JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true Nal because Dale Meyers highlights- in the image provided- the frame he believed the magic bullet hit Connelly in the back and was frame 236.

Not entertaining this. Clear you haven't watched a proper 3D reconstruction and know nothing about Dale Myers who is one of the more well respected researchers out there.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can see Connelly's head and body was only positioned like this to the right exactly 235 and 236 of the Zapruder film.

We know Kennedy was already hit by a bullet before frame 224. His arms starting moving up to his throat at 224. Therefore he was hit before 224 as it takes at least 1-second to 2-seconds to move your arms up to your throat. It can not happen in 18th or 16th a second of a frame.

*snigger*

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't buy the expensive film excuse. It only a few more seconds of recording. Tina Tower video footage is most curious of them all. Because she panned and followed the car passing the TSBD and then stops recording. I have to look into it more and find out what she did that.

Because film was expensive. She already had the shots she wanted. She didn't know he was going to be killed and didnt have a good view of Elm. Zapruder stopped filming because it was just boring police motorbikes. Nix and Muchmore stopped filming when they were crossing the grass from Houston to Elm.

The lack of empathy is a personality trait of people prone to conspiracy theories. You're assuming they all knew what was going to happen as if they traveled back in time.

But it doesn't matter. They all show the same thing. JFKs head moving forward, blood splatter moving forward, no one behind the fence and the people right beside the fence not reacting to anything behind the fence. Which is impossible if there was a shooter there.

The "all the footage was faked/altered" theory is up there with "Oswald wasn't rally a Marxist" as one of the more stupid "theories" I've heard.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't ignore. The confrontation was on a different street, not 544 camp ST. The confrontation was over Oswald claiming he was an anti-Castro supporter. There you see Oswald playing both sides. Oswald was the only member of Fair play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans. Why did he not try to recruit more members?

Why did he print out 300 membership cards, 500 application forms and a 1000 Hands Off Cuba leaflets calling himself the chapter president? To recruit people!

Why do you think he was on the radio debating? And getting interviewed on the TV talking about Ghana and socialised medicine in the UK?! And inviting TV crews to film him handing out the leaflets? And writing to the Fair Pay Committee in New York asking is it ok to set up an office?

There is no gain for him to pretend to be a Marxist. All it could do is bring light on him which is the exact opposite of what the "plotters" would want.

Again, clear you know nothing about Oswald and which is astonishing as hes the man you're defending.

Im afraid you just don't have the attention span for this.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This a good talk about the JFK conspiracy. Douglas Horne work on this is excellent. One of the better JFK researchers out there. It a long presentation but presents a good case for the conspiracy side.

6 and a half hours!

OK. Give us the highlights please. Point by point. From a 6 and a half hour video there must be dozens and dozens of points that present a good case for the conspiracy side. And please give us the exact times in the video that correlate with the points you feel are relevant from when you watched all 6 and a half hours.

The Nal

"OK Lee were doing this in Dallas in November so we want you to make yourself as visible as possible in the time leading up to it. Really get the eyes of the media, FBI and CIA on us in the lead in and go join an organisation thats under investigation by the FBI, CIA and Senate sub committees.".

Oswald - "OK Ill go get myself arrested and appear on TV and radio talking about being pro Cuba in the middle of the Cold War and 10 months after the Cuban Missle Crisis. Ill also let the radio guys ask me any random questions that weren't pre authorised or seen by me for an hour. All within 12 or so weeks of the hit"

Plotters - "Yeah sounds good theres no risk there lets go with that".

This radio interview is fascinating.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Not entertaining this. Clear you haven't watched a proper 3D reconstruction and know nothing about Dale Myers who is one of the more well respected researchers out there.



*snigger*



Because film was expensive. She already had the shots she wanted. She didn't know he was going to be killed and didnt have a good view of Elm. Zapruder stopped filming because it was just boring police motorbikes. Nix and Muchmore stopped filming when they were crossing the grass from Houston to Elm.

The lack of empathy is a personality trait of people prone to conspiracy theories. You're assuming they all knew what was going to happen as if they traveled back in time.

