Forget Oswald and Who....The Number of Bullets & Shooters Proves Conspiracy

[Tim Nickerson]

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

Correct

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.

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.

[Ray Mitcham]

Correct

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

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

If you think the photo above is genuine, Tim, you should have gone to Specsavers.

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

No.

[Lee Wotton]

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

When we cite evidence, something LNers rarely do, the LNers call the witnesses liars and then profess to know more than the experts involved at the time.  There's plenty of evidence but LNers discredit witnesses and fail to accept it even when their on government call the WC inadequate and agree there was a conspiracy.  I'm afraid that when a cover up is involved there is always a lot of smoke and mirrors.  Also a lot of diverting attention towards red herrings like LHO.

[John Anderson]

Discrediting witnesses is inevitable regardless of which conclusion one reaches. The witnesses can't all be right.

[John Anderson]

And there we have it. Instead of determining the location of a wound by looking at a photograph folks just want to argue about where it might have been and conclude the photo is fake if it doesn't fit their narrative.

[Lee Wotton]

Discrediting witnesses is inevitable regardless of which conclusion one reaches. The witnesses can't all be right.

That's called disagreeing John, discrediting is something entirely different

[Ray Mitcham]

And there we have it. Instead of determining the location of a wound by looking at a photograph folks just want to argue about where it might have been and conclude the photo is fake if it doesn't fit their narrative.

How do you explain the solid black hair at the back of the head, John?

[Lee Wotton]

Thank you for all your posts but for me the significant evidence points to the following shots being fired on 11/22.  Please can people let me know what hey think of the points below?  I'm not considering the order of shots at the moment just the wounds, bullet damage, bullet find and fragments found.  The statements below have been developed from the higher quality evidence cited on this post by people.

1 - JFK's back passing through right lung and through Connally shattering his wrist - from behind (missing autopsy photos)

2 - JFK's throat entrance with no exit fired from front through windshield

3 - JFK head shot, hollow tipped round from the front - quite possibly even 2 head shots

4 - Connally's left knee from front ricochet off limo windscreen chrome surround from the front.  Leaves fragments in front footwells of limo and under jump seat.

5 - Miss from behind hit kerb resulting in debris causing Tagues minor injury

6 - Plant at Parkland before plotters aware of Tague's injury.

What do you think?  LNers need not apply as I've heard it all before!!