JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is a clear example of you being annoying. Having a hizzy fit about a Kennedy picture turned the right way.

Nope but if that lets you carry on with your fantasy feel free to think it.
As I have outlined, it speaks directly to your competence as a "researcher".
It demonstrates quite clearly that you have none.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Nope but if that lets you carry on with your fantasy feel free to think it.
As I have outlined, it speaks directly to your competence as a "researcher".
It demonstrates quite clearly that you have none.

I, not a researcher., never claimed to be. I not selling a book or anything like it. I just a person who believes JFK death was the result of a conspiracy.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I, not a researcher., never claimed to be. I not selling a book or anything like it. I just a person who believes JFK death was the result of a conspiracy.

You are attempting to sell your theory.
At least have the balls to stand by your "work"
You present reams of copy/pasted evidence, quote mines and MS Paint accentuated photos. Often you post contradictory information and then reject it as it doesn't suit your new narrative.

You research and present evidence in this thread (and others) you go and get the information, you post it in support of your belief/position.
That makes you a researcher, even if you are presenting others work as support for your position.
You can mine truther/conspiracy websites and post your misinterpretations of the evidence but when someone queries your shít posting?
You're not a researcher?
What are you then?
A crank? A troll? A parody of internet conspiracy loons?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You are attempting to sell your theory.
At least have the balls to stand by your "work"
You present reams of copy/pasted evidence, quote mines and MS Paint accentuated photos. Often you post contradictory information and then reject it as it doesn't suit your new narrative.

You research and present evidence in this thread (and others) you go and get the information, you post it in support of your belief/position.
That makes you a researcher, even if you are presenting others work as support for your position.
You can mine truther/conspiracy websites and post your misinterpretations of the evidence but when someone queries your shít posting?
You're not a researcher?
What are you then?
A crank? A troll? A parody of internet conspiracy loons?

It, not a theory or belief system, it's a factual event that actually happened.

The large wound at the right side of the head was seen by countless eyewitnesses at Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda Medical centre. No conspiracy theorists whatsoever claim they saw the large wound in the rear of the head.

13 different doctors, 3 nurses, two FBI agents send to Bethesda to watch the autopsy and take notes, saw the large rear head wound. The autopsy photographers saw it, Clint hill and other secret service agents saw the rear head wound. The X-ray Technicians and Morgue workers saw it. How many people have to see the wound for you to believe it?

Autopsy images then show no such wound in the rear of the head. Incredible how deeply people support fake information no matter what.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It, not a theory or belief system, it's a factual thing that happened.

The large wound at the right side of the head was seen by countless eyewitnesses at Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda Medical centre. No conspiracy theorists whatsoever claim they saw the large wound in the rear of the head.

13 different doctors, 3 nurses, two FBI agents send to Bethesda to watch the autopsy and take notes, saw the large rear head wound. The autopsy photographers saw it, Clint hill and other secret service agents saw the rear head wound. The X-ray Technicians and Morgue workers saw it. How many people have to see the wound for you to believe it?

Autopsy images then show no such wound in the rear of the head? Incredible how deeply people support fake information no matter what.

Nal has already painstakingly explained what a "wound" is.
There's no point in repeating what he has already told you and has been ignored.
If you feel the need to re-read it, scroll back and give any of his explanations to you a close read.

You persist with thinking that a wound equates to a hole in the skull, it doesn't.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Nal has already painstakingly explained what a "wound" is.
There's no point in repeating what he has already told you and has been ignored.
If you feel the need to re-read it, scroll back and give any of his explanations to you a close read.

You persist with thinking that a wound equates to a hole in the skull, it doesn't.

He hasn't you just blindly supporting him.

I posted what the autopsy doctors said.
The large and irregularly-shaped wound in the right side of the head (chiefly to the parietal bone, but also involving the temporal and occipital bone) is described as being about 13 centimetres (5.1 in) wide at the largest diameter

You find the info here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

Occipital bone is the back of the head, down near the neckline behind the right ear.

I asked Nal to show me a wound there and he could not. So he then re-engaged and then only wanted to talk about the damage to the parietal bone. You not seeing the spin.

Parietal bone is mostly the brain at very back of the skull (rear) and just above the right ear.

He ignored the eyewitness claims it was a large gaping hole in the right rear of the head. It was one large wound that measured 5 inches in width from the parietal to the occipital

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He hasn't you just blindly supporting him.