But it doesn't matter. They all show the same thing. JFKs head moving forward, blood splatter moving forward, no one behind the fence and the people right beside the fence not reacting to anything behind the fence. Which is impossible if there was a shooter there.

The "all the footage was faked/altered" theory is up there with "Oswald wasn't rally a Marxist" as one of the more stupid "theories" I've heard.



Why did he print out 300 membership cards, 500 application forms and a 1000 Hands Off Cuba leaflets calling himself the chapter president? To recruit people!

Why do you think he was on the radio debating? And getting interviewed on the TV talking about Ghana and socialised medicine in the UK?! And inviting TV crews to film him handing out the leaflets? And writing to the Fair Pay Committee in New York asking is it ok to set up an office?

There is no gain for him to pretend to be a Marxist. All it could do is bring light on him which is the exact opposite of what the "plotters" would want.

Again, clear you know nothing about Oswald and which is astonishing as hes the man you're defending.

Im afraid you just don't have the attention span for this.



6 and a half hours!

OK. Give us the highlights please. Point by point. From a 6 and a half hour video there must be dozens and dozens of points that present a good case for the conspiracy side. And please give us the exact times in the video that correlate with the points you feel are relevant from when you watched all 6 and a half hours.

I can see clearly Dale Meyer was highlighting and showing frame 236. If it not frame 236 what frame was it? You can not just sidestep this, answer, please.

How do you know all this have you a source? I like to read her side of the story.

Clearly, you have not studied every video. If you had you notice when people rushed up the steps they disappeared into the shadows near the wall. No video on that day would have shown the shooter from the front, the shadows blocked the view. I even prove it you if you like?

Nix, Muchmore, Zapruder film is 95 per cent authentic and genuine. Frames are definitely missing in the Zapruder film. Nix and Muchmore films don't show the magic bullet hitting Kennedy back so we can't use these films. The main discrepancy in all three is the headshot damage. That back of Kennedy's head is only shown in a few frames. We know all three films were handed to the FBI. The public never saw the Zapruder film for 15 years. Its not like it was released the day of the shooting or that week. They only had to alter a few frames on three films.

Kennedy's head moved violently to the left and back. Kennedy moving forward is only one frame and occurred when the driver was slowing the car. By the way, everyone in the car heads moved slightly forward in that one frame.

6 hours of good info take the time to listen.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can see clearly Dale Meyer was highlighting and showing frame 236. If it not frame 236 what frame was it? You can not just sidestep this, answer, please.

I'm not side stepping but not entertaining a stupid quote mine on your part. Go study Myers stuff yourself.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How do you know all this have you a source? I like to read her side of the story.

Im not going to go prove to you that film for home video was expensive in 1963. Its your stupid theory that video was faked, go find your own proof.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Clearly, you have not studied every video. If you had you notice when people rushed up the steps they disappeared into the shadows near the wall. No video on that day would have shown the shooter from the front, the shadows blocked the view. I even prove it you if you like?

Oh please do.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We know all three films were handed to the FBI.

Another lie. Muchmores video was not handed to the FBI. You know this.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kennedy's head moved violently to the left and back. Kennedy moving forward is only one frame and occurred when the driver was slowing the car. By the way, everyone in the car heads moved slightly forward in that one frame.

Evidence please.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

6 hours of good info take the time to listen.

Absolutely pathetic response. As I suspected/would've bet the house on, you haven't even watched it yourself.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

I'm not side stepping but not entertaining a stupid quote mine on your part. Go study Myers stuff yourself.



Im not going to go prove to you that film for home video was expensive in 1963. Its your stupid theory that video was faked, go find your own proof.



Oh please do.



Another lie. Muchmores video was not handed to the FBI. You know this.



Evidence please.



Absolutely pathetic response. As I suspected/would've bet the house on, you haven't even watched it yourself.

Yes, you are sidestepping. I using Dale Myers very own computer graphic of the magic bullet shot. He has Connelly turned to the right looking in that direction. Again which frame was he highlighting?

Yes, the film was expensive in 1963, so what. You provided her story for what she stopped filming and asked you to provide some background info on that (a source I can read.

