John K. White Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Short-time lurker, first-time poster... have been reading every book on assassination science for 20 years... Something I've always wondered... Is there not an obvious concave, bullet-sized wound on the president's temple in the stare of death photo? I apologize if this has already been discussed here... See attached Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Frank Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 (edited) Has this photo been authenticated in any way? Lots of bogus photos have been floating around for more than 20 years. The autopsy photos had not been officially released by the early 1990s. I don't know if they ever were. Edited July 21, 2004 by Anthony Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 (edited) Has this photo been authenticated in any way?Lots of bogus photos have been floating around for more than 20 years. The autopsy photos had not been officially released by the early 1990s. I don't know if they ever were. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anthony is right because even if it was an official photo - it doesn't even show the skull flap, so it has obviously been faked in some way. Poor quality B&W photos can be so misleading. FBI Agent Francis O'Neil and many other Bethesda witnesses said there was no wound to the front part of JFK's head. O'Neil said there were two wounds to JFK's head - the bone plate/skull flap wound and the large hole in the back of JFK's head. He also says it was FBI Agent James Sibert who first drew everyone's attention to the hole in JFK's back. Franicis O'Neil does not support the SBT and has said in public that Arlen Specter tried to get he and Sibert to alter their report to help make Specter's SBT appear plausible. Edited July 21, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Short-time lurker, first-time poster... have been reading every book on assassination science for 20 years...Something I've always wondered... Is there not an obvious concave, bullet-sized wound on the president's temple in the stare of death photo? I apologize if this has already been discussed here... See attached <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Welcome, John K. White. My father was John N. White! At the moment I do not have access to my 8x10 sets of autopsy pix. Tomorrow I will scan a giant enlargement of that area for you to look at. I am attaching the only image of that pic that resides in this computer. The red oval was on it for another purpose... but it is slightly larger and better than the one you attached. I believe: ...the body was altered ...the photos were altered If so, your observation may have little evidentiary value. Greetings from your Texas "namesake". Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John K. White Posted July 21, 2004 Author Share Posted July 21, 2004 Short-time lurker, first-time poster... have been reading every book on assassination science for 20 years...Something I've always wondered... Is there not an obvious concave, bullet-sized wound on the president's temple in the stare of death photo? I apologize if this has already been discussed here... See attached <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Welcome, John K. White. My father was John N. White! At the moment I do not have access to my 8x10 sets of autopsy pix. Tomorrow I will scan a giant enlargement of that area for you to look at. I am attaching the only image of that pic that resides in this computer. The red oval was on it for another purpose... but it is slightly larger and better than the one you attached. I believe: ...the body was altered ...the photos were altered If so, your observation may have little evidentiary value. Greetings from your Texas "namesake". Jack White <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for the welcome! Appreciate that. While I agree that the autopsy pictures show signs of fakery, I wonder if they may have been working from some legitimate photos, which may still display elements of truth? There are a few other things I've been wondering over the years... I remember seeing one TV special that focused on the dictabelt recordings, and they matched up the sound with a viewing of the Zapruder film. Of course, it was an educated guess for them... they matched the sound of the first shot with JFK reacting to the throat shot. What intrigued me, was the last shots were right on top of each other - bang, bang - and the first of those shots was the explosive headshot, and the last shot appeared to strike the exposed brain and continue on. There was a noticable stream of blood and tissue moving forward off of his head, that did not appear to be blood spurting from an artery or vain, after the sound of the last shot. That was something I hadn't perceived until hearing the shots while viewing the film. I hypothesize that that last shot struck soft brain tissue, and continued on to strike the curb, and then struck James Tague. This idea adds strength to the argument that there were two distinct volleys of shots, with the radio men - guided by Umbrella Man's signal - telling the shooters more shots were needed. The other thing I would like feedback on is the theory put forward on the Morningstar website that J.D. Tippit was the knoll gunman, based on a comparison of a rare Tippit photo and the Badgeman photo... It would explain the need to take him out after the assassination... P.S. - My middle name is Kennedy... My dad named me after JFK in '67... Guess I was destined to snoop around this case from birth. Well, I started when he gave me all of his clippings when I was 16... I took it from there. 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