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

[Tim Nickerson]

"The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken."

 

They can't exist in the mind of any hardcore LNer.

They would destroy the fantasy.


The top government missile wound expert is called in to help examine the wounds of the assassinated

POTUS.

And according to you he doesn't ask for photos, or if he did they weren't taken, of the fatal wound.

Photos that indicate the direction the bullet came from.

Sorry, that's nothing more than your biased opinion.

Humes and Boswell weren't the best choices.

They were mainly administrators, and had little actual hands

on experience in autopsies.

Finck on the other hand was eminently qualified.

What's with the annoying formatting?

[Ray Mitcham]

Can't you read? I said that he asked for photos to be taken.

The photos were not taken. If they had been, Stringer would have noticed that they were missing in 1966. After all, he took the autopsy photos, not Finck as Aguilar claimed. Aguilar falsely claimed that Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone.

Extract from Stringer's testimony to the ARRB.

"Q: Give or take one or two, I presume.
 Stringer: Yeah. There were some views that we - that were taken that were missing.
 Q: Why is it that you say that some of the views that were taken are missing?
 Stringer: We went down to see them two years afterwards, and I remember some things inside the
 body that weren't there.

"https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798#relPageId=27&tab=page

Page 133

[Tim Nickerson]

Extract from Stringer's testimony to the ARRB.

"Q: Give or take one or two, I presume.
 Stringer: Yeah. There were some views that we - that were taken that were missing.
 Q: Why is it that you say that some of the views that were taken are missing?
 Stringer: We went down to see them two years afterwards, and I remember some things inside the
 body that weren't there.

A signed inventory 3 years after the fact vs a 33 year old recollection. The former trumps the latter any day. The autopsy photos are what they are. Why not just deal with them?

[Ray Mitcham]

A signed inventory 3 years after the fact vs a 33 year old recollection. The former trumps the latter any day. The autopsy photos are what they are. Why not just deal with them?

From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB:  (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.)
 
Mr. Gunn: Okay.  Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Q:  I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?
 
A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way...
 
 
From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB:
 
Q: Okay.  If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head?
 
A:  Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures.  I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo.

[Tim Nickerson]

From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB:  (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.)
 
Mr. Gunn: Okay.  Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Q:  I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?
 
A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way...

"Let me rephrase that, when I say 'doctored'. Like the stuff has been pushed back in, and it looks like more towards the end than the beginning. All you have to do was put the flap back over here , and the rest of the stuff is all covered on up."
...............
"I'm not saying that these have been doctored or phonied up in any particular way at all."
 

From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB:
 
Q: Okay.  If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF]
 
Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head?
 
A:  Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures.  I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo.

What he remembered 33 years on was different from what is seen in that autopsy photo. The autopsy photo has been authenticated in more ways than one. Sibert's recollection was clearly faulty.

[Gary Craig]

Can't you read? I said that he asked for photos to be taken.

The photos were not taken. If they had been, Stringer would have noticed that they were missing in 1966. After all, he took the autopsy photos, not Finck as Aguilar claimed. Aguilar falsely claimed that Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone.

Indeed he was.

"I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry."
----------
"there was only one wound'of entry in the back of the head."
----------
"It was above the external occipital protuberance....2.5 centimeters to the right of the midline." -- The eminently qualified Pierre Finck

 

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

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.

They disappeared sometime between 1966 when Stringer reviewed them and 1967 when Finck reviewed

them.

[Lee Wotton]

Timbo's answer for everything is that "They are lying"!!!!!

Apparently he knows more than the doctors and witnesses and when his version doesn't suit his LN fantasy they are lying.

The photos were missing plain as that.

Whoever heard of a ballistics expert at an autopsy not having photos taken of bullet wounds to the head and ensuring they are taken and viewing them to ensure he can provide the expertise he has been asked for.

You are so deranged Tim you are not even thinking like a human being.  You are obsessed an obsessed LN.  Get some help.

[Bill Chapman]

Timbo's answer for everything is that "They are lying"!!!!!

Apparently he knows more than the doctors and witnesses and when his version doesn't suit his LN fantasy they are lying.

The photos were missing plain as that.

Whoever heard of a ballistics expert at an autopsy not having photos taken of bullet wounds to the head and ensuring they are taken and viewing them to ensure he can provide the expertise he has been asked for.

You are so deranged Tim you are not even thinking like a human being.  You are obsessed an obsessed LN.  Get some help.

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