Muchmore film was processed by Kodak in Dallas and flown to New York City. Kodak in the 60s had contracts with the CIA and FBI to process film. Easily could have got intercepted.

Some info about this http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2017/02/hawkeye-works-kodak-spy-plant.html

Bell film. Watch at 36 seconds. You see a woman in a bright red dress ( likely jean hill) disappear when she got near the wall. You even see numerous people disappear into the darkness.

It takes too long to describe everything he said. It easier to watch it. I not forcing you to watch it. I think he is a good researcher, who uses verifiable documentation to support his view.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, you are sidestepping. I using Dale Myers very own computer graphic of the magic bullet shot. He has Connelly turned to the right looking in that direction. Again which frame was he highlighting?

224/225/226.

Or are you suggesting that after a lifetime of work, from initially believing a conspiracy to believing in a single bullet, years later he slipped up and said Connally was actually hit at 236, and none of his tens of thousands of critics who have studied every single piece of his work noticed, apart from you - based on an out of context clip from a documentary that you havent even watched?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, the film was expensive in 1963, so what. You provided her story for what she stopped filming and asked you to provide some background info on that (a source I can read.

You want me to go and find info on how expensive film was in 1963?!

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Muchmore film was processed by Kodak in Dallas and flown to New York City. Kodak in the 60s had contracts with the CIA and FBI to process film. Easily could have got intercepted.

"Could have". More waffle. No evidence yet again.

If "they" altered 3 films, they would have had to be sure that none of the other 80 odd people with cameras captured it too. Which is impossible. They would've had to get their hands on every camera and every photo to be sure and also the Bronson, Hughes, Nix, Dorman, Wiegman, Couch, Martin, Daniel movies and the Paschall movie, which no one even knew about until the late 70s.

Such a stupid stupid theory. But an easy one to claim for people like you who don't know a lot about the assassination and show no interest in learning. "Oh they faked it".

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bell film. Watch at 36 seconds. You see a woman in a bright red dress ( likely jean hill) disappear when she got near the wall. You even see numerous people disappear into the darkness.

lol. Yes they all were wiped out by the FBI or whoever for a laugh. They didn't just walk under the trees.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It takes too long to describe everything he said. It easier to watch it. I not forcing you to watch it. I think he is a good researcher, who uses verifiable documentation to support his view.

Yeah you haven't watched it. Can't even bullet point a couple of main points from it. Embarrassing.

Timewaster.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

224/225/226.

Or are you suggesting that after a lifetime of work, from initially believing a conspiracy to believing in a single bullet, years later he slipped up and said Connally was actually hit at 236, and none of his tens of thousands of critics who have studied every single piece of his work noticed, apart from you - based on an out of context clip from a documentary that you havent even watched?



You want me to go and find info on how expensive film was in 1963?!



"Could have". More waffle. No evidence yet again.

If "they" altered 3 films, they would have had to be sure that none of the other 80 odd people with cameras captured it too. Which is impossible. They would've had to get their hands on every camera and every photo to be sure and also the Bronson, Hughes, Nix, Dorman, Wiegman, Couch, Martin, Daniel movies and the Paschall movie, which no one even knew about until the late 70s.

Such a stupid stupid theory. But an easy one to claim for people like you who don't know a lot about the assassination and show no interest in learning. "Oh they faked it".



lol. Yes they all were wiped out by the FBI or whoever for a laugh. They didn't just walk under the trees.



Yeah you haven't watched it. Can't even bullet point a couple of main points from it. Embarrassing.
Timewaster.

Ok lets first look at Dale Myers image. Connelly right shoulder is off the car seat and moved to the right.



You picked three frames

Either way this is frame 225 one of three frames you picked. You can see Connelly right shoulder is not off the seat its straight

[IMG][/img]

Connelly right shoulder comes of the seat between frames 233 and 236. Myers is playing a sleight of hand.

Frame 236 matches the Connelly movements exactly.


