I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[John Iacoletti]

Not true Four Dallas doctors examined the autopsy x-rays and photos and told the NOVA science show on PBS that the photos and x-rays were consistent with what they saw.

"Consistent with" is lawyer rhetoric meaning "inconclusive".

[John Iacoletti]

JFK was lying on the back of is head. Any wound there would not have been visible.

[Ray Mitcham]

She couldn't. And if he was lying on his back, which he was, the alleged wound would be invisible to her. You should study the available literature on eye witnesses, it is amazing how wrong they can be.

As Rob said if she applied pressure to the wound, she must have seen it, or do you think nurses guess where to apply pressure to wounds. Get real, Tracy.

[Fred Litwin]

This is all wrong. As you can see from the autopsy photographs, Kennedy's head was a mass of brain tissue, matted hair, bone, etc. Without
proper examination (which is why you do an autopsy) no one really understood his head wound. Given the frantic nature of attending to the
tracheotomy, everything else they were rushing to do, it is not surprising that the Parkland doctors all gave different descriptions of his
head wound.

People, there is a reason why we do autopsies.

[John Iacoletti]

This is all wrong. As you can see from the autopsy photographs, Kennedy's head was a mass of brain tissue, matted hair, bone, etc.

Tracy's claim was that any back of the head wound would not have been visible.  That's demonstrably false.

People, there is a reason why we do autopsies.

Did the HSCA do an autopsy?

[Rob Caprio]

This is all wrong. As you can see from the autopsy photographs, Kennedy's head was a mass of brain tissue, matted hair, bone, etc. Without
proper examination (which is why you do an autopsy) no one really understood his head wound. Given the frantic nature of attending to the
tracheotomy, everything else they were rushing to do, it is not surprising that the Parkland doctors all gave different descriptions of his
head wound.

People, there is a reason why we do autopsies.

You have failed to show that the autopsy photographs depict what was actually seen on November 22, 1963.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Tracy's claim was that any back of the head wound would not have been visible.  That's demonstrably false.

Did the HSCA do an autopsy?

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. In order disbelieve this evidence, you have to believe that all the evidence I mentioned was faked, misunderstood etc. I believe that is a practical and physical impossibility.

And if there were another government investigation, you folks would be tasked with showing how the evidence was faked beyond a reasonable doubt which you would not be able to do. Yes, there would be a few individuals, even some who are credentialed, who would agree with you. But the majority of the scientific community would not. But, you can sit here on forums and try to do it to your heart's content. And that is ok.

[Ray Mitcham]

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. In order disbelieve this evidence, you have to believe that all the evidence I mentioned was faked, misunderstood etc. I believe that is a practical and physical impossibility.

As soon as you mention evidence from Bugliosi and Von pein, you lose the argument. (a bit like Godwin's Law for JFK)