Paul Cummings Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 4 hours ago, David Josephs said: I've erased all my posts on this thread as I find it a complete waste of my time and effort. Simple facts... The 3 main bones in our discussion intersect behind the ear. The skull and brains were severely altered between Dallas and the 8pm unveiling. The men at Bethesda lied repeatedly about the injuries and especially about the existence of 2 brain specimens and 2 brain examinations... to deny these facts is to exhibit an amazing level of intellectual dishonesty and should be viewed on this forum as extremely suspect... I for one have had it with the intellectual dishonesty exhibited. I am rough and aggressive, I know that... I get even more so when people PLAY DUMB (#9) when obvious conflicts to conclusions are made evident. I apologize to Pat for my aggressiveness and choice of words... and promise to abide by the rules of the forum. I see and read your passion DJ and appreciate your honesty. You're human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 11 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said: I see and read your passion DJ and appreciate your honesty. You're human. Appreciate the kind words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 3 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said: Just because you aren't convinced doesn't make Lifton's life work in vain. No legitimate researcher should be "convinced," because Lifton never provided any concrete proof of how any such pre-autopsy alterations could have taken place. Forgive me if I'm not going to hold my breath for such revelations to come out now that he has passed away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 On 3/1/2023 at 12:39 AM, Pat Speer said: FWIW, I took a look at your supposed bullet hole in the top of the head photo, and it appears to have been photoshopped a bit. Here's your bullet hole. And here's a gif of the two top of the head photos showing that whatever that shape is, it's above the surface of the skin, and is most probably hair. Hi Pat, I want to be absolutely certain you are surmising this apparent black circle is a hair? What I see is a near complete dark circle (about 320 degrees with the bottom right appearing to be missing). I also see a faint jagged circular hole below the centre and to the right inside the black circle. It's clearer at extreme enlargement. The further picture you posted does not match the 'stare of death' photo. The further photo has 'v' shaped notch above the eye. It is difficult to decide which photo was taken when. Would you leave a jagged throat wound on a body after preparation and washing for a funeral? Would you mask , with a black patch a forehead entry wound after it had been allegedly plugged with cosmetic wax? I wonder if one photo is on arrival at Bethesda (and needing the circular dark patch) and the messy back of the head photo is after alteration? Bear in mind JFK body was washed and wrapped at Parkland, so how could such a mess have arrived at Bethesda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 (edited) On 3/1/2023 at 1:50 AM, Pat Speer said: I am reposting Pat's post so the two photos I reference above are together. This isn't the 'stare of death' photo sorry. That photo also has the troubling patch. Edited March 2, 2023 by Eddy Bainbridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said: What I see is a near complete dark circle (about 320 degrees with the bottom right appearing to be missing). I also see a faint jagged circular hole below the centre and to the right inside the black circle. It's clearer at extreme enlargement. That's what I see as well Eddy. And can't really understand why they would have left that like that unless they did not think the images would ever be seen, despite it being more in line with the autopsy conclusions and xrays. These Fox images are just so insincere in the depiction of the wounds and have to have been taken after the enlargement of the tracheotomy and "surgery to the top of the head". Didn't they normally close the eyes of the dead before they take photos like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said: I am reposting Pat's post so the two photos I reference above are together. This isn't the 'stare of death' photo sorry. That photo also has the troubling patch. I suspect the round shape is a bloody clump of hair which appears to be round when seen at that angle. Upon morphing the two back of the head photos together, it became apparent that that shape is not a hole on the skull, as it moves in relation to the skull. Now, is it possible someone altered the photos on the very first day to hide a hole in that location? I wouldn't say it is impossible. But I would say it is highly unlikely. Those currently pushing there was a hole in this location have been pulling a bit of a con job. They take quotes from people like McClelland and Crenshaw who swore they saw no such hole but thought one might have existed, and make out that they said they saw such a hole. They did not. Their other witnesses are people who first commented on the photos decades later, who seemed to recall seeing a photo with a bullet hole on the forehead. Or whatever. They are not reliable sources. The key sources...The Parkland physicians and nurses...The Bethesda doctors and assistants...failed to see a bullet hole in this location. Most of these witnesses said things which ran counter to the official story. But none ever stepped up and said "Oh yeah, there was a bullet hole on his forehead." And there's a reason for this, IMO. There was no such hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 2 hours ago, Pat Speer said: The key sources...The Parkland physicians and nurses...The Bethesda doctors and assistants...failed to see a bullet hole in this location. Most of these witnesses said things which ran counter to the official story. But none ever stepped up and said "Oh yeah, there was a bullet hole on his forehead." And there's a reason for this, IMO. There was no such hole. Since the "key sources" remain the Parkland physicians and nurses, how do you explain not a single one of them using the word "EAR" - whether above, besides, or behind - to describe the wound in the rear of the man's head? (i posted all their quotes once already) Like the graphic you feel is not indicative of what they all said, this just your opinion... as surely you are aware of each of the Parkland testimonies as well as drawings place the wound to the right rear and center rear of the skull... Why is it ok to accept it when they don't mention a temple wound (although Jenkins, Huber and McClelland did mention temple wounds as well as Perry's throat wound from the front - but no other shots from there I suppose?) but not okay to abide by all of their similar descriptions of the location of the hole out the back? I'm sorry you don't like my graphic, despite it being based on the words from each of these people's mouths, along with a visual on each one. But all of these people are wrong about where they saw a hole and right about not mentioning a small hole in the temple? and you don't see a conflict in that reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 11 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Since the "key sources" remain the Parkland physicians and nurses, how do you explain not a single one of them using the word "EAR" - whether above, besides, or behind - to describe the wound in the rear of the man's head? (i posted all their quotes once already) Like the graphic you feel is not indicative of what they all said, this just your opinion... as surely you are aware of each of the Parkland testimonies as well as drawings place the wound to the right rear and center rear of the skull... Why is it ok to accept it when they don't mention a temple wound (although Jenkins, Huber and McClelland did mention temple wounds as well as Perry's throat wound from the front - but no other shots from there I suppose?) but not okay to abide by all of their similar descriptions of the location of the hole out the back? I'm sorry you don't like my graphic, despite it being based on the words from each of these people's mouths, along with a visual on each one. But all of these people are wrong about where they saw a hole and right about not mentioning a small hole in the temple? and you don't see a conflict in that reasoning? There's no conflict in the reasoning. He was laying on his back. They were looking at his face. While it's possible some confused a large wound on top of the head with a wound on the back of the head, it's highly unlikely for none of the Parkland or Bethesda witnesses to notice a bullet hole on the forehead. As far as your image, a number of these witnesses deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. And a number of them had their statements taken out of context by Groden. Custer and O'Connor were pointing out the large open cavity when the brain was removed, from front to back. Groden took a still from when they were pointing to the back and pretended that was where they saw a large hole at the beginning of the autopsy. I go through these witnesses and more one by one on my website and demonstrate that the blow-out wound low on the back of the head proposed by all too many is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted March 3, 2023 Author Share Posted March 3, 2023 Damn Pat, Did they capture you like they captured Gary Mack? The hole in back of the head is a slam dunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 On 3/1/2023 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Cohen said: No legitimate researcher should be "convinced," because Lifton never provided any concrete proof of how any such pre-autopsy alterations could have taken place. Forgive me if I'm not going to hold my breath for such revelations to come out now that he has passed away... The forklift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Michael Crane said: Damn Pat, Did they capture you like they captured Gary Mack? The hole in back of the head is a slam dunk. The large head wound is an overrated issue compared to some of the other pieces of evidence. Just once I'd like to see a fully-produced documentary on the JFK medical evidence that doesn't bother touching on the large head wound. Edited March 3, 2023 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted March 3, 2023 Author Share Posted March 3, 2023 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said: The large head wound is an overrated issue compared to some of the other pieces of evidence. Just once I'd like to see a fully-produced documentary on the JFK medical evidence that doesn't bother touching on the large head wound. With all of the blood & brain matter flying & hitting officer Hargis & where the Harper fragment landed,it's hard to believe that there is not the same size hole on the left side of JFK's head. Edited March 3, 2023 by Michael Crane Edited to add blood as flying debris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 6 minutes ago, Michael Crane said: With all of the brain matter flying & hitting officer Hargis & where the Harper fragment landed,it's hard to believe that there is not the same size hole on the left side of JFK's head. The Harper fragment was (much later) recalled to have been found far forward of the limo, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted March 3, 2023 Author Share Posted March 3, 2023 2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said: The Harper fragment was (much later) recalled to have been found far forward of the limo, though? Could be Micah.I am not knowledgeable in that area. 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