As you well know the Zapruder film was not shown to the public till 1975. That 12 years after Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. The likelihood of a secret recording found after that time is highly improbable. You would have a point if these films were all released in few days, or weeks or months after the murder. It be far more risky to alter frames. The people who did the altering on these films had time to wait this out and see if any new films showed up. The Muchmore film does show much of Kennedy head anyhow, you barely see it to truly judge.

Bell film shows the phenomenon. You can scorn all you like, but you can see people are disappearing into the shadows and all details of their appearance are lost as walk up the walkway along the picket fence. Evidence no shooter would appear on a video shot from the front.


Bare with me i post Evidence shortly of why these videos are altered and why the autopsy head wound is fake.

Cheerful Spring

Douglas Horne evidence for alternation of videos and why the autopsy images are fake.

Slide 1


Slide 2.


Slide 3


Slide 4


Slide 5


More to come.

Cheerful Spring

Identical drawing to Dr McCelland drawing of head wound in right rear of the head.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal

"Only in the rear of the head" from a body they never turned over.

So no news here then. Same as we knew before. Conflicting reports, and a botched autopsy done very quickly.

However the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore movies show his brain spilling out from the right of his head, his head moving forward, the spray moving forward, no exit at the back of the head and no one behind the fence. Same for the Moorman photo.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Myers is playing a sleight of hand.

Conspiracy theorists always remind me of this. At 55 seconds.

"But but, he said guilty"

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

"Only in the rear of the head" from a body they never turned over.

So no news here then. Same as we knew before. Conflicting reports, and a botched autopsy done very quickly.

However the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore movies show his brain spilling out from the right of his head, his head moving forward, the spray moving forward, no exit at the back of the head and no one behind the fence. Same for the Moorman photo.



Conspiracy theorists always remind me of this.

All these eyewitneses saw a exit wound at the back of the head. Were they all dreaming or was there a cover up of evidence. The Eyewitnesses are not conspiracy theorists they gave their opinion what they saw.

Cheerful Spring

We will continue on.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

All these eyewitneses saw a exit wound at the back of the head. Were they all dreaming or was there a cover up of evidence. The Eyewitnesses are not conspiracy theorists they gave their opinion what they saw.

As did the Dealey Plaza witnesses (3 shots) but you don't believe 95% of them.

Conflicting reports.

Dr. Baxter - "literally the right side of his head had been blown off".

Dr Perry - "I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head".

"With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?"

Dr. AKIN. "No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull fragments"

"Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?"

Dr. McClelland. "No."

Dr. Carrico - "there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is incompatible with the injury as I remember it."...."We never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound. Our responsibility was to evaluate the wounds from the standpoint of what might be done to keep the patient alive. . . . The wounds as we looked at them were from the front and top with the patient laying on a gurney on his back."

On McClellandas drawing - "However, I do not believe that the large wound was this far posterior since, one thing I can be certain of, is that we were able to see the majority, if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back on a hospital gurney. The location of the wound represented in the drawing suggests that it would barely have been visible, if visible at all, with the patient laying in such a position."


And...

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound," recalls Dr Carrico. "We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders and you could not see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."

Why would they lie?


Also please stop copying and pasting reams of stuff from other peoples websites. It shows that you have no opinion of your own beyond wanting it to be a conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

As did the Dealey Plaza witnesses (3 shots) but you don't believe 95% of them.

Conflicting reports.

Dr. Baxter - "literally the right side of his head had been blown off".

Dr Perry - "I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head".

"With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?"

Dr. AKIN. "No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull fragments"

"Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?"

Dr. McClelland. "No."

Dr. Carrico - "there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is incompatible with the injury as I remember it."...."We never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound. Our responsibility was to evaluate the wounds from the standpoint of what might be done to keep the patient alive. . . . The wounds as we looked at them were from the front and top with the patient laying on a gurney on his back."

On McClellandas drawing - "However, I do not believe that the large wound was this far posterior since, one thing I can be certain of, is that we were able to see the majority, if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back on a hospital gurney. The location of the wound represented in the drawing suggests that it would barely have been visible, if visible at all, with the patient laying in such a position."


And...

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound," recalls Dr Carrico. "We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders and you could not see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."



Also please stop copying and pasting reams of stuff from other peoples websites. It shows that you have no opinion of your own beyond wanting it to be a conspiracy.

