Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »You can't face reality. Position you have taken is to deny any evidence that does not support your point of view. When the doctors are all claiming they saw a open wound at the back of the head, then there no reason to carry on like you are doing right now. There not conflicting opinions the people who were there all state they saw a open wound at the back of the head. One person might be mistaken, but when you have least a dozen or more people stating the saw this wound, it can no longer be an error or mistake.
I have backed up my position with video of the doctors who were there. I going to believe the doctors, and nurses are right about this. You can believe whatever you like.
These doctors?
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."
McClellandas on his 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."
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".
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."
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."Cheerful Spring wrote: »You can't face reality. Position you have taken is to deny any evidence that does not support your point of view
Lets not forget the utter hilarity of your post here. For those that missed it - I posted a video of 4 doctors, 3 of whom were pointing to the back right of the head (which doesn't "support my point of view") and 1 of whom pointed to the right side of the head, even approaching the front. So I posted all of the evidence in that regard.
Cheerful Spring takes a screen grab of only 3 doctors and leaves out the one doctor who was pointing to the right side! Completely ignores it!
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109159599&postcount=1015
Fabulous.Cheerful Spring wrote: »Gerald Posner, is a terrible researcher, he manipulates evidence to support his theory
0 -
These doctors?
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."
McClellandas on his 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."
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".
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."
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."
Lets not forget the utter hilarity of your post here. For those that missed it - I posted a video of 4 doctors, 3 of whom were pointing to the back right of the head (which doesn't "support my point of view") and 1 of whom pointed to the right side of the head, even approaching the front. So I posted all of the evidence in that regard.
Cheerful Spring takes a screen grab of only 3 doctors and leaves out the one doctor who was pointing to the right side! Completely ignores it!
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109159599&postcount=1015
Fabulous.
Dr Akin and Dr Baxter are not describing the wound in your quotes.
Lets take a look at the human brain
brain.
The parietal part of the brain extends to the back of the skull, its to left of the ear. If you take a look at the Zapruder film, most of the damage is near the frontal lobe and temporal lobe. The parietal area and occiptial area of the brain is untouched and no damage
Lets look at what Dr Carrico said at the Warren commission. He claiming there was a head wound at the lower back of the head. You think the doctors don't know the difference between the parietal area and occipitial?
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - Sure.
This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from this wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thats because you can't see the left of his skull on the Zapruder film.
Because to be able to promote his silly theory he has to lie. It doesn't hold any water otherwise. He also has to selectively omit and ignore things. Such as the hilarity of him ignoring the doctors conflicting opinions and that amazing post when he posted only 3 of them.
For the "Zapruder film is fake" theory to stand up you have to believe that:
- Zapruder and Philip Willis were in Kodak in Dallas in the same time yet "they" altered the Zapruder film but not the Willis photo showing
what some nuts (including Cheerful Spring) say is a shooter. Here.
- "They", using 1963 technology, in a small photo development office, altered a home movie in a matter of minutes in front of 20 witnesses.
- "They", using 1963 technology, were able to edit a video that stands up to modern digital scrutiny.
- "They" had to guess what to alter as the autopsy hasn't happened yet. At 6pm when Zapruder got the film back JFK s body was still in
transit.
- "They" were sure that of all of the 80 or so cameras there that day, none of them captured what "they" had just edited as that would have
immediately exposed a cover up.
- The Muchmore and Nix movies were altered too.
So none of that makes any sense, he has to tell blatant lies. Im still not sure why theres a need for the crude MS Paint diagrams but they're so stupid and funny Im not complaining.
I talking about Kennedy's head at the rear near the left side of his ear. I can see this side of the head is not damaged. The doctors all said there was a wound at this side.
I listen to what the doctors have to say. Visually apparent the Zapruder film does not show a massive wound at the parietal area and occipital area of the brain. I expected you guys would ignore that, after all, you see a man with no legs and arms standing in a yellow liquid.
Why would they alter the Willis Photo? It does not show the shootings taking place? It appears to show a shadow of a man behind the wall? Why would they need to erase it does not show him with a gun?
