JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

More on Horne here

He thinks there were five shots to the head, three from the front, two from elsewhere.

Thats batshít crazy.

Then theres this absolute gem: “The very unpleasant and tentative possibility exists that limousine driver William Greer fired a fourth head shot into the President’s left temple with his revolver.”

Ffs. What a joke!



Tee hee.

I believe four shots myself. Another shot not impossible.

William Greer shooting Kennedy is nonsense.

5 shots would explain every wound seen.

He does not claim 5 shots to the head, that's false.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I believe four shots myself. Another shot not impossible.

William Greer shooting Kennedy is nonsense.

5 shots would explain every wound seen.

He does not claim 5 shots to the head, that's false.

No no, yet again you're spectacularly wrong. He believes there were 5 shots.... to the head. lol!

Pages 1150 and 1153-54 in his book "Inside The ARRB"

And, by his own "research", Abraham Zapruder saw the film four times in 24 hours. His partner Erwin Schwartz saw it three times. Stolley from Life, Harry McCormack of the Dallas Morning News saw it twice. So did staff members at Kodak. Yet none of them noticed the alteration!

An absolute turkey of a researcher. He has no credibility whatsoever. I never knew he was so bad.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

No no, yet again you're spectacularly wrong. He believes there were 5 shots.... to the head. lol!

Pages 1150 and 1153-54 in his book "Inside The ARRB"

And, by his own "research", Abraham Zapruder saw the film four times in 24 hours. His partner Erwin Schwartz saw it three times. Stolley from Life, Harry McCormack of the Dallas Morning News saw it twice. So did staff members at Kodak. Yet none of them noticed the alteration!

An absolute turkey of a researcher. He has no credibility whatsoever. I never knew he was so bad.

Full of it. I know for fact he does not believe that. Post that quote then. He believes two shots to the head. Nobody claims 5 shots to head, you are gone nutty now.

I explain this already to you now we back to square one.

Look the majority of the key eyewitnesses saw a head wound at the rear, you can believe the Zapruder film is authentic and ignore everyone who saw Kennedy body in Bethesda and Parkland.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Full of it. I know for fact he does not believe that. Post that quote then. He believes two shots to the head. Nobody claims 5 shots to head, you are gone nutty now.

He said it in his book. Do you not have his book? Look it up yourself.

So you believe a man who thinks there were five shots to the head and that one of them was from the driver?! lol.

Also, how did Zapruder not notice that his film had been edited?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

He said it in his book. Do you not have his book? Look it up yourself.

So you believe a man who thinks there were five shots to the head and that one of them was from the driver?! lol.

Also, how did Zapruder not notice that his film had been edited?

I do not need to. I know what he believes I have seen what he thinks on video. Two shots to the head. He considered three shots, but he changed his mind.

That lie also he does not believe the driver fired a shot.


Faced with my evidence, you gone off the deep end. Now you just like Kingmob, Dohnjoe, Banie and Timber. I thought you were diffferent
.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I do not need to. I know what he believes I have seen what he thinks on video. Two shots to the head. He considered three shots, but he changed his mind.

That lie also he does not believe the driver fired a shot.


Faced with my evidence, you gone off the deep end. Now you just like Kingmob, Dohnjoe, Banie and Timber. I thought you were diffferent
.

We're not off the deep end, we're standing on the shore with cocktails watching you drown in a sea of stupidity.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I do not need to. I know what he believes I have seen what he thinks on video. Two shots to the head. He considered three shots, but he changed his mind.

That lie also he does not believe the driver fired a shot.


Faced with my evidence, you gone off the deep end. Now you just like Kingmob, Dohnjoe, Banie and Timber. I thought you were diffferent
.

lol. Your "evidence".

Explain why he wrote this in his book?

"The very unpleasant and tentative possibility exists that limousine driver William Greer fired a fourth head shot into the President’s left temple with his revolver".

Chapter 13, Volume IV Page 164.

See theres your issue. You just blindly believe him based on a video or two here or there that fits your agenda without looking into him.

Anyone who thinks that and would actually write it in a book is written out of research for me. No credibility whatsoever. A time waster.