Selective quoting by you.

Dr Carrico was not standing behind Kennedy, he was in the front of Kennedy with Dr Perry. It well known Dr McCelland had the best view of Kennedy wound as he was standing behind him looking at it till he died. Dr McCelland has never waivered on it he saw a hole in the right rear of his head. Dr McCelland even said part of cerebellum fall out at the back of the head.

The drawings and autospy images Dr Carrico saw later are disputed by countless eyewitnesses. He trusting what he saw was real and not fake.

And who quoted Dr Carrico denying Dr McCelland view of the wound? Please provide some context a source.

Nobody has ever said there was no damage to the parietal area of the brain. The dispute is the autospy image is showing no right rear wound caused by bullet exiting from the brain.

Cheerful Spring

Dr Humes refused to make a drawing of the damage to Kennedy skull for the ARRB. His part of the problem and still continuing the cover-up, for his own reasons.


Dr Bosley refused, but reluctantly gave in eventually and produced a drawing of the damage. This is evidence of damage to the right rear of Kennedy skull. You can see the damages goes from the top of the skull to the right rear. There still deception in this drawing, but he gave us info that disproves the official story.

So clearly the autopsy image is a fake. The autopsy image shows no damage at all at the right rear of the head- fully intact with the hairline.

This Dr Bosley deposition exhibit.


How it would look from the side.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Selective quoting by you.

lol the irony! Exactly my point though. You can quote mine whatever you want to try prove a point.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

And who quoted Dr Carrico denying Dr McCelland view of the wound? Please provide some context a source.

Gerald Posner interviewed him for his book Case Closed. Its on pages 309 and 310 which I have open in front of me now.

While were at, Jenkins, Dulany, Peters and your poster boy McClellend went to the national archives in 1988 for PBS' Nova and all said the autopsy pictures represented what they saw that day.

All 4 doctors point to a slightly different wound area with Jenkins pointing to the side and even as far forward as the temple.

They admit to ambiguity, error and speculation.

McClellend after viewing the autopsy photos: "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly".

From 47 mins 20.

So do you still think the autopsy photos are faked?

I would suggest maybe watching one documentary in its entirety, maybe reading one book in its entirety or maybe concentrating on one aspect at a time and try to understand what happened as opposed to jumping from one "theory" to another when you're proved wrong. And they way you look at things, so selectively and in such a shallow way, means you can always be proved wrong.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

I would suggest maybe watching one documentary in its entirety, maybe reading one book in its entirety or maybe concentrating on one aspect at a time and try to understand what happened as opposed to jumping from one "theory" to another when you're proved wrong. And they way you look at things, so selectively and in such a shallow way, means you can always be proved wrong.

It's a common tactic that cranks like cheerful like to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull****#Bull****_asymmetry_principle

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol the irony! Exactly my point though. You can quote mine whatever you want to try prove a point.




Gerald Posner interviewed him for his book Case Closed. Its on pages 309 and 310 which I have open in front of me now.

While were at, Jenkins, Dulany, Peters and your poster boy McClellend went to the national archives in 1988 for PBS' Nova and all said the autopsy pictures represented what they saw that day.

All 4 doctors point to a slightly different wound area with Jenkins pointing to the side and even as far forward as the temple.

They admit to ambiguity, error and speculation.

McClellend after viewing the autopsy photos: "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly".

From 47 mins 20.

So do you still think the autopsy photos are faked?

I would suggest maybe watching one documentary in its entirety, maybe reading one book in its entirety or maybe concentrating on one aspect at a time and try to understand what happened as opposed to jumping from one "theory" to another when you're proved wrong. And they way you look at things, so selectively and in such a shallow way, means you can always be proved wrong.

I said the autopsy image showing the right rear of the head with hair in place was a fake autopsy image. The doctors were shown multiple images, of the autopsy, the majority of them are not fake and I never said they were.

Dr McCellend saw photos that were genuine. When Dr McCelland started to describe the right rear head wound he saw the music interrupted him talking about it.

There no evidence at all they were shown the image of Kennedy skull intact at right rear.


