Well, based on my experience with performing surgeries, I don?t think the incisions would have been made nearly so crudely. As least, not by me. Actually, my experience with surgeries is limited to bandaging cut fingers.
Like the bogus throat hole tracheotomy, the postmortem surgery on the head shot was intended to make it an exit wound, hence the crudeness of the surgery. But not nearly crude enough.
I have no idea what differences between a hole in the skull made by surgery cut compared with one made by an explosive wound.
The Parkland physicians seemed to know the difference, and commented on it.
Question:
Can you name a single doctor who thinks that this looks like the result of surgery and not an explosive wound?
Only the entrance wound was subjected to postmortem surgery, not the head explosion. The funeral home did what they could to cover up the head wounds (which failed) and the autopsy guys did what they could to make the fake autopsy photos convincing.
The WCC/MC bullet did not explode. It fragmented. While called a non-frangible bullet, the WCC/MC was fragmentation resistant, not fragmentation proof. The bullet can and will fragment if he strikes bone at close to it?s muzzle velocity, which is what the bullet at z312 did, and the bullet at z222 did not.
A fragmenting bullet caused JFK's head to explode? Doubt it.
While the bullet did not explode, or even fragment, it did cause an explosive wound. The bullet does not have to explode to cause an explosive wound in the head.
Sez you. Describe the physics behind your claim.
Question:
Can you a name a single ballistic expert who does not thing that this would could have been caused by a WCC/MC bullet? Or who disagrees with the points I have made, which I got from Larry Strudivan?s ?The JFK Myths??
Logic. What good would modifying these frames do, when they have no idea what other films and photographs were also taken and need modifying. Unless there was a Large, Secret and Enduring Conspiracy that would be confident of intercepting all such photographs, because they process all photographs and film.
Modifying these frames support the LN narrative, of course.
Was it even possible, in 1963, to modify these films and autopsy photographs, without failing various tests, like by 3-D images. CTers see no need to do the same. Break open a melon, film and photograph it and modify all the films and photographs that can fool the experts. Who would fail to tell which set of photographs were real and which set were modified. All that is needed is to suggest that this was possible and to assume that it was done, and that is good enough.
Absolutely, this was possible in 1963. How do you think they got you to believe the Wizard of Oz was real? They used an optical printer for all the FX, which is still in use today. Surely the FBI recruited a movie pro to edit the Z film, but not necessarily. They only needed to edit the Z film at the Turkey Shoot Point, otherwise, the Orville-Nix film was the only other film that needed to match the Z film, and only to address the limo nearly stopping.
I'm a photogrammetrist so I know this to be true. It was easy to edit the Z film to paint any kind of narrative they wanted. I haven't decided whether Zapruder was recruited to film the scene. The only question at this point is where the original Z film is? All we got was edited copies from the FBI. The original film would tell all. Why would the FBI withhold the original film when it would exonerate them from any link to a conspiracy if they released it?
