François Carlier Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: It's my opinion that those people who said they saw a big hole in the back of JFK's head most definitely did not actually see what they claimed to see (i.e., a large blow-out in the back of Kennedy's skull). And, as I've stated numerous times on this forum (and others), the reasons I'm certain those "BOH" witnesses must be mistaken rests are TRIPLE-fold --- the autopsy photos, X-rays, and the Zapruder Film (plus the autopsy report itself and the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons). It really comes down to who (or what) you choose to believe ---- the autopsy photographs & Z-Film .... or .... the many "BOH" witnesses. I don't think there's any way to believe BOTH of those sets of things. (Pat Speer might disagree, but after viewing the three pieces of photographic evidence again shown below, and after reviewing all of the various statements made by the various Parkland/Bethesda "Back Of Head Wound" witnesses (many of which have been listed by Sandy above), I can't see any way to believe BOTH sets of things/people I mentioned above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds Thank you, David. That is exactly what I think. The best evidence here must be the autopsy report, the conclusions of Doctor Humes, the autopsy photos and x-rays, the Zapruder film. Therefore what other people say about a wound in the back of the head have to be wrong, however hard it may be to accept that idea. I am certainly not saying tht all those people lied. Not at all. But I think that I should add that what I have kept saying to Sandy Larsen is that some of those people claim that they have seen the wound when in actual fact they never went anywhere near the body (as per Doctor Perry). Again, I rely on Doctor Perry. It's not just a "theory" of mine. I never had any "personal theory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 "BOH" Addendum.... There's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman.... ------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: I'm having a hard time following this discussion, which may have something to do with my age. Am I alone in this? Sandy has quoted a number of medical professionals on what they saw, and FC seems to be saying (with no evidence unless I missed it, and I don't know what evidence there could be) that those people didn't see what they said they saw. I really don't understand this, and just wanted to say so that maybe someone can set me straight. No Ron, the confusion you're experiencing is not due to your age. It is due to Francois' denial that 20 Parkland professionals (doctors and nurses) saw the gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head. Even though their statements to that effect are well known and well documented. Francois says he bases that opinion on a letter Dr. Perry wrote him where he says, according to Francois, "just a few people really saw the wound at the back of JFK's head, if any. " (I'm quoting Francois. Francois no doubt was paraphrasing what Dr. Perry wrote in the letter.) Francois actually said, " And I'll tell you this : your '20 medical professionals saw a gaping wound' is nothing more than a factoid. It never happened." Wow. Francois says that I like to insult people. But what he see's as insults against him, I see as honest assessments of his outlandish claims. It is not true that I like to insult people. I was hard on him because he claims to be an expert on the JFK assassination. On another thread he said he'd readily beat Jim DiEugenio in a debate. It was for that reason that I was brutally honest. If he were a newbie, I most certainly would not have been so harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Prutsok Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 42 minutes ago, François Carlier said: Thank you, David. That is exactly what I think. The best evidence here must be the autopsy report, the conclusions of Doctor Humes, the autopsy photos and x-rays, the Zapruder film. Therefore what other people say about a wound in the back of the head have to be wrong, however hard it may be to accept that idea. I am certainly not saying tht all those people lied. Not at all. But I think that I should add that what I have kept saying to Sandy Larsen is that some of those people claim that they have seen the wound when in actual fact they never went anywhere near the body (as per Doctor Perry). Again, I rely on Doctor Perry. It's not just a "theory" of mine. I never had any "personal theory". No question. Dozens of medical personnel at top facilities unanimously misdiagnose gunshot wounds all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Johnson Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 (edited) Sorry Pamela, At the moment i cant easily place the source of that photo..... i have around 250 photos in a file i have collected over the past 12 to 15 years and many i had on a floppy disc and had to transfer to CD then to new laptops a while ago....i will try and find the source for you......might take a few days. Thank you for all your efforts and comments regarding the assassination over the years. Here's another photo for you and everyone else...applies to this debate about 150 posts ago Regards, Adam Edited December 20, 2018 by Adam Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 I have started a new topic on the ' bunching' and the non tampering with the shirt theory ( NTWTST) . As promised. Please feel free to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 OK, thanks DVP and FC. The statement that "the best evidence" has to be the materials from the military's autopsy ("Get that body out of Dallas!" and "Keep the clothes out of here!") says it all. Now I see why all those medical eyewitnesses at Parkland can go fly a kite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: OK, thanks DVP and FC. The statement that "the best evidence" has to be the materials from the military's autopsy ("Get that body out of Dallas!" and "Keep the clothes out of here!") says it all. Now I see why all those medical eyewitnesses at Parkland can go fly a kite. Surely you do appreciate the slight distinction, at least in the abstract, between (1) an autopsy performed under controlled conditions, with no pressing time constraints, for the very purpose of examining and documenting the wounds, and (2) a wild, chaotic