Gerald Posner, is a terrible researcher, he manipulates evidence to support his theory about Oswald acting alone.

Cheerful Spring

Good debate between Posner and Waldron.

Posner made some good points at the start, but then he fell away and Lamar took over and handily won the debate.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gerald Posner, is a terrible researcher, he manipulates evidence to support his theory about Oswald acting alone.

Doesnt matter what you think about him. Carrico still said what he said and the doctors above still said what they said after viewing the photos.

McClellend - "It was not an appropriate thing to do at the time to examine the head wound".

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good debate between Posner and Waldron.

Posner made some good points at the start, but then he fell away and Lamar took over and handily won the debate.

I listened to that when it came out (you haven't listened to it) and I can confirm that is 100% not true. Waldron - "maybe", "could have", "possibly".

Posner - "He says things as though they are facts and if somebody listened to Lemar and didn't know the evidence they would absolutely leave from listening to a conversation with him as though that was real".

Thats you that is.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gerald Posner, is a terrible researcher, he manipulates evidence to support his theory

Tee hee. Comedy gold.

King Mob wrote: »

It's a common tactic that cranks like cheerful like to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull****#Bull****_asymmetry_principle

Cheerful Springs first mention of Gerald Posner - 4.47pm.

Posts a 1 hour long debate 8 minutes later claiming hes listened to it and the conspiracy guy won!

Couldn't make it up. Gold.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Doesnt matter what you think about him. Carrico still said what he said and the doctors above still said what they said after viewing the photos.

McClellend - "It was not an appropriate thing to do at the time to examine the head wound".



I listened to that when it came out and I can confirm that is 100% not true.



Tee hee. Comedy gold.

And they all described seeing a right rear head wound at the back of the head before they went in. You even see where the place their hand. Why did they think there was a hole there all four of them? You just ignored that. They were shown images, but we don't get to see which ones.

Dr McCelland said the wound to the head was from a bullet fired from the right front. He disagrees with the Warren Commission.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

And they all described seeing a right rear head wound at the back of the head before they went in.

Amazing you can lie so blatantly. Its so shameless! Fascinating.

Jenkins holding the side of his head at 47 mins 50. His finger even touches his temple at one point.

I don't place any faith in any of the doctors, either way. Supporting a lone shooter or not. Too many inconsistencies, too many conflicting stories, too much damaged, uncorroborated and incomplete evidence.

You go ahead though. You don't need any evidence to be convinced of something.

Edit - Oh right on cue! 4 doctors and you left one of them out? Which one? Dr Jenkins, the one who was pointing to the side of his head!! hahahahaha. Fantastic.

Lets read this again

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gerald Posner, is a terrible researcher, he manipulates evidence to support his theory

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Edit - Oh right on cue! 4 doctors and you left one of them out? Which one? Dr Jenkins, the one who was pointing to the side of his head!! hahahahaha. Fantastic.

Lets read this again

He highlighting a right rear head wound also.His hand is at the back of the head. In the autopsy image the entire back head of Kennedy is intact with no damage.

Cheerful Spring

Zaprauder film shows a head wound to the right side of the ear, and spreads out towards the forehead.

Visually the wound looks strange, Why is so big?.


All these Doctors are pointing to the left of the ear, top of the back of the head, and near the right rear of the head.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Zaprauder film shows a head wound to the right side of the ear, and spreads out towards the forehead.

Visually the wound looks strange, Why is so big?.

Because he had just got shot in the head from above and behind with a high powered rifle.

Nice bit of forward blood spray there by the way.

The technology did not exist to alter a film like that in 1963 nor for a fake to be able to stand up to modern digital analysis. Especially doing it to multiple films in 3 days or whatever you lunatics claim. Simply impossible. Its 100% real.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

All these Doctors are pointing to the left of the ear, top of the back of the head, and near the right rear of the head.

All of them? Even the one you left out on purpose despite the video available for all to see?

Jenkins gets it spot on. Exactly the spot shown in the Zapruder film which you have demonstrated above.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Because he had just got shot in the head from above and behind with a high powered rifle.