I posted what the autopsy doctors said.
The large and irregularly-shaped wound in the right side of the head (chiefly to the parietal bone, but also involving the temporal and occipital bone) is described as being about 13 centimetres (5.1 in) wide at the largest diameter

You find the info here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

Occipital bone is the back of the head, down near the neckline behind the right ear.

I asked Nal to show me a wound there and he could not. So he then re-engaged and then only wanted to talk about the damage to the parietal bone? You not seeing the spin.

Parietal bone is mostly the brain at very back of the skull (rear) and just above the right ear.

He ignored the eyewitness claims it was a large gaping hole in the right rear of the head. It was one large wound that measured 5 inches in width from the parietal to the occipital

Not blindly supporting him, just appreciate when a poster shares cogent information.
You know like when someone presents a hypothesis and then presents enough evidence and information to make that theory credible?

Now should you manage to do the same at any stage with any of your pet theories, I will happily readdress and reassess my position.
I think it will likely be a cold day in hell before you manage that however, but...
As an open minded person, I always hope!

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Not blindly supporting him, just appreciate when a poster shares cogent information.
You know like when someone presents a hypothesis and then presents enough evidence and information to make that theory credible?

Now should you manage to do the same at any stage with any of your pet theories, I will happily readdress and reassess my position.
I think it will likely be a cold day in hell before you manage that however, but...
As an open minded person, I always hope!

Nal best evidence for no large head wound in the rear is the altered Zapruder film.

Even Nal admits the Autopsy photos are not genuine. He now claims the images were taken somewhere else when Kennedy's head was reconstructed for the open funeral. Provided no evidence for this of course. These images are JFK autopsy photos supposedly taken when Kennedy body was brought into Bethesda.

Dino Bruglino testimony is more evidence the film was altered.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I, not a researcher., never claimed to be. I not selling a book or anything like it. I just a person who believes JFK death was the result of a conspiracy.

Nah you are claiming it's a fact that his death was due to some conspiracy you can't flesh out or explain. It's some like some sort of conspiracy evangelist who plays the "it's just an opinion" card when it suits, while at the same time aggressively plastering the place with disinformation and lies

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He ignored the eyewitness claims it was a large gaping hole in the right rear of the head. It was one large wound that measured 5 inches in width from the parietal to the occipital

Nope, didnt ignore them. Also pointed out many who said it was at the side of the head. Why did you leave the temporal bone out of this? Its in the quote you keep posting. The Temporal bone is around the ear.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Even Nal admits the Autopsy photos are not genuine.

A complete lie

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He now claims the images were taken somewhere else when Kennedy's head was reconstructed for the open funeral.

Another complete lie.

Photos were taken after the autopsy was complete. In the same place. They had JFK for about 8 hours. Half of that was trying to prep him for an open coffin funeral.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Provided no evidence for this of course.

Apart from evidence from the autopsy doctor who actually did it. And the picture where you can see them holding the scalp in place. Which you have posted.

Everyone can see your lies in this thread. Its embarrassing. The only reason people are still engaging with you is out of morbid curiosity because you're a liar and a total laughing stock.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He is a key eyewitness. You even used his opinion to support the lone gunman theory. Then when I showed you where he said the large wound was his no longer reliable

Nope I posted two conflicting views from the same person. A good honest person.

I was using it to highlight the utter stupidity of basing an opinion on one selective picture and not looking any further into it. Which is what you do. The exact opposite of critical thinking. Gullibility.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Nope, didnt ignore them. Also pointed out many who said it was at the side of the head. Why did you leave the temporal bone out of this? Its in the quote you keep posting. The Temporal bone is around the ear.



A complete lie



Another complete lie.

Photos were taken after the autopsy was complete. In the same place. They had JFK for about 8 hours. Half of that was trying to prep him for an open coffin funeral.



Apart from evidence from the autopsy doctor who actually did it. And the picture where you can see them holding the scalp in place. Which you have posted.

Everyone can see your lies in this thread. Its embarrassing. The only reason people are still engaging with you is out of morbid curiosity because you're a liar and a total laughing stock.

When are you going to back up your statements with a legitimate source? Provide one piece of evidence that proves your claim the head was fixed for an open funeral.