You've also ignored my question about how Zapruder didn't notice that his film had been changed. How did he not notice? Others too but lets focus on him.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol. Your "evidence".

Explain why he wrote this in his book?

"The very unpleasant and tentative possibility exists that limousine driver William Greer fired a fourth head shot into the President’s left temple with his revolver".

Chapter 13, Volume IV Page 164.

See theres your issue. You just blindly believe him based on a video or two here or there that fits your agenda without looking into him.

Anyone who thinks that and would actually write it in a book is written out of research for me. No credibility whatsoever. A time waster.

You've also ignored my question about how Zapruder didn't notice that his film had been changed. How did he not notice? Others too but lets focus on him.

Where your evidence for the claim he said 5 shots to the head?

It's just speculation. Douglas Horne believed at different stages Kennedy was hit in the head three times.

Words have meaning, don't they?

What does Tentative mean? Lets go to the dictionary one without confidence; hesitant. faltering, shaky, unsteady, halting.

He not saying that happened, its just speculation. Many researchers believe that happened and has to be looked at even if its wrong.

Zapruder motion coloured film did not come out to 1975. So where did he see before then? From what we know the original and three copies all left his sight that Friday and the Sat morning

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Where your evidence for the claim he said 5 shots to the head?

It's just speculation. Douglas Horne believed at different stages Kennedy was hit in the head three times.

Words have meaning, don't they?

They do. He believes/believed that the driver fired a 4th shot into JFKs head! And he was on the ARRB board!

We're talking about a man who was on a panel who hired a video expert to analyse the Zapruder films authenticity, and when the export came back with proof it wasn't altered, he not only disagrees with him, but attacks him publicly as Horne had a book in the works about how it was altered.

Hes an idiot.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What does Tentative mean? Lets go to the dictionary one without confidence; hesitant. faltering, shaky, unsteady, halting.

He not saying that happened, its just speculation. Many researchers believe that happened and has to be looked at even if its wrong.

Its clearly wrong. It can be looked at and proved wrong in 2 seconds.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Zapruder motion coloured film did not come out to 1975. So where did he see before then?

He saw it at the Garrison trial where he was called as a witness. Despite him identifying the wound on the day of the assassination and viewing the film multiple times he apparently didn't notice his film had been completely altered! Amazing!

Hornes explanation for this? Zapruder was paid "hush money" by Life magazine! lol.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

They do. He believes/believed that the driver fired a 4th shot into JFKs head! And he was on the ARRB board!

We're talking about a man who was on a panel who hired a video expert to analyse the Zapruder films authenticity, and when the export came back with proof it wasn't altered, he not only disagrees with him, but attacks him publicly as Horne had a book in the works about how it was altered.

Hes an idiot.



Its clearly wrong. It can be looked at and proved wrong in 2 seconds.



He saw it at the Garrison trial where he was called as a witness. Despite him identifying the wound on the day of the assassination and viewing the film multiple times he apparently didn't notice his film had been completely altered! Amazing!

Hornes explanation for this? Zapruder was paid "hush money" by Life magazine! lol.

Douglas Horne stating 5 shots to head was just a lie then or you read this somewhere online, they posted a lie? Either way, it was not correct.

Nope his sentence is clear. Its just speculation. He used the word tentative He does not have enough evidence to claim Greer fired a 4th shot.

He told the ARRB he found anomalies, and then came out later with a report claiming it could be caused by the camera. Douglas Horne rightly disputed that, and I posted some of the evidence why. Roland Zavanda was told the copies were not bracketed when processed. He ignored this evidence the copies in the archives are bracketed.

I believe he got hush money too if he claiming there was no head wound at the rear, did he say that? If he is not asked the question would he bring it up himself?

The Nal

So now Abraham Zapruder is on the conspiracy!! Lol.

Can you please post your most recent list of the conspirators?

Timberrrrrrrr

The Nal wrote: »

So now Abraham Zapruder is on the conspiracy!! Lol.

Can you please post your most recent list of the conspirators?

At this stage it would be a much shorter list if he could tell us who wasn't in on it.

The Nal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

At this stage it would be a much shorter list if he could tell us who wasn't in on it.

