The Suspicious 6.5 mm "Fragment": Further Evidence of Fraud in JFK X-Rays

[John Tonkovich]

??
The Altgens testimony is clearly referring to the headshot at z312.
The reason the headshot is 'made up' is because you've made it up with no corroborating evidence. At z349 Jackie Kennedy is blocking Altgen's view of Kennedy's head.


Just wanted to make this last point Michael but you're right, time to get back to the theme of this thread.

Mr O:  in Z344 we see Altgens with the camera " almost up to my eye", which he mentions in his testimony. Correlates with his refocusing to 15 feet.
Once you understand:
The West survey, which locates a third hit at 4+95, based on information provided by, yes, both the FBI and SS. ( that info was still published in the Warren Report)
The Warren Commission's initial choice not to call Mr Altgens as a witness.
The motivations of LBJ, who created the Warren Commission.
The motivations of the SS, who - except for Clint Hill - failed miserably in their task.
The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film.

and many other things to numerous to mention, you might actually " get it".

But as Vincent Salandria said, later in life, early critics of the Warren Report focused too much on the minutae of the assassination, and failed to see the big picture. Mr S included himself in this critique.

[Dan O'meara]

Mr O:  in Z344 we see Altgens with the camera " almost up to my eye", which he mentions in his testimony. Correlates with his refocusing to 15 feet.
Once you understand:
The West survey, which locates a third hit at 4+95, based on information provided by, yes, both the FBI and SS. ( that info was still published in the Warren Report)
The Warren Commission's initial choice not to call Mr Altgens as a witness.
The motivations of LBJ, who created the Warren Commission.
The motivations of the SS, who - except for Clint Hill - failed miserably in their task.
The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film.

and many other things to numerous to mention, you might actually " get it".

But as Vincent Salandria said, later in life, early critics of the Warren Report focused too much on the minutae of the assassination, and failed to see the big picture. Mr S included himself in this critique.

What is it you're trying to say?
This just seems rambling and incoherent,
"The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film."!! WTF!

[John Tonkovich]

What is it you're trying to say?
This just seems rambling and incoherent,
"The nonconformity of the Nix film vs Zapruder film."!! WTF!

Mr O:  the actions of Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill in the Nix film, at the critical juncture I am referring to, do not all appear in the Z film. Has nothing to do with filming locations, cameras, etc.The films should be mirror images. They are not. Draw your own conclusions.

[Dan O'meara]

Mr O:  the actions of Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill in the Nix film, at the critical juncture I am referring to, do not all appear in the Z film. Has nothing to do with filming locations, cameras, etc.The films should be mirror images. They are not. Draw your own conclusions.

You've completely lost me.
Will look into it and maybe start a new thread.
I'm sure Michael would like to get back to the theme of this one.

[John Tonkovich]

Mr: O: inasmuch as the topic of this thread is a contention that the x-rays have been altered, my mention of the second head shot, which explains why the x-rays are indeed, unaltered, is quite germane to the discussion.

Might want to remember this quote: " it was in the hairline". Sibert and O'Neill.

[Dan O'meara]

Mr: O: inasmuch as the topic of this thread is a contention that the x-rays have been altered, my mention of the second head shot, which explains why the x-rays are indeed, unaltered, is quite germane to the discussion.

Might want to remember this quote: " it was in the hairline". Sibert and O'Neill.

I missed the bit where your made up second head-shot explained why the x-rays are unaltered.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Mr: O: inasmuch as the topic of this thread is a contention that the x-rays have been altered, my mention of the second head shot, which explains why the x-rays are indeed, unaltered, is quite germane to the discussion. Might want to remember this quote: " it was in the hairline". Sibert and O'Neill.

It's not a "contention." It is an established fact, established by multiple sets of optical-density measurements done on the skull x-rays at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate the process that was used to place the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Have you even read the article on which this thread is based?

And the three ARRB medical experts unanimously agreed that the autopsy x-rays and photos contain no evidence of an entry wound in the cowlick. We now know that some of the HSCA FPP consultants raised questions about the alleged cowlick entry wound (and about the amount of missing frontal bone in the x-rays), but Baden ignored them. A number of other doctors who have examined the x-rays have likewise concluded there is no indication of a cowlick entry wound.

[John Tonkovich]

I missed the bit where your made up second head-shot explained why the x-rays are unaltered.

Sibert / O'Neill testimony- forgot which one of them - mentions : "it was in the hairline". The hairline, last time checked, is not the cowlick.

As to Mr Griffith: the missing piece of skull arrived long after the autopsy began, yes?