I want the names of the doctors who fixed the head, what time it happened exactly. Who else was there? Provide video and witness testimony also. Who took the photographs, names, please.

Your supporters are fooled by your tricks and spin will not work with me.

I did not ignore the temporal bone. I posted where the large wound was numerous times to this thread.

The large and irregularly-shaped wound in the right side of the head (chiefly to the parietal bone, but also involving the temporal and occipital bone) is described as being about 13 centimetres (5.1 in) wide at the largest diameter.[1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When are you going to back up your statements with a legitimate source? Provide one piece of evidence that proves your claim the head was fixed for an open funeral.

I want the names of the doctors who fixed the head, what time it happened exactly. Who else was there? Provide video and witness testimony also. Who took the photographs, names, please.

Your supporters are fooled by your tricks and spin will not work with me.

I did not ignore the temporal bone. I posted where the large wound was numerous times to this thread.

The large and irregularly-shaped wound in the right side of the head (chiefly to the parietal bone, but also involving the temporal and occipital bone) is described as being about 13 centimetres (5.1 in) wide at the largest diameter.[1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

The absolute irony of you saying/asking this when you completely ignore posters when they ask the same of you :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Nope I posted two conflicting views from the same person. A good honest person.

I was using it to highlight the utter stupidity of basing an opinion on one selective picture and not looking any further into it. Which is what you do. The exact opposite of critical thinking. Gullibility.

What do the autopsy doctors claim nal?

How many times do I have to post this for you to get it?

I even enlarge it for you.
The large and irregularly-shaped wound in the right side of the head (chiefly to the parietal bone, but also involving the temporal and occipital bone) is described as being about 13 centimetres (5.1 in) wide at the largest diameter.[1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

It not that difficult to understand. this large wound was a gaping wound in the head, that covered the Parietal bone and Temporal bone, and went all the way back to the occipital bone behind the ear near the neckline of the head. It was 5 inches in width at the largest diameter. 5 inches is not small wound.

Clint Hill is just highlighting in different pictures how big the wound was when he looked at it.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The absolute irony of you saying/asking this when you completely ignore posters when they ask the same of you :rolleyes:

Nal is claiming doctors reconstructed the top of the head and back of the head at Bethesda medical centre. I never saw anyone make that claim but him.

He needs to prove it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal is claiming doctors reconstructed the top of the head and back of the head at Bethesda medical centre. I never saw anyone make that claim but him.

He needs to prove it.

Hiw about you provide the lists of names/dates/places that you have been asked for on a couple of threads 1st?

When asked you just dump random links to sh/tty youtube vids and copy/paste other peoples work that has nothing to do with the questions you were asked!

You provide your evidence 1st and explain why it's true before demanding anything from others.

It's ok CS we all know you won't do this because you are unable to follow through on your claims, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You sir are a fraud!

The Nal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hiw about you provide the lists of names/dates/places that you have been asked for on a couple of threads 1st?

When asked you just dump random links to sh/tty youtube vids and copy/paste other peoples work that has nothing to do with the questions you were asked!

You provide your evidence 1st and explain why it's true before demanding anything from others.

It's ok CS we all know you won't do this because you are unable to follow through on your claims, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You sir are a fraud!

Incredible really. Ignoring the fact that Ive already posted it. Who (Boswell), the date (22nd), the time (midnight) and multiple supporting articles. Post 1324.

He cant read.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Incredible really. Ignoring the fact that Ive already posted it. Who, the date, the time (midnight) amd multiple supporting articles.

He cant read.

You have nothing to show that why you will not post it for everyone to read. You are spreading bull**** on this thread and obvious to everyone but your supporters.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have nothing to show that why you will not post it for everyone to read. You are spreading bull**** on this thread and obvious to everyone but your supporters.

Ive already posted it. You replied to the post. You obviously didnt even read it as it doesnt suit your agenda.

You utter laughing stock.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Ive already posted it. You replied to the post. You obviously didnt even read it as it doesnt suit your agenda.

You utter laughing stock.

This? And where the evidence in this link the head was fixed after the Autopsy?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Canal2015.htm

Which parts convinced you, please post the segments that you believe prove what you say is correct?

Cheerful Spring

Nal doesn't understand the information in the link he posted. It has always been the position of JFK conspiracy researchers these photographs were taken after the autopsy., they are fake.

