I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Provr that I have not read it. The point you keep dodging is -- you cannot show that the autopsy X-rays and photographs given to the HSCA experts depicted the wounds seen on JFK's body. You are stsrting with a false premise to make your point.

I know the evidence so you will not snow me.

From the HSCA Report:

"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner."


That is good enough for me and for most reasonable people. The legal standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt and this satisfies that standard for me. Now, if you want to hold this evidence and all of the other evidence to some impossible standard you can do that. But I am satisfied.


They discuss the Dallas doctors in another section:

"the committee did, however, subject the
autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These
examinations by the committee's consultants established the
inaccuracy of the Parkland observations."

"it is less likely that the autopsy personnel would be
mistaken in their general observations, given their detailed and
thorough examination of the body. Consequently, it seems
reasonable to assume that the autopsy personnel were correct.

    " (158)  If the autopsy doctors are correct, then the Parkland
doctors are incorrect and either lying or mistaken. It does not
seem probable that they are lying, because it would be difficult
to maintain a conspiracy of lying among the approximately 14
persons involved for 15 years. On the other hand, it does seem
possible, that the Parkland personnel could be mistaken, given
their cursory observations of the wounds, the brief period of
time they examined the President, and their function at the time:
To administer emergency procedures to save the life of the
President, rather than to document the nature and location of his
wounds."

[John Iacoletti]

I can simplify this debate. A mountain of evidence as summarized by Bugliosi and Von Pein shows JFK was struck from behind twice. It also shows that LHO was in such a position behind JFK and owned the weapon and so on.

 

There's no "mountain" of evidence as to where Oswald was at the time of the shooting or that he owned the C2766 rifle.

[John Iacoletti]

I have a challenge for you. When will you be taking your "proof" of all this to the proper authorities who can right this injustice and bring the perpetrators (whom you have presumably named in your presumed theory) to justice?

Another favorite LN argument.  "Oswald did it" is the assumed default unless you can prove that somebody else did it.

[John Iacoletti]

From the HSCA Report:

"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner."


That is good enough for me and for most reasonable people.

That's a conclusion, not evidence.  I've read the HSCA reports.  How/where did they determine when the autopsy photos they looked at were taken?

I have a few comments on the HSCA analysis.

- They looked only at color photos most of which the public does not have access to.
- They identified the body in the photos where the face is visible as JFK based on the measurements of certain facial landmarks, but included the handwaving of differences by attributing them to gravity, postmortem alterations (?), and cranial damage.
- Then using the newly made conclusion that an autopsy photo showing the face was JFK, they claimed to identify the back photo where the face is not visible as also being JFK based on the claim that they have the same visible bloodstains, abrasions, and wrinkles in both.  I could find no pictorial illustration of these common features in any of the HSCA materials.

[Rob Caprio]

I have a challenge for you. When will you be taking your "proof" of all this to the proper authorities who can right this injustice and bring the perpetrators (whom you have presumably named in your presumed theory) to justice? And if your answer is the same as all the other CTs I have given the same challenge to-that is they aren't taking it to anyone-then what is the point for you? Are you just going to sit on forums the rest of your life? Because, while the American people still believe in conspiracy, those in government, academia and the media don't. And they are the ones you have to convince. Unless you're just having a good time fooling around here.

LOL. More convolution. Spin away. Why can't LNers support a theory that they CHOOSE to believe in? Why do they shift the burden constantly?

If I had "proof" of who was involved and who ordered the assassination that would be amazing since our government wasted millions of dollars and didn't name one suspect beyond LHO!

In case you missed it -- I do NOT have a theory. I have never laid out a theory on this forum since that would be foolish as I couldn't support a lot of it with evidence. That is foolish and irresponsible, and yet, this is EXACTLY what our government investigations did.

Why are you on this forum when you claim that the case was solved in 1963? That is silly.

The truth needs no one else to believe it to still be the truth. I don't have to convince anyone. The evidence speaks for itself and it says that a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK.

That is the main difference between LNers and CTers. LNers make it about the other person and CTers (real ones) make it about the evidence. The LNers are allergic to the evidence since it doesn't support their beliefs in the least.

[Rob Caprio]

From the HSCA Report:

"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner."


That is good enough for me and for most reasonable people. The legal standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt and this satisfies that standard for me. Now, if you want to hold this evidence and all of the other evidence to some impossible standard you can do that. But I am satisfied.


They discuss the Dallas doctors in another section:

"the committee did, however, subject the
autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These
examinations by the committee's consultants established the
inaccuracy of the Parkland observations."

"it is less likely that the autopsy personnel would be
mistaken in their general observations, given their detailed and
thorough examination of the body. Consequently, it seems
reasonable to assume that the autopsy personnel were correct.

    " (158)  If the autopsy doctors are correct, then the Parkland
doctors are incorrect and either lying or mistaken. It does not
seem probable that they are lying, because it would be difficult
to maintain a conspiracy of lying among the approximately 14
persons involved for 15 years. On the other hand, it does seem
possible, that the Parkland personnel could be mistaken, given
their cursory observations of the wounds, the brief period of
time they examined the President, and their function at the time:
To administer emergency procedures to save the life of the
President, rather than to document the nature and location of his
wounds."

When you or Fred show that the HSCA were provided with the X-rays and photographs that were taken on November 22-23, 1963, then this will mean something. The extant versions do NOT match the wounds seen by numerous trained eyewitnesses.

[John Mytton]

That's a conclusion, not evidence.  I've read the HSCA reports.  How/where did they determine when the autopsy photos they looked at were taken?

I have a few comments on the HSCA analysis.

- They looked only at color photos most of which the public does not have access to.
- They identified the body in the photos where the face is visible as JFK based on the measurements of certain facial landmarks, but included the handwaving of differences by attributing them to gravity, postmortem alterations (?), and cranial damage.
- Then using the newly made conclusion that an autopsy photo showing the face was JFK, they claimed to identify the back photo where the face is not visible as also being JFK based on the claim that they have the same visible bloodstains, abrasions, and wrinkles in both.  I could find no pictorial illustration of these common features in any of the HSCA materials.

I've read the HSCA reports.

Really?

- They looked only at color photos most of which the public does not have access to.

 

and cranial damage.

Kennedy's head had missing pieces of skull and what was left was fractured.

- Then using the newly made conclusion that an autopsy photo showing the face was JFK, they claimed to identify the back photo where the face is not visible as also being JFK based on the claim that they have the same visible bloodstains, abrasions, and wrinkles in both.  I could find no pictorial illustration of these common features in any of the HSCA materials.

Measurements.



Abrasion.



Wrinkles.



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

  yourself.

Abrasion.

Wrinkles.

Well, I see yellow arrows.  I don't see any indication of how what they point to are uniquely identical.  This is the magic gouge all over again.