“Super-enhancing” any photo is just going to blow up into a grainy mess that can be interpeted as anything you want. I have yet to see any such photo that “clearly show a hidden sniper”. Such things are often worse than seeing faces in clouds.
Buffs have been blowing up photos for some time and seeing what they want to see, but not what is actually there.
Some of those “buffs” work for the FBI and use a digital enhancement technique for investigative purposes.
I saw and interview with Oswald’s brother this morning. He said that Oswald did it for the attention. So…why did Oswald deny doing it? I wasn’t impressed.
Thanks for the heads up, Tom. I will be particularly interested in what the Jennings program may have to say.
Much of the information that I have shared with you is from the multi-hour series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. I believe that it was shown on Bravo. Each year they seem to add information as more is released to the public. I’ve watched, I think, about nine hours of it this week. As I mentioned before, it also comes from a forty year interest in the subject as I have watched it unfold before me.
Although I neither believe nor disbelieve the theories presented in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, the facts themselves are fascinating.
Eye-witness confusion under the stress of the moment is a little different than a doctor’s observations about entrance and exit wounds. And it is also different than misremembering that someone took your film or your camera while holding you at gunpoint or identifying themselves as with the government.
I doubt that an unreliable doctor would have been allowed anywhere near the President of the United States.
There can be an excuse to explain every little inconsistency. But when there are a thousand inconsistencies – nothing explains that.
I don’t think it is about Oswald. That’s my point. I think there is much we don’t know that has nothing to do with Oswald. And I believe that you are mistaken if you think that the Kennedy family is the only one who has sealed the records. That’s not what we were told in the 1960’s.
I think that his privacy and his public image have been fairly thoroughly explored and exposed compared to what it was forty years ago. I guess there could be more revelations. But at the time of his death, we didn’t know that he didn’t have the perfect marriage, that he cheated on Jackie, that he had any ties to the Mafia or that he was in constant pain which required a great deal of physician perscribed medication. We did know that he had a bad back.
Friday and Sunday nights – depending on which network you listen to – tapes that were made by Robert Kennedy are going to be played for the first time. They were made shortly after the assassination for the purpose of enlightening the public on some issues at some point in the future. According to the Today show, they have been in the possession of Ethel Kennedy who has decided that this would be an appropriate time to release them.
I don’t expect any major revelations that haven’t already been discovered. But I think we would have been surprised back then. But who knows?
These autopsy photos of Kennedy show his face intact and clearly identifiable. Warning, these are very graphic:
The original autopsy photos are in the movie JFK. They have also been shown two or three times this week on television. Since you live in Dallas, I would think that you would be familiar with both the photos and the film.
If the photo that you have is of JFK, it is of the right back quarter of his head.
I find the “information” that you are providing to be disingenuous and encourage anyone seriously interested in exploring the truth – one way or another – to read for themselves from other sources.
Mr. Miskatonic: I did not find this woman believable either in previous years and I don’t even remember if she was included in this years screening of the series. She was not one that I was referring to. Thanks!
That may be true now, but there was a time when pretty much all of us bought the Warren Report hook, line and sinker. When someone presents misinformation such as bogus autopsy photographs, it is important to show the real thing.
Sorry, the links didn’t take. I hope these do. If not, I will post them manually:
(Again, a warning. Very graphic:)
Dman. No smiley intended at all.
On the “History Channel” all week they have showing the Kennedy shooting. It is well documented with plenty of new evidence and new scientific studies. If you miss it you can buy the tapes from thehistorychannel.com.
I believe this presentation is the most accurate I have seen. I was listening to the radio at the time it happened and heard the interviews. I will never believe the Warren report, it made no sense to me.
I believe it was ordered by LBJ.
Incidentally, for skeptics most are very gullible.
Love
It’s the right side of his forehead. I believe that’s his right eyebrow at the bottom center of the picture, trailing off to the left/
Tea leaves, clouds, and wishful thinking.
Incidentally, I think I found the other person who claims to have had his film confiscated. Somebody above already debunked Beverly Oliver’s story. It should come as no surprise that the guy interviewed on THWKK, Gordon Arnold, is also a faker.
As is to be expected, given that he wasn’t shot through the face. And that first photo you link to shows the head wound fairly clearly, even under the mass of bloody hair. (It’s the star-shaped pattern, near where the scalp meets the forehead.)
I assure you, this is not the case. Note in particular how the sharp edges of the wound in my photo correspond with the sharp edges of your photo.
Still don’t believe me? Okay, let’s go with the photos off the other page you linked to (even though it’s a hideously misleading collection that focuses on the untouched left side of the head, photos with “scalp pulled to the left” to cover the large head wound, and photos that have nothing to do with the head wound.) Here you can see the doctor holding up Kennedy’s head by sticking his thumb in the head wound. Here is an xray showing the wound to be exactly where I said it was. And another here.
And I find you to be in serious denial of reality and easily swayed by any damn fool thing some nut puts on television, no matter how incredible. But we really don’t need to go into name-calling, do we? Let’s stick with the evidence, please.
The Men Who Killed Kennedy (which originally premiered on The History Channel ironically enough) was one of the most inaccurate, pandering pieces of misinformation I have ever seen.
Did any of you guys catch that Forensic Files thing last night?Amazing!They went through each of the major conspiracy theoriist arguments one by one investigating the claims with the latest technology and found and proved conclusively that:
1)The Single Bullet Theory IS consistent with the wounds sustained by Connelly and JFK.
