I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Rob Caprio]

It's already been explained, you just don't want to accept it. You have two groups of witnesses who describe the wounds differently. So, to resolve this you look at the authenticated autopsy photos and x-rays which show no wound where the Dallas doctors said it was. Nor do any of the films. So, the doctors were wrong. As John M. explained, the doctors statements are examined carefully and their earliest observations are given more weight, their statements are not as contradictory as CTs make them out to be. All of this is explainable and understandable unless you have a bias toward conspiracy.

I dont have to accept false explanations. All these witnesses, and Chief Curfy too, saw a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head. End of story.

No panel of experts in the late 1970s that didn't even see the body can alter this fact.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for posting that they also looked at the black and white photos, you said "They looked only at color photos...".

They only used color photos in their analysis.

What, the gouge verified by photographic experts

How many times are you going to lie about this?  No photographic expert identified the rifle in the backyard photos as C2766 to the exclusion of any other rifle.

In the following GIF, the squiggly yellow lines show the gouge in C2766.

No it doesn't.  It shows your biased imagination.

[John Iacoletti]

So in a nutshell if there was any imaging tampering whatsoever there is no way to recreate this smooth rotation.

He claims with no evidence whatsoever.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I dont have to accept false explanations. All these witnesses, and Chief Curfy too, saw a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head. End of story.

No panel of experts in the late 1970s that didn't even see the body can alter this fact.

Well, we have gone about as far as we can with this debate. You accept the evidence you prefer, which is ok-you can do that. But the "best evidence" in this instance is the authenticated autopsy materials and the films (which all match) especially the Zapruder film. Eyewitnesses do make mistakes and that fact is proven by studies.

[Rob Caprio]

Well, we have gone about as far as we can with this debate. You accept the evidence you prefer, which is ok-you can do that. But the "best evidence" in this instance is the authenticated autopsy materials and the films (which all match) especially the Zapruder film. Eyewitnesses do make mistakes and that fact is proven by studies.

Wrong. The best evidence was, and always will be, the body and that didn't agree with the extant autopsy X-rays and photographs.

Your comments about doctors and nurses trained in gunshot wounds not being able to identify what they saw on November 22, 1963, is just absurd. If what you said was true then all gunshot victims would have to die to have their wounds assessed properly at an autopsy. Just silly.

[Fred Litwin]

Wrong. The best evidence was, and always will be, the body and that didn't agree with the extant autopsy X-rays and photographs.

Your comments about doctors and nurses trained in gunshot wounds not being able to identify what they saw on November 22, 1963, is just absurd. If what you said was true then all gunshot victims would have to die to have their wounds assessed properly at an autopsy. Just silly.

I've already quoted four doctors from Parkland who said that the autopsy x-rays and photographs are in agreement with what they saw.

Your comment on autopsies is just ridiculous. Kennedy was dead and the doctors were frantic to save his life. They didn't even know he was shot in the back. Have a look at the 50th anniversary video from the Sixth Floor museum when they talk to witnesses. One of the Parkland doctors was on the panel, and he had no issues with the autopsy conclusions and he said that because Kennedy was on his back, they didn't know he was shot there.

There is a reason we do autopsies. But back to my main point. Have you read the HSCA evidence?  It doesn't appear you are familiar with it at all.

[Rob Caprio]

I've already quoted four doctors from Parkland who said that the autopsy x-rays and photographs are in agreement with what they saw.

Your comment on autopsies is just ridiculous. Kennedy was dead and the doctors were frantic to save his life. They didn't even know he was shot in the back. Have a look at the 50th anniversary video from the Sixth Floor museum when they talk to witnesses. One of the Parkland doctors was on the panel, and he had no issues with the autopsy conclusions and he said that because Kennedy was on his back, they didn't know he was shot there.

There is a reason we do autopsies. But back to my main point. Have you read the HSCA evidence?  It doesn't appear you are familiar with it at all.

I've quoted way more than four. I have also quoted SS agents who saw the body up close. I can quote Chief Curry too as he saw the body when the limousine arrived at PH. NONE of them described a head wound that we see in the extant X-rays and photographs.

No sir, your claims are ridiculous. You can't save a life IF you don't know what wound(s) they have. It is absurd to think that they didn't even bother to look at the head wound. A nurse was told to put pressure on it for goodness sake. You just keep ignoring this fact.

So you are claiming that doctors do not assess wounds while treating them. Got it. You are basically saying that wounds are not assessed until the person dies. Totally ridiculous.

You still have not cited one piece of evidence that supposedly caused your conversion from  CT to LN.

[Fred Litwin]

I've quoted way more than four. I have also quoted SS agents who saw the body up close. I can quote Chief Curry too as he saw the body when the limousine arrived at PH. NONE of them described a head wound that we see in the extant X-rays and photographs.

No sir, your claims are ridiculous. You can't save a life IF you don't know what wound(s) they have. It is absurd to think that they didn't even bother to look at the head wound. A nurse was told to put pressure on it for goodness sake. You just keep ignoring this fact.

So you are claiming that doctors do not assess wounds while treating them. Got it. You are basically saying that wounds are not assessed until the person dies. Totally ridiculous.

You still have not cited one piece of evidence that supposedly caused your conversion from  CT to LN.

You haven't quoted more than four doctors who say the autopsy x-rays and photographs do NOT agree with what they saw. I have quoted four doctors who say that the autopsy x-rays and photos DO agree with what they saw. I am not "basically saying that wounds are not assesed until the person dies."  Those are your words. What I am saying is that the dallas doctors were frantically trying to save Kennedy's life. They did not turn his body over and they did not see his back wound. They were not measuring wounds. They were extremely busy with his IV drips and the tracheotomy, etc. And they didn't have much time and it was over. As for the head, yes, his head was a mess of bone, brain tissue, blood and hair. It was a mess. They did not do an examination.

There are issues with human memory, And that is why all the witnesses in Dallas say different things about what they witnessed. And that was shown earlier in this thread with the various pictures of where those witnesses place the head wound.

You refuse,for some reason, to read the authentication reports on the autopsy X-rays and photographs. It appears you are unfamiliar with the HSCA volumes of evidence. So, I will ask once again. Have you read the authentication reports that I cited earlier?