes from just above the right orbit in an upward direction toward the upper rear of the skull. This trail begins at least 2 inches above the EOP and, as mentioned, goes upward toward the back of the skull.

When the ARRB general counsel, Jeremy Gunn, showed Humes the lateral skull x-rays and asked him to explain why the autopsy report says nothing about the obvious high fragment trail but describes a low fragment trail, Humes could offer no explanation, became silent, blushed, and exhibited extreme embarrassment.

Here is one of the major problems that Humes confronted during the autopsy and when writing his three drafts of the autopsy report: There were two obvious fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP entry wound and went to a point just above the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the skull but did not extend to the back of the skull. These two fragment trails, which were at least 2 inches apart vertically, clearly showed that two bullets had struck the skull. Therefore, one of the fragment trails had to be suppressed. Humes chose to suppress the high fragment trail, since the low fragment trail started at the rear entry wound just above the EOP, and since there was no high rear entry wound that could be associated with the high fragment trail (we now know there was an entry wound in the right temple, but Humes had to ignore it).

Dr. Finck confirmed to the ARRB that there was indeed a low fragment trail running from the EOP to just above the right orbit. When asked about the high fragment trail and the alleged cowlick entry site, which was a whopping 4 inches higher than the EOP entry site, Dr. Finck took the astounding step of questioning how the skull x-rays had been authenticated!

All three of the ARRB's forensic experts, incuding the forensic radiologist, said that the skull x-rays show no entry wound in the cowlick. The phantom cowlick entry wound was bogusly identified by the Clark Panel and then by the HSCA medical panel. Both panels claimed that the high fragment trail was caused by a bullet that entered at the alleged cowlick entry site.

It is fairly obvious what happened: After the autopsy, and before the Clark Panel viewed the autopsy skull x-rays, the low fragment trail was removed, the white patch was added to conceal missing brain and to conceal part of the right occipital-parietal exit wound, and the 6.5 mm object was added to further incriminate Oswald and to support a higher entry site.

This is why the autopsy report oddly says nothing about the 6.5 mm object, the most obvious apparent "fragment" on the extant skull x-rays. The Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel, working without the benefit of optical density (OD) analysis, naturally identified the 6.5 mm object as a bullet fragment, associated it with the high fragment trail, and cited it as evidence to support the phantom cowlick entry site.

I doubt that the plotters ever dreamed that scientists would one day subject the skull x-rays to OD analysis and would discover (1) that the 6.5 mm object was ghosted via double exposure over the image of a smaller genuine fragment on the rear outer table of the skull, (2) that the white patch is a physical impossibility and must have been added after the autopsy (unless we assume that JFK's skull was severely deformed), and (3) that the OD measurements of the genuine rear head fragment on the lateral x-ray and those of the 6.5 mm object on the A-P x-ray are markedly different, a physical impossibility unless the 6.5 mm object is not a bullet fragment.

For more information on these historic developments, I recommend the following sources:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf

http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/the-jfk-medical-coverup-2/

The autopsy photos and X-rays are authentic and unaltered, as confirmed by the Bethesda doctors who performed the autopsy, by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts,  by the photographer who took the photos, by the Radiologist responsible for the X-Rays , and by one of the techs who took the X-Rays.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Clear Evidence of Alteration in the JFK Autopsy Skull X-Rays
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2022, 05:14:14 AM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Clear Evidence of Alteration in the JFK Autopsy Skull X-Rays
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2022, 03:51:02 PM »
The autopsy photos and X-rays are authentic and unaltered, as confirmed by the Bethesda doctors who performed the autopsy, by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts,  by the photographer who took the photos, by the Radiologist responsible for the X-Rays , and by one of the techs who took the X-Rays.

You are years behind the information curve and obviously did not bother to read or view any of the sources that I linked in my post. I also note that you did not address a single point that I made. Instead, you repeated laughable talking points that show you are oblivious to the new developments that have occurred in the case.

Let me try to get you to answer a few straightforward questions, questions that should be very easy to answer if the autopsy photos and x-rays are pristine and accurate:

-- Why do the autopsy skull x-rays not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and Dr. Finck confirmed to General Blumberg that he saw this low fragment trail. No such trail appears on the extant skull x-rays. Why not?

-- Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the glaringly obvious cloud of tiny metal fragments in the right-frontal region on the extant lateral skull x-rays? Not only does the autopsy report say nothing about this fragment cloud, but the autopsy doctors said nothing about it in their WC testimony or in their autopsy notes. This fragment cloud is at least 2 inches higher than the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail (the EOP), and it's on the opposite end of the skull from the EOP, so it's hard to fathom how either of the trails could have been mistaken for the other. Are we to believe that all three autopsy doctors, and the radiologist, somehow "missed" the right-frontal cloud of fragments, the most obvious area of fragments visible on the extant x-rays?

-- Why do the autopsy photos of the brain show very little brain tissue missing when the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing brain tissue, when literally dozens of witnesses who saw JFK's large head wound said a great deal of brain was blown out, and when we know that a large amount of brain matter was blown backward onto the follow-on car's windshield, into the back of the limo, and onto Officer Hargis and onto his motorcycle's windshield?

-- Why do the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum to be intact and undamaged when the autopsy report says that a bullet struck the head slightly above the EOP, which means the bullet would have had to pass through the cerebellum, and when several Parkland Hospital doctors--including the neurosurgeon--specified that part of the cerebellum was damaged and missing, keeping in mind that cerebellar tissue looks very different from the surrounding brain tissue?

When Finck testified before the HSCA medical panel, Dr. Loquvam zeroed-in on this contradiction, and Finck had no explanation for it:

Quote
Dr. Loquvam. I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

My question is, if this [the EOP entry site] is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (p. 97)

Yet, we now know that the cowlick entry site is bogus, even though the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the HSCA medical panel identified it as the entry site. Even Sturdivan now says that the cowlick site is bogus and that the entry site was where the autopsy doctors said it was. The ARRB forensic pathologists noted that the skull x-rays show no entry site in the cowlick.
 

« Last Edit: December 17, 2022, 12:23:42 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2023, 01:30:20 PM »
Another remarkable indication of fraud in the autopsy evidence is the astounding fact that the autopsy doctors said absolutely nothing about the very obvious damage to the cerebral cortex. Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report, and the three autopsy doctors, incredibly, said nothing about it in the supplemental autopsy report, even though the main purpose of the supplemental report was to describe the brain damage that they found after they sectioned and examined the brain!

No one can believe that they "missed" the obvious cortical damage to the brain. The HSCA medical panel noted and described this damage. Yet, although the autopsy doctors described the subcortical damage in great detail, they said nothing about the equally obvious cortical damage. To clarify, cortical damage is damage that is on or near the surface of the brain. Subcortical damage is damage that is deep inside the brain, several inches away from the cerebral cortex.

Now, why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the cortical damage? For the same reason they said nothing about the high fragment trail associated with the cortical damage: they knew there was no way they could relate the cortical damage and the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound.

The cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds (wound tunnels) are several inches apart and are not connected, so they could not have been made by the same bullet. As Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, notes, "This is not a matter of interpretation but of anatomical fact." When a bullet travels in/through a brain, it creates a wound tunnel in the brain tissue, a tunnel technically known as a "cylinder of disruption" or a "cavitation wound."

A single bullet cannot create two cavitation wounds separated by several inches unless it, or a fragment from it, travels from the first tunnel and creates the second tunnel, and if it does so, there will be a connecting tunnel. But, there is no connecting cavitation wound or fragment trail between the cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds. This can only mean that two bullets struck JFK's head. Dr. Riley establishes this point in extensive detail in his article "The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries":

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf

Riley makes the same point in a somewhat less technical, easier to read article titled "What Struck John":

https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html

Another key fact about the subcortical damage is that, amazingly, there is no fragment trail associated with it on the extant autopsy skull x-rays! There is a fragment trail in and around the cortical damage but no fragment trail in/around the subcortical damage, which is several inches deeper into the brain than the cortical damage! This is an astounding contradiction.

To further thicken the plot, the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail going from the EOP to the right orbit, and such a path would correspond to the subcortical cavitation wound; however, no such low fragment trail appears on the extant autopsy skull x-rays.