emergency room scramble to save the life of a President who 20 minutes earlier had been waving to an enthusiastic crowd, performed by a medical team who 20 minutes earlier had been drinking coffee and shooting the bull? Conspiracy buffs (no one says "buffs" anymore, so I'm resurrecting it) reverse the scenario: The autopsy was a sloppy disorganized mess, performed by incompetent fools whose only objective was to conceal the truth, while the ER was filled with calm and sharp-eyed observers who made careful mental notes of what they were observing. In other words, what would indeed constitute the most reliable evidence in 99.99999% of cases, even if the autopsy were not a model of professionalism, must become the least reliable evidence in this case in order for conspiracy theories to work - and so, voila, it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 41 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: Surely you do appreciate the slight distinction, at least in the abstract, between (1) an autopsy performed under controlled conditions, with no pressing time constraints, for the very purpose of examining and documenting the wounds, and (2) a wild, chaotic emergency room scramble to save the life of a President who 20 minutes earlier had been waving to an enthusiastic crowd, performed by a medical team who 20 minutes earlier had been drinking coffee and shooting the bull? Conspiracy buffs (no one says "buffs" anymore, so I'm resurrecting it) reverse the scenario: The autopsy was a sloppy disorganized mess, performed by incompetent fools whose only objective was to conceal the truth, while the ER was filled with calm and sharp-eyed observers who made careful mental notes of what they were observing. In other words, what would indeed constitute the most reliable evidence in 99.99999% of cases, even if the autopsy were not a model of professionalism, must become the least reliable evidence in this case in order for conspiracy theories to work - and so, voila, it does. Sorry, but I'm staying out of this pointless discussion now that I've been set straight. Arguing with lone nutters is like arguing with young-Earth creationists. I had enough of that years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 26 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: Arguing with lone nutters is like arguing with young-Earth creationists. I had enough of that years ago. Exhibit A, folks, for what I've been saying on other threads. Are you paying attention, Joe Bauer et al.? Young Earth Creationists are fascinating. Ditto for Flat Earthers. I've debated with both for years. The have evidence and logic that has its own weird internal consistency. I always assumed this was all "wink, wink" fun and that everyone really knew the earth wasn't really 7,000 years old or flat. But no - you will end up looking like a fool if you assume that, because these folks are PREPARED. Actually, arguing with them is more like arguing with a Prayer Man or Harvey & Lee enthusiast, but I won't press the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 (edited) I'll just say that being willingly taken in by a 55-year-old cover-up is as bad - no, actually it's far worse - as believing in a 7,000-year-old Earth. Edited December 16, 2018 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: No Ron, the confusion you're experiencing is not due to your age. It is due to Francois' denial that 20 Parkland professionals (doctors and nurses) saw the gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head. Even though their statements to that effect are well known and well documented. Francois says he bases that opinion on a letter Dr. Perry wrote him where he says, according to Francois, "just a few people really saw the wound at the back of JFK's head, if any. " (I'm quoting Francois. Francois no doubt was paraphrasing what Dr. Perry wrote in the letter.) Francois actually said, " And I'll tell you this : your '20 medical professionals saw a gaping wound' is nothing more than a factoid. It never happened." Wow. Francois says that I like to insult people. But what he see's as insults against him, I see as honest assessments of his outlandish claims. It is not true that I like to insult people. I was hard on him because he claims to be an expert on the JFK assassination. On another thread he said he'd readily beat Jim DiEugenio in a debate. It was for that reason that I was brutally honest. If he were a newbie, I most certainly would not have been so harsh. If you're so clever, and if I'm so wrong, and if your beloved 20 professionals saw a real wound, then how come the photos and x-rays don't show it ? Care to answer that question ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said: OK, thanks DVP and FC. The statement that "the best evidence" has to be the materials from the military's autopsy ("Get that body out of Dallas!" and "Keep the clothes out of here!") says it all. Now I see why all those medical eyewitnesses at Parkland can go fly a kite. When you have evidence that the photos and x-rays are fake, let us know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said: Sorry, but I'm staying out of this pointless discussion now that I've been set straight. Arguing with lone nutters is like arguing with young-Earth creationists. I had enough of that years ago. Yes, you are right, arguing with Ron Ecker is like arguing with young-Earth creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 1 hour ago, François Carlier said: When you have evidence that the photos and x-rays are fake, let us know... Ha ha ha ha. All I have to do to know that the "back of the head" photo is fake is to look at it. Where's the hole that all those medical professionals saw and documented? But then why even show a photo of the back of JFK's head unless the purpose was to show that what was there wasn't there, because - well, because it would very inconvenient for it to still be there. So see, it isn't there! Oh, but how could anyone dare think that the U.S. government or military would fake something. There was a time in my life when I wouldn't dare think such a thing. It would be so unpatriotic! But over the years the U.S. government has opened my eyes to many things about itself, and guess what, it continues to do so. You should be thankful that you have a government you can trust in France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now