The Warren Commission and HSCA claimed they were taken during the official autopsy done by Boswell and Humes and Finck.

Nal did not notice they were measuring wounds in the back also and you can see the head was undamaged. They are fake autopsy photos introduced to hide the fact Kennedy suffered a large wound to the rear of the head.

Cheerful Spring

Nal just latched onto what the author said and believed it.

I believe this why Nal got excited.
NOT taken during the autopsy, but actually taken after the autopsy and, more importantly, taken after the morticians had reconstructed the BOH in preparation for a possible open-casket viewing. It was clear that during the reconstruction process, the BOH opening had been closed and the entry wound in the President’s scalp, probably inadvertently, “moved” higher

This just author opinion. No evidence provided.

The author ignores the Warren Commission used these photographs to convict Lee Oswald as the lone gunman. Why would they use reconstruction photographs to link the shooting to Oswald? It nonsense plain and simple.

The Nal

Sorry I shall post as you do so you understand.

Here we go:

We know that the autopsy photos weren't faked. We know that the scalp was pulled back into position. Its obvious.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal just latched onto what the author said and believed it.

I believe this why Nal got excited.
NOT taken during the autopsy, but actually taken after the autopsy and, more importantly, taken after the morticians had reconstructed the BOH in preparation for a possible open-casket viewing. It was clear that during the reconstruction process, the BOH opening had been closed and the entry wound in the President’s scalp, probably inadvertently, “moved” higher

This just author opinion. No evidence provided.

lol. Lets not revisit your Doug Horne posts where you believed absolutely everything he said in a podcast. Including the conclusions of a documentary that hasn't even been made yet. A man who believed the driver could've shot JFK.

And then when it was pointed out that he had some ridiculous beliefs, you asked for evidence and the evidence was from your 2nd favourite researcher (James DiEugenio - whos name you couldn't get close to spelling correctly) who thinks Horne is full of shít! Couldn't make it up.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The author ignores the Warren Commission used these photographs to convict Lee Oswald as the lone gunman. Why would they use reconstruction photographs to link the shooting to Oswald? It nonsense plain and simple.

They were wrong. They were wrong about lots of things.

You of course only quoted one of the articles I posted because the other one provides a lot of detail, fact and common sense. Some of it conflicting. However the morticians testified the scalp was stretched and sutured closed in preparation for an open-coffin funeral.

John Stringer. Autopsy photographer, to the ARRB.

Q: Did you take any photographs of the head after scalp had been pulled down or reflected?
A: Yes.

Read end note 8 from the link you posted above. People who were there testifying photos were taken at different times. People popping in and out etc.

So there you go. Evidence the scalp was repositioned. Undermined. And all of this evidence concludes that the shot came from behind. The only issue is where the entry wound was at the back of the head.

Theres more evidence in this post than you have provided in all 94 pages of this thread combined.

Makes a lot more sense than different studios superimposing four films in a few hours - in 1963 lol - so they're identical to the autopsy photos (which themselves were faked), two brains, two coffins, dozens spontaneously agreeing to a cover up - none of this with any evidence and none of them knowing if it would expose a plot as they hadn't a clue if anyone else had footage of the shooting.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have nothing to show that why you will not post it for everyone to read. You are spreading bull**** on this thread and obvious to everyone but your supporters.

Blindly mirroring criticism of yourself is another strange deflection technique you've recently started to use. It's bizarre childlike behaviour (you'll use that one too)

You blatantly make stuff up on the spot (lying), have been directly caught doing this many times, but when called out you appear to make up more lies and then (bizarrely) start accusing the person of catching you out as a "liar". This is real Alex Jones type extreme behaviour

Anyway, let's try again

Who pulled the trigger of which gun that fired which bullet that resulted in JFK's death according to you?

Where was this person located when they pulled the trigger and what time was it exactly?

How many shots did they fire total? where are the cases and bullets and what condition are they in? (including the bullet(s) that hit JFK)

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol. Lets not revisit your Doug Horne posts where you believed absolutely everything he said in a podcast. Including the conclusions of a documentary that hasn't even been made yet. A man who believed the driver could've shot JFK.

And then when it was pointed out that he had some ridiculous beliefs, you asked for evidence and the evidence was from your 2nd favourite researcher (James DiEugenio - whos name you couldn't get close to spelling correctly) who thinks Horne is full of shít! Couldn't make it up.





They were wrong. They were wrong about lots of things.

You of course only quoted one of the articles I posted because the other one provides a lot of detail, fact and common sense. Some of it conflicting. However the morticians testified the scalp was stretched and sutured closed in preparation for an open-coffin funeral.

John Stringer. Autopsy photographer, to the ARRB.

Q: Did you take any photographs of the head after scalp had been pulled down or reflected?
A: Yes.

Read end note 8 from the link you posted above. People who were there testifying photos were taken at different times. People popping in and out etc.

So there you go. Evidence the scalp was repositioned. Undermined. And all of this evidence concludes that the shot came from behind. The only issue is where the entry wound was at the back of the head.

Theres more evidence in this post than you have provided in all 94 pages of this thread combined.

Makes a lot more sense than different studios superimposing four films in a few hours - in 1963 lol - so they're identical to the autopsy photos (which themselves were faked), two brains, two coffins, dozens spontaneously agreeing to a cover up - none of this with any evidence and none of them knowing if it would expose a plot as they hadn't a clue if anyone else had footage of the shooting.

Let's be real, you dismissed Stringer testimony earlier in this thread. I think his credible.

This what he revealed publically to David Clifton a JFK researcher.

Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?"

Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part." Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "

Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?" Stringer: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes.

Stringer is also confirming a large wound in the right rear where the autopsy doctors saw the wound. An exit wound.

Nal ignores there were 46 Eyewitnesses who saw this large right rear head wound at Bethesda and Parkland.

How was the scalp repositioned when there was a massive blowout of the head stretching all way back from the parietal to the occipital bone?. Skin and bone are missing.

Nal again ignores the Warren Commission used these images to blame Oswald for the Shooting. You know damn well Nal the Warren Commission claims there was only a tiny few cm hole in the back of the head.

Cheerful Spring

Please show us where they stretched and fixed the wound in the right rear of the head.





You can even see this photo is part of the same collection of fake autopsy photos. Where they reconstructing the back wound also?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal again ignores the Warren Commission used these images to blame Oswald for the Shooting. You know damn well Nal the Warren Commission claims there was only a tiny few cm hole in the back of the head.

You are a time waster. I said they were wrong. In my last post. On this page! You utter laughing stock.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

You are a time waster. I said they were wrong. In my last post. On this page! You utter laughing stock.

Not so. I just highlighted the stupidity of your arguments.

Was it a small wound at the rear or a large wound at the rear? Vague statements by you they got it wrong in no way explains anything.

The images I posted above were part of the collection of autopsy images used to convince the American public Oswald shot at Kennedy from the TSBD. You can even see the small entry hole in the first image. The Warren Commission said this was entry hole for the bullet.

None of the images shows the rear large head wound at the right side rear. Debunkers use excuses as you have done they are reconstruction photos of Kennedy's head after the Autopsy. Very little evidence to prove it. Do you claim the scalp was repositioned and pulled down? How does one cover this large wound when it a large gaping hole at the back of the head? Clear a wound like this most of the scalp would be missing? You can only stretch the scalp so much to cover wounds.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Blindly mirroring criticism of yourself is another strange deflection technique you've recently started to use. It's bizarre childlike behaviour (you'll use that one too)

You blatantly make stuff up on the spot (lying), have been directly caught doing this many times, but when called out you appear to make up more lies and then (bizarrely) start accusing the person of catching you out as a "liar". This is real Alex Jones type extreme behaviour

Anyway, let's try again

Who pulled the trigger of which gun that fired which bullet that resulted in JFK's death according to you?

Where was this person located when they pulled the trigger and what time was it exactly?

How many shots did they fire total? where are the cases and bullets and what condition are they in? (including the bullet(s) that hit JFK)

I find it bizarre people like you ignore 46 Eyewitnesses at Parkland hospital and at Bethesda Medical centre observed a large wound to the rear of Kennedy's head.

I would understand your position better if it was just people on the internet making wild claims of a large wound in the rear. That's not the case.

There no possible way 13 highly qualified trauma doctors at Parkland can be mistaken.

How come none of the autopsy doctors at Bethesda said the bullet exited out in front of the right ear? Fact is they backed up the Doctors opinions at Parkland hospital.