Jump to content
The Education Forum

Where is the massive back head wound?


Recommended Posts

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

Ashton:

I take no position on how the autopsy pics were faked, just that they are. No I do not include the film images. The film shows the president's head being blown open. And it is at the SIDE not the back of the head, but I am certain the hole could be seen even from the back if the photos were authentic. But they are not,imo.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

perhaps you can tell us what "motion blur you see in this image. I can assure you this is closer to the alleged in-camera original than anything else posted on this board.... foreground in-focus, background definitley in-focus, limo on Elm Street out of focus.... is it any wonder why you can't read the license plate? btw, those folks up towards Huston look pretty good, don't they? image info:

640x480 75% JPEG derived from a .tiff 40 meg image

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I had the opportunity to meet Jim Sibert and speak with him extensively six or seven years ago. Of course at that time, he was up in years, retired, and living in relative obscurity. In speaking to him privately it was clear he harbored obvious contempt for Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford and the SBT. Still, he believed Oswald to be a lone assassin. I do think Sibert became more open to the possibility of conspiracy after William Matson Law gave him several books to read.

To me, Sibert seemed sharp of mind, and clear in his recollections. Outside of the autopsy room, his most recurring memory was the visual of tens of thousands of people lining the streets, many waving white handkerchiefs and weeping as they witnessed the motorcade transporting the late President from Andrews to Bethesda. (If indeed President Kennedy's corpse was in the casket being transported)

If Jim Sibert was in any way responsible for complicity in the coverup at Bethesda it would be counter to anything I know about human nature. If he was complicit, he sure fooled me. And he fooled William Matson Law, an author and seeker of truth that spent many more hours with Sibert than I ever did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashton:

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

Okay. I understand that you see something you can interpret that way in one frame. That's why I posted eight frames together. I consider that the changing light on his hair in the eight frames, and the various positions of Jacquie's white-gloved hand on the back of his head not only argue strongly for there being no such massive hole in the back right of his head, but absolutely preclude the possibility—entirely consistent with the autopsy photos of the back of the head.

But that's just what I see.

Whatever anyone sees or does not see in the visual evidence, it doesn't alter the fundamental principle at work: either the visual evidence is fraudulent, or the testimony about the large hole in the back of the head is fraudulent.

Both can't be true.

Also, a shot from the front doesn't preclude a shot striking the rear of the head almost simultaneously, which some have theorized.
I haven't argued against it. You won't find me arguing for it, either. In fact, this "theory" condenses the entire disinformation psy-op surrounding this issue completely into one tight little snarled ball of confusion and opposition (literally and figuratively). If that seems at all sphinxlike, I'll discuss it further in a little while, after both sides of the manufactured dichotomy are done using me for rhetorical target practice here in this thread (as I expected when I started it—and there's a major clue).
Geez... ugly language in your retort to my post... you not sleeping nights?

:)

I went back to see what you could be talking about. If you meant my "I hate jerks who answer real questions with questions," I was only poking myself in the eye in set-up for the string of questions I was about to "answer" you with. If you thought for a moment I was poking you in the eye, I'm really sorry for having written it so sloppily. I guess it was a Kerry joke moment. Absolutely not directed at you at all.

Ashton

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

David, we have been through the MPI process once before over the Life Magazine images. Also, Zaparuder's camera wasn't made for high speed filming - if it was then we'd see the bone plate coming off the top of the President's head or better yet - the bullets flying through the air, so don't waste my time. As far as the varsity goes .. when they get here I will show them a couple of your post where you claimed not have seen any evidence of alteration and how even a 1st generation copy can be recognized compared to the in-camera original. i'm sure they'll have some questions for YOU!

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

David, we have been through the MPI process once before over the Life Magazine images. Also, Zaparuder's camera wasn't made for high speed filming - if it was then we'd see the bone plate coming off the top of the President's head or better yet - the bullets flying through the air, so don't waste my time. As far as the varsity goes .. when they get here I will show them a couple of your post where you claimed not have seen any evidence of alteration and how even a 1st generation copy can be recognized compared to the in-camera original. i'm sure they'll have some questions for YOU!

Bill Miller

Bill if you knew what you were talking about concerning "motion blur" this would be painfully obvious to you.... We're indeed laughing.... I'm STILL waiting for the varsity....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites
perhaps you can tell us what "motion blur you see in this image. I can assure you this is closer to the alleged in-camera original than anything else posted on this board.... foreground in-focus, background definitley in-focus, limo on Elm Street out of focus.... is it any wonder why you can't read the license plate? btw, those folks alway the way up towards Huston look pretty good, don't they? image info:

640x480 75% JPEG derived from a .tiff 40 meg image

In your attempt to try and play the forum xxxxx once again - you have actually made my point. JFK and his head wound were always in motion just as the limo was and that is where the motion blur comes in. Any idiot should know that stationary objects will appear somewhat sharp if the camera doesn't move causing panning blur. Can you read that license plate or tell anything about the design on the headlamps or grill in your frame - of course you can't. Back to the type of camera and film Zapruder used ... what can you tell me about JFK's expression in your frame ... is he smiling, is he frowning, are his eyes open - what? How about the faces on the stationary people along the south side of Elm Street?

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE:

Former FBI Agent Sibert shows how large the rear head wound was.

Ohhhhhh. <HEAD SMACK> And all along I had thought he was showing the size of the holes in his story.

Ashton

Why would an FBI agent who was present at the autopsy, come out against the official gov line, and say he wittnessed a large hole in the back of kennedy's head at Bethesda.

I'm not talking about the so called "mass halucination" the Parkland doctors are supposed to have had.

What does Sibert have to gain by saying such a thing. ?

By the way SARCASM doesn't cut it with me

Instead, you could have tried explained why you beleive his story has holes in it.

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE:

Former FBI Agent Sibert shows how large the rear head wound was.

Ohhhhhh. <HEAD SMACK> And all along I had thought he was showing the size of the holes in his story.

Ashton

Why would an FBI agent who was present at the autopsy, come out against the official gov line, and say he wittnessed a large hole in the back of kennedy's head at Bethesda.

The purported large hole in the back of Kennedy's head is and at all relevant times was the official government line; it was the primary constant in the testimony collected by Specter for the Warren Commission. This is one element of this discussion that anybody will have to concede is amusing: the idea that this "giant hole in the back of the head" story originated somewhere else. No: it was little Darlin' Arlen trotting around (alone) collecting it up. (I guess the rest of the commission investigating the assassination of the President of the United States just couldn't be bothered to be present at the time.)

And guess who, of the Warren Commission, is on record as having viewed the autopsy photos.

By the way SARCASM doesn't cut it with me
At the top of your message I was replying to was in all caps "QUOTE." Were you quoting yourself? If not, where do you think the sarcasm was directed?
Instead, you could have tried explained why you beleive his story has holes in it.

Believe me, I'm going to. And I don't just believe it: I know it.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller' wrote:

In your attempt to try and play the forum xxxxx once again - you have actually made my point. JFK and his head wound were always in motion just as the limo was and that is where the motion blur comes in. Any idiot should know that stationary objects will appear somewhat sharp if the camera doesn't move causing panning blur. Can you read that license plate or tell anything about the design on the headlamps or grill in your frame - of course you can't. Back to the type of camera and film Zapruder used ... what can you tell me about JFK's expression in your frame ... is he smiling, is he frowning, are his eyes open - what? How about the faces on the stationary people along the south side of Elm Street?

Bill Miller

************

dgh: Back to the camera and film? LMAO.... You're going to tell all of us motion blur is caused by the camera and film used? Yes or NO?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites
dgh: Back to the camera and film? LMAO.... You're going to tell all of us motion blur is caused by the camera and film used? Yes or NO?

No, David ... that is not what I said. The moving limo is what caused the 'motion blur'. The Zapruder camera was not designed and the film he used was not designed for high-speed photography. Maybe you should wait for the varsity reading team so to help you understand my responses better.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites
The purported large hole in the back of Kennedy's head is and at all relevant times was the official government line; it was the primary constant in the testimony collected by Specter for the Warren Commission.

You must not have ever read even the report - have you. Go look at the exhibits they used in their evidence and show me where the large hole is on the back of the head. The Dallas doctors threw in the information about the large hole and Specter most always hurried away from it by asking about a small hole that no one saw. I do not recall a single time where Specter actually probed into this large wound the doctors spoke of. Guinn (with the AARB) made mention that when the doctors mentioned the large hole in the back of the head - Specter stated that it was in the top of the head. That was part of the reason that the AARB wanted to settle the matter once and for all.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE:

The purported large hole in the back of Kennedy's head is and at all relevant times was the official government line; it was the primary constant in the testimony collected by Specter for the Warren Commission. This is one element of this discussion that anybody will have to concede is amusing: the idea that this "giant hole in the back of the head" story originated somewhere else. No: it was little Darlin' Arlen trotting around (alone) collecting it up. (I guess the rest of the commission investigating the assassination of the President of the United States just couldn't be bothered to be present at the time.)

And guess who, of the Warren Commission, is on record as having viewed the autopsy photos.

Ashton.

I have spent days reading the online reports WC, HSCA, and ARRB

I don't ever recall specter reffering to a large hole in the back of JFK'S head. ?

It is also my understanding that Specter did not see the autopsy photo's.

Specter HSCA testimony.

Mr. KLEIN. You also testified that you did not have an opportunity to review the photographs and the X-rays pertaining to the President's wounds?

Mr. SPECTER. I certainly have.

Mr. KLEIN. Could you explain the reasons given to you as to why you could not view those X-rays and photographs?

Mr. SPECTER. I do not know here again that anybody ever said what the reasons were. I do know that I wanted to see them and there is a memorandum, which I just looked at this morning, which I am very delighted to see in the files, about my pressing to see it.

Reconstructing the reasons as best I can at this point, I believe it was, and I have said this publicly before, an attitude on the part of the Kennedy family that it might be possible that the photographs and X-rays would get into the public domain and the photographs would defile the memory and image of President Kennedy as a vibrant young leader and it would be ghoulish to show him in the picture with half his head blown off. That was the reason why I was not permitted to see them, as a speculation or a feel for the situation. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that these documents be marked as committee exhibits.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hscspec.htm

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...