More nonsense from Nal. Who are these 20 people who viewed the original 8mm Zapruder film? Nal I have provided evidence and you have not of people who saw the Zapruder film in its original state. They described different events not seen in the Zapruder film that we see today on Youtube. You ignored that and keep babbling away. Is that not proof and we must include the doctor's claims, the video was altered?
I told you the Zapruder film was altered at Hawkeye Kodak lab in New York, not in Dallas. False pretence the Zapruder film has obvious problems. People with better expertise than I have done extensive work on it and have shown the Zapruder film was altered.
You obviously don't understand how the timelines panned out. The Zapruder frames were not released until 1975. They had 12 years to sit back and wait and see if any new explosive footage emerged. That highly unlikely to happen after a few years, never mind 12 years. Why would they have to care about 80 cameras that never recorded the shootings? You just throw it out there as if its useful info when it is not.
Autopsy happened before any video alternation occurred
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Autopsy happened before any video alternation occurred
Nope.
1. Zapruder had the film back on the evening of the 22nd. Around the same time as the autopsy in Washington. Time had already contacted him by then and had the film the next day.
2. The secret service (Forrest Sorrels) got two copies, Zapruder kept the original. Two copies were then sent to Washington.
3. No alteration occurred. Its an absurd theory. Up there with "Oswald wasn't really a Marxist". Just stupid and shows a huge lack of knowledge. And unwillingness to learn beyond an agenda.
What "they" magically managed to edit the films and then someone else came out with a movie showing something different? How would "they" have known the got every movie and photo taken?
Its a real last roll of the dice theory. "Oh err.. well.. they must have altered it".Cheerful Spring wrote: »Nal. Oswald did what you claimed. The difference is I think he was doing intelligence work. You believe he went to Russia because of some idealism and was a true Marxist.
Evidence to show otherwise?
That "they" sent a difficult and unreliable 19 year old on such a huge mission.Cheerful Spring wrote: »You only see one side and I see two roles played by Oswald.
Evidence please.
To date you haven't provided any or articulated any theory thats based in any type of fact or that isn't completely laughable.Cheerful Spring wrote: »He would have a deep connection to US intelligence before heading to the Soviet Union.
Evidence pleaseCheerful Spring wrote: »Nal, also refuses to acknowledge who he spends time with he returned to the United States. He spends his time with people who had ties to the US intelligence community, Nal doesn't think that odd. Yep most defectors to the Soviet Union hang around with people like this later?
lol. Yeah "they" sent a marine to Russia to try infiltrate or something OR he was flipped by the KGB and then sent back again, had him run about New Orleans getting arrested and on TV and chose him to be the hitman.
Neither the US or the KGB would even consider it. Its so obvious its laughable.
When the KGB wanted to place a spy in America, it was done decades earlier.Cheerful Spring wrote: »
If Oswald went to Mexico there a lot more going on there then people are being told.
He did go to Mexico. His original plan was to hijack a plane and have Marina hold off the passengers with a gun to get them there.
This is according to Marina. Despite your lies about "Oswald never discussed politics with Marina". But you don't want to dig too deep into the Oswalds as it'll ruin your confirmation bias. The facts are there but you'll continue to ignore them.Cheerful Spring wrote: »There is hardly anyone keeping quiet about it. The difference is the US government refuses to acknowledge the cover-up.
Doctors, Nurses, Morgue Techs, X-ray Technicians, security guards, FBI agents, autopsy photographers and secret service agents and so on have all gone on the record over 60 years claiming they saw a massive wound at the rear of Kennedy Skull.
And lots saying the side of the head.Cheerful Spring wrote: »Zapruder film and a few of the autopsy photos do not show damage to the rear of Kennedy head. Muchmore and Nix were filming the shootings from the opposite side, and you don't see the head explosion. Less work had to be done to alter these films, just shade out the head wound that all.
Muchmore movie altered. Tee hee.
That "shade out" would be so obvious and visible to modern technology. And when I say modern, I mean from any time after the mid 70s.
The real issue with conspiracy theorists, what eats them up so much, is that they've spent so much time skim reading waffle and making up nonsense in their own heads, they just can't admit to themselves that its been a huge waste of time. They have wasted huge amounts of time on nothing.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement