Where is the massive back head wound?

[Bill Miller]

But these supposedly faked photos WEREN'T entered into evidence by the Warren Commission. And they were subsequently given to the Kennedy family. So what was the point of faking them? To fool Burkley? To fool Jackie? Well, excuse me, they saw the body and would have been able to spot the fakery. The photos were then returned to the government but kept under the control of a Kennedy attorney, Burke Marshall. This means, if one is to be logical, that the Kennedys either faked the photos or knew about it.

The "Why" is anyone's guess ... it doesn't remove the overwhelming evidence that the ones that were not destroyed or missing from the complete set, were created as not to show the gross damage to the back of the President's head. Let's go back to the first few hours of the assassination and ask why the White House would state that the act was not a conspiracy, but rather the deed of one man when they could not possibly have known what the evidence of a complete investigation would have shown at that time. And what did they do .... they took control of all the evidence without the case being theirs. It appears that someone from the onset felt that it would be determental to let the public think the killing of their President was related to an international conspiracy during the height of the Cold War. I also have a strong hunch that Jackie described that rear head wound in her testimony and that is why it is not complete in the WC volumes. I do not believe for a moment that the Kennedy family ever sat down with Jackie and showed those photos to her. In fact, I believe Jackie would never have allowed such a thing to happen.

Bill Miller

Edited December 30, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Dec 30 2006, 03:47 AM' post='86839']

Here are eight frames from the Zapruder film showing the back of JFK's head:

[but look with your eyes. It's simple. Either what is in the photographic record has been carefully and meticulously faked, or false oral testimony—without, by the way, any tiniest shred of physical evidence anywhere in existence that supports it—has been put into the record.

It's one or the other. And that's how simple it is.

Ashton

Ashton:

In addition to your two alternatives there are two others:

1. Surgery to the president's head (after his death)- postulated by David Lifton in Best Evidence and/or

2. Humpty Dumpty put back together again by a coroner. (Leggit) For this illuminating information see The Smoking Guns ( 1 hour)

on the Men Who Killed Kennedy. I have bumped the thread for your convenience.

Either way the autopsy photos are fakes and do not represent the president's post- mortem condition.

(In your alternative one above I am assuming by "faked" you mean the photos themselves, although you could also refer to the additional alternatives I have added. Just was not clear from your post. )

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

I think the photos are legit. I mean, why fake photos indicating a conspiracy if your goal is to convince people there was no conspiracy?

IMO the one obvious fake is the back of the head photo, the purpose of the fakery being to show no conspiracy (i.e. no exit wound in the back of the head...

How does "no exit wound in the back of the head" equate to "no conspiracy"? (WARNING: This is not a light, mild, innocent question. It is the question. It is where this thread inevitably had to go.)

...despite statement after statement after statement by credible witnesses).

How are such statements, themselves, exempted from any conspiracy?

And a corollary: if there were a conspiracy, and such statements were to be part of it, would you expect the conspirators to submit statements by non-credible witnesses?

Ashton

Edited December 30, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

And is it your position that faking all the medical visual evidence and all of the films would be easier than the CIA buying or coercing false closed testimony given to a federal commission with John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles on it?

Let's see, what would be easier?

Fake two (2) back of the head photos..

Point to the place where the scalp is entirely gone and bones are sticking out of a massive hole in the back right of the skull in all eight of these images:

Ashton Gray

Edited December 30, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

How does "no exit wound in the back of the head" equate to "no conspiracy"? (WARNING: This is not a light, mild, innocent question. It is the question. It is where this thread inevitably had to go.)

Ashton,

The answer to your question comes by first learning the officail position that came out within a couple hours of the shooting and before any investigation had been completed. The official word said that the deed was the act of one man who acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. Showing an exit wound of avulsed bones to the back of the head means that there was a conspircy for the laws of physics could not be dismissed, which would also mean that Oswald not only didn't act alone, but possibly didn't fire the fatal shot either.

How someone who could know enough how to put a 3D animation clip together, but could not possibly of come up with such a possible scenario is beyond me. Even if you choose not to accept the witness testimony evidence before you ... it should not have kept you from being able to answer your own question. The fact that you did have to ask it as if you had not a clue to the answer makes me believe that you are purposely playing games here or are not capable of investigating this case intelligently.

Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

Sounds as if Ashton needs to get a copy of In the Eye of History. He should read Jim Sibert say how he was a foot away from JFK's head at the autopsy, and described the large gaping hole in the back of the head.

So, Smitty, let me make sure I understand you completely: if, arguendo, there was a government conspiracy, veteran FBI agent Jim Sibert —who was sent by the federal government to be in attendance on the body when it arrived in D.C.—is above suspicion for complicity. Is that your position? That seems to be your position.

And what "Ashton needs to" do is understand this thoroughly. Is that right?

Sibert, he was standing right there, and said of the wound "it was this big":

Indeed.

Ashton Gray

Edited December 30, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's Z335:

Please note that Jackie appears to be looking at her husband's

face. Her hand went right to the spot at the right-rear where the

wound has been described. Please note the curvature of her forearm,

wrist, and hand at the right back of JFK's head.

Here's Z337:

Please note that Jackie managed to lift her elbow off the seat and straighten her

arm/wrist/hand without pushing JFK's head forward.

That indicates to me that her finger-tips were going into the wound.

She described what we see in these frames thusly in her WC testimony, in a

passage the WC deleted:

Jackie K:

"I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I

suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know,

you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

The witness testimony and photographic record agree, with the exception

of two (2) faked autopsy photos and the mysterious 6.5mm x-ray frag.

According to your scenario, there wasn't one witness with his wits about himself in

Dealey Plaza, Parkland and Bethesda -- or they were all liars.

Witness bashing is de rigueur among Parlor Gamers.

[Bill Miller]

So, Smitty, let me make sure I understand you completely: if, arguendo, there was a government conspiracy, veteran FBI agent Jim Sibert —who was sent by the federal government to be in attendance on the body when it arrived in D.C.—is above suspicion for complicity.

Ashton - is it you who is saying that because the governments remaining autopsy photos show no large hole in the back of JFK's head and that Sibert says there was ... that somehow the two are somehow working together? It seems to me that they are in opposition of each other.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

According to your scenario, there wasn't one witness with his wits about himself in

Dealey Plaza, Parkland and Bethesda -- or they were all liars.

Yes, that seems to be the only position that Ashton can take. He comes across as someone who has switched from porn to the Education Forum to satisfy the same needs.

[Ashton Gray]

Here are eight frames from the Zapruder film showing the back of JFK's head:

[but look with your eyes. It's simple. Either what is in the photographic record has been carefully and meticulously faked, or false oral testimony—without, by the way, any tiniest shred of physical evidence anywhere in existence that supports it—has been put into the record.

It's one or the other. And that's how simple it is.

Ashton

Ashton:

In addition to your two alternatives there are two others:

1. Surgery to the president's head (after his death)- postulated by David Lifton in Best Evidence and/or

2. Humpty Dumpty put back together again by a coroner. (Leggit) For this illuminating information see The Smoking Guns ( 1 hour)

on the Men Who Killed Kennedy. I have bumped the thread for your convenience.

Either way the autopsy photos are fakes and do not represent the president's post- mortem condition.

(In your alternative one above I am assuming by "faked" you mean the photos themselves, although you could also refer to the additional alternatives I have added. Just was not clear from your post. )

Dawn

Hi Dawn.

I've made no distinction as to how any of the visual evidence might or might not have been "faked." Whether it might have been by altering (or substituting) the body, or by altering images of the body, faked is faked. My usage of "faked" is inclusive, not exclusive, of any and all possible ways of faking the visual evidence. If you, for your conclusion, wish to postulate major cosmetic alteration to, or even substitution of, the body itself for the purpose of taking photos at the autopsy, I wouldn't assay to deny you your right to rely on such a belief.

Either way the autopsy photos are fakes and do not represent the president's post- mortem condition.