Everyone but JFK and Jackie it would seem.

Thats the thing with no evidence theories. Once a point is proved wrong or impossible the only option is to add those people to the conspiracy. To lie.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Douglas Horne stating 5 shots to head was just a lie then or you read this somewhere online, they posted a lie? Either way, it was not correct.

I posted the book, volume and pages he where he said it. Do some research about your boy. Look it up.

I still can't believe that you "believe" him but haven't even bothered to read his masterpiece.

While we're on the topic though, I asked you for evidence where he said 78 movie experts claimed the Zapruder film was altered. You didn't provide any. However I have found an article from 10 years ago where Horne says there were seven. Seven. Not seventy eight. And before you post that 3 hour podcast again, (Im not listening to anymore of this clown) please tell me exactly where in the podcast he says it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nope his sentence is clear. Its just speculation. He used the word tentative He does not have enough evidence to claim Greer fired a 4th shot.

Even speculating about that proves hes a complete joker. Credibility out the window. Hes as bad as Jim Garrison. Even Garrison had some sort of theory, even if it was 100% wrong and stupid.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

So now Abraham Zapruder is on the conspiracy!! Lol.

Can you please post your most recent list of the conspirators?

I reading his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial. It very interesting he could not tell if it was a complete copy. He even said he did know if the copy matched the original. He could not tell if frames were missing. Very cryptic how he answers questions. I am only at very beginning into his side of the story so far.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

I posted the book, volume and pages he where he said it. Do some research about your boy. Look it up.

I still can't believe that you "believe" him but haven't even bothered to read his masterpiece.

While we're on the topic though, I asked you for evidence where he said 78 movie experts claimed the Zapruder film was altered. You didn't provide any. However I have found an article from 10 years ago where Horne says there were seven. Seven. Not seventy eight. And before you post that 3 hour podcast again, (Im not listening to anymore of this clown) please tell me exactly where in the podcast he says it.



Even speculating about that proves hes a complete joker. Credibility out the window. Hes as bad as Jim Garrison. Even Garrison had some sort of theory, even if it was 100% wrong and stupid.

You making the claim, not me. I not going to buy a 5 volume book just to find a quote you say it there. Did you read the book yourself or just quote mine someone else?

I like Jim Eugeloni work also. He, not the only JFK researcher I like.

The medical evidence is why I believe the conspiracy is real. I don't buy into the claim multiple eyewitnesses at Bethesda and at Parkland hospital are mistaken about the rear head wound. They are not altogether in one place and comparing notes. Eyewitnesses at two different locations in my mind compelling evidence.

The bullet evidence also does not hold up.

I posted the audio and he discusses it there. I not going to listen to it again, he talks about between 2.30 and 3.30 hour. I even told you who is the directors or producers of the documentary are.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You making the claim, not me.

You are making the claim that this is some big inside job, to support this you pasted a .jpg from some random conspiracy site that named everyone from Hoffa to Cuban Exiles

Complete fraud

Dohnjoe

Cheerful: remind us of who you believe was involved, the latest list? everyone involved

I have some questions on how it all worked

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I reading his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial. It very interesting he could not tell if it was a complete copy. He even said he did know if the copy matched the original. He could not tell if frames were missing. Very cryptic how he answers questions. I am only at very beginning into his side of the story so far.

lol.

His "story" is that he was a normal guy who filmed an extraordinary event. Thats it.

We've beaten the most stupid theory now which was the Zapruder film was faked. This is the new most stupid theory - Abraham Zapruder was paid hush money to go along with the conspiracy. lol.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You making the claim, not me. I not going to buy a 5 volume book just to find a quote you say it there.

I'm not making a claim, I'm posting fact.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you read the book yourself or just quote mine someone else?

I didn't "quote mine". I didn't even quote him, full stop. I referenced it. Stop using phrases you don't understand.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I posted the audio and he discusses it there. I not going to listen to it again, he talks about between 2.30 and 3.30 hour.

Cant blame you Im not listening to this charlatan anymore either.

I don't believe you. You're a known liar and you're lying about this. I think the real number - as per Horne himself - is seven. Not seventy eight as you said. I think you've lied to the tune of 70 people. You've lied by a 1100%. People who make JFK documentaries don't have the budget to employ 78 people for that sort of analysis.

Unless you can prove otherwise?

Didn't think so.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I even told you who is the directors or producers of the documentary are.

You did neither.

You liar.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol.

His "story" is that he was a normal guy who filmed an extraordinary event. Thats it.

We've beaten the most stupid theory now which was the Zapruder film was faked. This is the new most stupid theory - Abraham Zapruder was paid hush money to go along with the conspiracy. lol.



I'm not making a claim, I'm posting fact.



I didn't "quote mine". I didn't even quote him, full stop. I referenced it. Stop using phrases you don't understand.



Cant blame you Im not listening to this charlatan anymore either.

I don't believe you. You're a known liar and you're lying about this. I think the real number - as per Horne himself - is seven. Not seventy eight as you said. I think you've lied to the tune of 70 people. You've lied by a 1100%. People who make JFK documentaries don't have the budget to employ 78 people for that sort of analysis.

Unless you can prove otherwise?

Didn't think so.



You did neither.

You liar.

I have not had time to read the full testimony i get to it, so far very interesting.

1 Could not tell if the copy matched the original
2 Could tell not if frames were missing

The Zapruder film was faked. The autopsy notes also state a massive head wound in the parietal region of the skull. This not shown in the Zapruder film. We also know due to Dino Brugioni testimony two different versions of the film were prepared on Sat and Sunday. Dino was unaware of the briefing boards prepared on Sunday. He saw a very different film on Saturday.

Douglas never said 5 shots to the head. You cannot find that quote, can you?

I will find the correct time for you in a while or later and I will post it.

Not a liar. Post-1125, I told you the names of the producers of the documentary

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057932231&page=75

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I like Jim Eugeloni work also. He, not the only JFK researcher I like.

Who is this person?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Who is this person?

Sorry I typed the wrong second name Jim DiEugenio

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sorry I typed the wrong second name Jim DiEugenio

Yes thought so.

See his review of Hornes Inside the ARRB below including him commenting on Horne believing there were five shots to the head with William Greer firing the fourth.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb

So which one of your favourite researchers do you believe? DiEugenio clearly thinks Horne is full of ****.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Yes thought so.

See his review of Hornes Inside the ARRB below including him commenting on Horne believing there were five shots to the head with William Greer firing the fourth.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb

So which one of your favourite researchers do you believe? DiEugenio clearly thinks Horne is full of ****.

Yep I know I read it. He criticizes him on some things but often does give credit where it due to some of his findings and work. Horne is a personality in this field, just like Gerald Posner.

Is the evidence reliable is what matters to me personally, not personalities.

DiEugenio believes there was a conspiracy and the medical evidence is suspicious.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

So which one of your favourite researchers do you believe? DiEugenio clearly thinks Horne is full of ****.

I have to go with Horne. If you believe the Zapruder film is genuine. Then you can not dispute the Autopsy images and X rays of Kennedy body? I don't agree there were that many shots to the head. I think he right about the medical evidence and the Zapruder film.

DiEugenio still a good researcher and made excellent points about the evidence in his review.

Cheerful Spring

Nal. He talked about two times. But you find the quote about 75 experts interviewed for the Documentary at 3 hours 6 minutes.

To understand the evidence in entirety you need to listen to the whole interview. Especially around the 2 hour 5 minute mark to 3 hours.

He discussed how the Zapruder film was altered in 1963. The Roland Zavala claims and why they are wrong. Some of the experts who appear on the documentary are also mentioned.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/4/d/e/4de31a4ed474a464/MWN_Episode_107_-_Douglas_Horne_on_the_Zapruder_Film_Alteraton_Debate.mp3?c_id=30998591&cs_id=30998591&expiration=1549636084&hwt=9e54a43b9b765ece1f78d098050b45c8

The Nal

Its a nonsense theory. It was simply not possible. Have a read of this. No one can explain this. Its where the theory fails.