Nice bit of forward blood spray there by the way.

The technology did not exist to alter a film like that in 1963 nor for a fake to be able to stand up to modern digital analysis. Especially doing it to multiple films in 3 days or whatever you lunatics claim. Simply impossible. Its 100% real.



All of them? Even the one you left out on purpose despite the video available for all to see?

Jenkins gets it spot on. Exactly the spot shown in the Zapruder film which you have demonstrated above.

Need to check your eyesight as the points in green correlate with the Zapruder wound.



Did not leave it out on purpose.

The technology did not exist in 1963 to alter frames, prove it.

Cheerful Spring

Excellent write up best I have seen online.

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Prior to the implementation of the taking on August 1, 1998, the Review Board—at my recommendation—commissioned a limited authenticity study of the Zapruder film (based primarily on examination of its edge print, the markings and script imposed on the film at the factory where it was produced, and at the developing plant after it was exposed). The ARRB staff first approached the Eastman Kodak Co. for film assistance and advice in 1996, and asked in 1997 if Kodak would perform the Zapruder film study pro bono; Kodak agreed, and hired a noted retired Kodak film chemist, Mr. Roland Zavada, as a paid consultant to perform the one-man study. Mr. Zavada studied the film’s edge print; perceived anomalies in the bleed-over imagery in the intersprocket area of the film; its forensic chain of custody on the day of JFK’s assassination; and educated himself on the basic characteristics of Zapruder’s Bell and Howell movie camera by purchasing several models and experimenting with them—but at our request, he did not study the film’s image content. Zavada’s report was signed out on September 25, 1998, and arrived in Washington, D.C. on September 28th, two days before the ARRB shut down its operations on September 30th.

The “head explosion” seen in the extant Zapruder film, in the National Archives today, is not at all consistent with the head explosion seen by Mr. Brugioni in the Zapruder film he viewed on the evening of November 23, 1963: During the follow-up interview at Dino Brugioni’s home on April 28, 2011, Peter Janney showed Mr. Brugioni a good image of frame 313 from the extant Zapruder film—the so-called “head explosion”—scanned from a 35 mm dupe negative of the film obtained from the National Archives. [The provenance of the frame used therefore unquestionably represents what is in the National Archives today.] Mr. Brugioni was quite startled to find out that this was the only frame graphically depicting the “head explosion” in the extant film, which the National Archives has characterized as “the original film.” He insisted that the head explosion he viewed multiple times on 11/23/63 was of such a great size, and duration (in terms of time), that there should be many more frames depicting that explosion than “just the one frame” (frame 313), as shown in the Zapruder film today. Furthermore, he said the “head explosion” depicted in the Zapruder film today is too small in size, and too low in the frame, to be the same graphic depiction he recalls witnessing in the Zapruder film on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 at NPIC. Mr. Brugioni viewed the Zapruder film as a motion picture several times during the HD video interview I conducted with him on July 9, 2011—using the 1998 MPI DVD product, Image of an Assassination, made by the LMH Co. in 1997 from the film in the National Archives—and reiterated those comments that he made on April 28th to Peter Janney, insisting that “something was missing” from the film in the National Archives today. While viewing the video on July 9, 2011, Mr. Brugioni also stated that the head explosion he viewed was a large “white cloud” that surrounded President Kennedy’s head, and was not pink or red, as shown in the extant Zapruder film. The words below are excerpted from Dino Brugioni’s April 28, 2011 interview with Peter Janney, as he recounted what he recalled seeing when he watched the head explosion in the Zapruder film on 11/23/63:


Dino Antonio Brugioni (December 16, 1921[2] – September 25, 2015) was a former senior official at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). He was an imagery analyst and also served as NPIC's Chief of Information. During his 35-year career, Brugioni helped establish imagery intelligence (now called geospatial intelligence) as a national asset to solve intelligence problems. Even after retirement, Brugioni was considered to be the world's foremost imagery intelligence analyst.[3]

After retirement, he has been active in encouraging the use of declassified photographic intelligence for historical research. His book, Eyeball to Eyeball[4] is an extensive unclassified history of US imagery intelligence.