The HSCA medical panel noted both the cortical and subcortical damage, but did not explain the lack of any connecting damage between the two wounds and the lack of any fragments in/around the subcortical damage.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2023, 04:43:15 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3894
Re: Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2023, 04:00:56 PM »
If all your "evidence" of a conspiracy to kill a US President is "clear" and "obvious" as you repeatedly claim, why are you wasting your time on an Internet forum?  Why not take this "evidence" to Tucker Carlson or the NY Times and have them report it?  Or better yet - law enforcement authorities to reopen the case?  I've asked this repeatedly of CTers.  If they honestly believe they have evidence that proves Oswald was not the assassin and/or there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, why limit your contributions to obscure forums?  If I believed that I had evidence to shed light on a murder - much less the assassination of a President - I would camp out at the NY Times or the law enforcement agency responsible for investigating to present them with that evidence.  Have you made any such effort?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2023, 04:00:56 PM »


Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1285
Re: Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2023, 04:40:05 PM »
If all your "evidence" of a conspiracy to kill a US President is "clear" and "obvious" as you repeatedly claim, why are you wasting your time on an Internet forum?  Why not take this "evidence" to Tucker Carlson or the NY Times and have them report it?  Or better yet - law enforcement authorities to reopen the case?  I've asked this repeatedly of CTers.  If they honestly believe they have evidence that proves Oswald was not the assassin and/or there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, why limit your contributions to obscure forums?  If I believed that I had evidence to shed light on a murder - much less the assassination of a President - I would camp out at the NY Times or the law enforcement agency responsible for investigating to present them with that evidence.  Have you made any such effort?
Conspiracy "hobbyists", those who spend so much of their lives promoting their conspiracy, face a problem. If the conspiracy is so obvious, so clear, then why did so many generations of Americans in government and outside it miss this obvious act? Even today? How could talented, educated men and women miss what we, conspiracists, clearly happened? These pathetic WC apologists (that would be you and me) are just that, apologists, people unwilling to face what happened. Their patriotism, simple thinking, is blinding them to what happened. But all of these other people? How did they miss it?

As in every conspiracy claim the answer to this challenge is: more conspiracies. Every explanation for the failure to expose the conspiracy is prima facie evidence of another conspiracy. The Republicans in the HSCA covered up for LBJ (!?). The Washington Post and ABC and CBS - who exposed the abuses of the CIA and FBI - covered up for Hoover and Dulles. Yes, this is what they are reduced to proposing. Endless series of conspiracies to cover up the original one. For decades. Multiple generations of people, many of whom have no benefit at all in covering this up.

We cannot reason with this mindset. Whatever explanation that is given is dismissed as simply apologies (why are we apologizing for something that happened nearly 60 years ago? Defend Earl Warren et al? Why? What's in it for us?), or sinister acts by followup generations. Why would they do that? It makes no sense. It's useless trying to find common ground with people with this conspiracy mentality. Common ground is based on more conspiracies.

Speaking of which: Zapruder. Shortly after the assassination, he has the in camera original developed. Then he has at that time three first generation copies made. Forrest Sorrels of the government - the SAIC in Dallas - ask for how many of those four films? Answer: two. He doesn't take all four. He takes two and has them sent to Washington. So the FBI et al. has two and only two copies. Not the original.

Now why the heck would he not take all four? The government has two copies. The original and a copy are sold to Life magazine which publishes stills made from the film. So when did "the government" get those two films - the original and a copy? To alter them. And why did "the government" alter the two copies originally given? That's worthless unless you have the originals. You want to alter the original and then make copies. An original that they never had. In fact, Zapruder shows the original in the Shaw trial in 1968. He doesn't see any alteration. Sometimes us WC apologists make good points.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2023, 06:16:39 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2023, 04:50:00 PM »
If all your "evidence" of a conspiracy to kill a US President is "clear" and "obvious" as you repeatedly claim, why are you wasting your time on an Internet forum?  Why not take this "evidence" to Tucker Carlson or the NY Times and have them report it?  Or better yet - law enforcement authorities to reopen the case?  I've asked this repeatedly of CTers.  If they honestly believe they have evidence that proves Oswald was not the assassin and/or there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, why limit your contributions to obscure forums?  If I believed that I had evidence to shed light on a murder - much less the assassination of a President - I would camp out at the NY Times or the law enforcement agency responsible for investigating to present them with that evidence.  Have you made any such effort?

This nonsensical evasion is beyond disingenuous. I know you cannot be so naive as to sincerely believe such polemic. We both know what you're doing here. Since you cannot explain away the evidence, you resort to this silliness.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Clear Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2023, 04:50:00 PM »


 

Mobile View