Okay. That's a conclusion I don't reach to. I take it you then include the film images I've posted, as well, being faked to eliminate any visual indication of a large hole the way testimony describes it as being in the back right of Kennedy's head.

Ashton

[John Kennedy White]

Ashton:

That nasty version of Z:321 that you posted appears to show a cavity in the area described by Dallas doctors.

Also, a shot from the front doesn't preclude a shot striking the rear of the head almost simultaneously, which some have theorized.

Geez... ugly language in your retort to my post... you not sleeping nights?

P.S.: Glad you saw the humour in the use of framidence. Use at your leisure.

[Bill Miller]

I take it you then include the film images I've posted, as well, being faked to eliminate any visual indication of a large hole the way testimony describes it as being in the back right of Kennedy's head.

Ashton

Ashton, you are using MPI frames that have been digitally done and through a process of filters has caused an already motion blurred piece of film to be even fuzzier. The aquiring of knowledge is the key to solving any problem, so why are you refusing to at least aquire some knowledge about the effects of motion blur in conjuntion with an old type amateur camera like Zapruder used?

Bill Miller

[Richard J. Smith]

Sounds as if Ashton needs to get a copy of In the Eye of History. He should read Jim Sibert say how he was a foot away from JFK's head at the autopsy, and described the large gaping hole in the back of the head.

So, Smitty, let me make sure I understand you completely: if, arguendo, there was a government conspiracy, veteran FBI agent Jim Sibert —who was sent by the federal government to be in attendance on the body when it arrived in D.C.—is above suspicion for complicity. Is that your position? That seems to be your position.

And what "Ashton needs to" do is understand this thoroughly. Is that right?

Sibert, he was standing right there, and said of the wound "it was this big":

Indeed.

Ashton Gray

Forgive my answering a question with a question, but how in the world can you even consider that the government or entities thereof, would put out a false story that there was a large avulsive wound in the REAR of the head, when they were hell bent on proving that LHO did the deed by firing 3 shots from behind?

You should really read what you write, and see how totally absurd that is. To say that these 30+ witnesses, doctors, nurses, a mortician, autopsy techs, 2 FBI agents, at least one Secret Service agent(Clint Hill), and a partridge in a pear tree lied and/or were coerced is even more absurd.

To dump fuel on the fire, Sibert also said the bullet that entered the back(note not back of the neck) did not traverse the body, and the SBT was a load of crap. His reaction to William Law's question about Arlen Specter was "what a xxxx". Why would he say that if he was directed to give information confirming that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin? What Sibert(and the others) said was the exact opposite.

You certainly have a flair for words, Ashie, but what you say is totally contrary to what the WC and the government was trying to do. You are your own worst enemy, so keep talking. The hole you're digging is getting deeper.

RJS

[Bill Miller]

Ashton, you are using MPI frames that have been digitally done and through a process of filters has caused an already motion blurred piece of film to be even fuzzier. The aquiring of knowledge is the key to solving any problem, so why are you refusing to at least aquire some knowledge about the effects of motion blur in conjuntion with an old type amateur camera like Zapruder used?

Bill Miller

The license plates on the limo were in plain view and not obstructed by hair. I ask Ashton to read the large numbers on that plate from the frame crop below. I then ask after he finds that it is not possible, may he then explain why it is he thinks the Zapruder film should show enough clarity to see a wound through all that hair that is outstretched on the back of JFK's head?

Bill Miller

Edited December 30, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I take it you then include the film images I've posted, as well, being faked to eliminate any visual indication of a large hole the way testimony describes it as being in the back right of Kennedy's head.

Ashton

Ashton, you are using MPI frames that have been digitally done and through a process of filters has caused an already motion blurred piece of film to be even fuzzier. The aquiring of knowledge is the key to solving any problem, so why are you refusing to at least aquire some knowledge about the effects of motion blur in conjuntion with an old type amateur camera like Zapruder used?

Bill Miller

dgh: What filters were used? What does motion blur have to do with the type of camera Zapruder used? Soon I'll start calling for the varsity to get in here....

Edited December 30, 2006 by David G. Healy