Any element within the frame said to have been removed from the Zapruder film would require an equal consistent element to replace it; for instance, removing a bystander from the Dealey Plaza lawn would require additonal lawn in place for the requisite number of frames, just as a replaced bystander closer to Elm Street would require a replacement background consistent with what already is visible (portions of road, sidewalk, landscaping and other persons). These replacement elements must also adjust plausibly in perspective as Zapruder’s camera drifts and pans, and blur when the camera is unsteady. Again, this is long before digital technologies, and the workspace of each individual celluloid frame was 8mm in diameter. Theoretical radical alteration of the Zapruder film would require exacting work in multiple areas of each frame, for many dozens of frames, which would require many weeks, at least, to accomplish

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/alexandra-zapruder-twenty-six-seconds-a-personal-history-of-the-zapruder-film-part-2

Also have a read of this by Josiah Thompson. Maybe the best conspiracy researcher there has been.

http://www.jfk-info.com/thomp2.htm

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Its a nonsense theory. It was simply not possible. Have a read of this. No one can explain this. Its where the theory fails.


Any element within the frame said to have been removed from the Zapruder film would require an equal consistent element to replace it; for instance, removing a bystander from the Dealey Plaza lawn would require additonal lawn in place for the requisite number of frames, just as a replaced bystander closer to Elm Street would require a replacement background consistent with what already is visible (portions of road, sidewalk, landscaping and other persons). These replacement elements must also adjust plausibly in perspective as Zapruder’s camera drifts and pans, and blur when the camera is unsteady. Again, this is long before digital technologies, and the workspace of each individual celluloid frame was 8mm in diameter. Theoretical radical alteration of the Zapruder film would require exacting work in multiple areas of each frame, for many dozens of frames, which would require many weeks, at least, to accomplish

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/alexandra-zapruder-twenty-six-seconds-a-personal-history-of-the-zapruder-film-part-2

This info is nonsense. Horne and others are not claiming the entire film was altered.

The technology existed in 1963 to alter the film. Horne went through the process step by step. He even proved in that interview the film was altered. The Zapruder film we have today does not match the copies processed at the Jamieson Lab in Dallas. He gave evidence for it.

If you don't listen and hear the evidence, you will never understand this!

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This info is nonsense. Horne and others are not claiming the entire film was altered.

The technology existed in 1963 to alter the film. Horne went through the process step by step. He even proved in that interview the film was altered. The Zapruder film we have today does not match the copies processed at the Jamieson Lab in Dallas. He gave evidence for it.

If you don't listen and hear the evidence, you will never understand this!

You cant have read both of those articles in the time between me posting and you replying. I've listened to a couple of hours of Horne now and read loads.

You couldn't be bothered because it won't fit your theory. You prefer to blindly believe someone who thinks JFK was shot in the head 5 times and one of the shots was by the limo driver. Thats fine. Stupid, but fine by me.

Not willing to discuss it any further with someone who isn't willing to read any info beyond their bias.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Also have a read of this by Josiah Thompson. Maybe the best conspiracy researcher there has been.

http://www.jfk-info.com/thomp2.htm

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Brugioni

Dino evidence is from 2011, none of these researchers was aware of the deception.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

You cant have read both of those articles in the time between me posting and you replying. I've listened to a couple of hours of Horne now and read loads.

You couldn't be bothered because it won't fit your theory. You prefer to blindly believe someone who thinks JFK was shot in the head 5 times and one of the shots was by the limo driver. Thats fine. Stupid, but fine by me.

Not willing to discuss it any further with someone who isn't willing to read any info beyond their bias.

Dino interview and long one exposes the conspiracy. He was the guy in charge at NPIC lab. He was shown the briefing boards in the JFK archive, that contain slides of the Zapruder film we have today. He was adamant they not the frames he prepared and processed for the government. He was also puzzled by what he saw in the frames. He said many frames are missing. The red bubble in front of the head is not where he saw the wound. He saw more blood and tissue go over the head and to the left. He also said the shadow at the back of the head is fake.

He never said he believed 5 shots to the head. You still have not provided that quote. Even if he speculated that not believing it took place. You misreading his sentence. He said it was tentative speculation ( he not confident it happened)