2)There was no assassin behind the grassy knoll and even if there had been he would had a LOS that would have only enabled a shot to the right side of JFK’s head/face. There were of course no such entry wounds on JFK.
3)There were not four shots fired, only three and the tape that certain “investigators” claimed(from a mic in the motorcade cops) captured four shots not only contained NO gunfire but was actually from several minutes AFTER the assassination took place when they were securing the TBD.
4)The doctors who did the original examination on JFK had never dealt with such a thing before and had no clue about gun-shot wounds etc…This is where a lot of the conspiracy theorists get the fuel for their nonsense and explains why there was some initial confusion about entry wounds and such. Contrary to what ZOE asserted earlier, they did indeed have less than competent doctors working on the Pres. but this is really not THAT incredible considering the time(40 years ago) and circumstances(how often is a president gunned down up to that point anyway?). SUbsequent autoposies performed by competent M.E>s would confirm the Warren commission’s findings.
Remember if a show like the FOrensic files has ANY agenda it would be to make the conspiracy theorists happy since they make up the vast majority of Americans(especially people who get their JFK info from TV/movies) so why would they spend time, money “covering up” some dark conspiracy when this would run contrary to their agenda(which is ratings)? And to go to all that trouble of recreating the shots fired to demonstrate that the bullets from teh Manlicher Carcanno would behave just as they did according to the SBT? They could have just put out a poorly researched bunch of hooey that cost them next to nothing and their audience would have been happy so long as it alleged a massive cover-up.
You guys really need to visit the McAdams site that Minty keeps linking to. You keep bringing up crap that is thoroughly refuted all in one convenient place for you and the details are all laid out so if you find something fishy you can easily counter it right?
Last night on (IIRC) TLC, they had another program on the assasination where they re-created the whole damned thing, with an army sharpshooter and the same rifle and everything. Outside of the crappy rifle jamming about 20% of the time, their shooter consistently nailed Oswald’s shots in the time allotted. I’d read about other re-creations, but it was pretty illuminating to actually see them done.
They also timed the walk down to the TSBD’s lunchroom, destroying Stone’s notion that Oswald would have had to run down there, and timed Oswald’s walk to where a police officer was murdered later that day.
Both JFK and Robert Kennedy were staunch anti-communists and it was continued pressure applied by the Kennedys that got us into Viet Nam. Kennedy often expressed that anyone not in support of the war in Viet Nam was not a patriot(remind you of anyone?). JFK ran as a conservative Democrat and said he had more in common, politically with Richard Nixon than anyone in his party. He was also no friend to the civil rights movement. You can read all about it at the McAdams site.
Minty, you are a real piece of work. The anonymity of the Internet has saved you a lot of orthodontia work, hasn’t it. Proof by obnoxious assertion. Are you by any chance a Fundamentalist?
For every expert who says the fragments left in Connally were too little, there is one who says there is too much. One doctor says there were autopsy irregularities, another says it was standard.
But YOU know the truth. You dismiss Marina Oswald’s comments right after the assassination and deMohrenshildt’s from much later comments (or is it the other way around?) I have no doubt that some people lied or were intimidated. But you believe what you want. (See, I do not care what you believe.)
Jump up and down, scream, rant, rage that you know what happened and why won’t everybody believe you BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE PROOF AND THERE ARE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
Tell you what, PROVE that Oswald owned the Mannlicher, (not assert, not quote, prove) and we skeptics will have one less question.
I am not sure if I have heard this before but since the “Magic Bullet” is so undeformed, has there been a ballistic match of it to the Mannlicher?
Minty, from previous posts you seem to be an attorney. That comes as no surprise to me whatsoever.
Oh goodness, some random nut on the internet is making poorly-veiled allusions to knocking my teeth out. The horror! The horror!
By the post, I’m guessing you’re declining, once again, to put the motherfucking evidence on the table?
mipsman, we’ve named experts who say the fragments in Connally were small enough to have come from CE399. You say there are experts who say otherwise. Can you name one?
What doctor says there were autopsy irregularities?
And you keep saying there are “UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.” What are they? We’ve asked more than once.
Oh, and since you did manage to ask two legitimate questions in that ignorant little post of yours:
His palmprint was on the rifle barel. He purchased it using his known alias of A. Hidell and his personal P.O. box, rented under his own name. His handwriting was identified on the order coupon, the envelope, and the money order. His handwriting was identified on the post office box application and the change-of-address card forwarding his mail from New Orleans. The handgun he was carrying when arrested–the same gun he used to shoot Officer Tippett–was also purchased under the Hidell alias. He was photographed by Marina while holding the rifle. Marine confirmed she took the photographs, and that the rifle belonged to Lee. Marina confirmed that Lee kept it rolled up in a blanket in Ruth Paine’s garage. Ruth and Michael Paine both confirmed that the blanket bundle had been kept in Ruth’s garage. Police officers at Ruth Paine’s house discovered several hours after the assassination that the blanket bundle was empty. Fibers from Oswald’s shirt were found on the rifle.
Happy?
Whether you choose to accept those established facts is your own business. Of course, whether you choose to accept that the sky is blue is also your own business. But I wouldn’t go shouting all over the place that the sky is neon green, because you’ll look like an idiot doing it.
Yes. And the fact that you either didn’t know that basic fact, or couldn’t even be bothered to find out, does wonders for you gullibility.
Minty, why would you choose to show a post-autopsy photo of Kennedy’s face?
As strange as it may seem, back in the dark ages of the early 1960’s, doctors could distinguish between entrance wounds and exit wounds. (It wasn’t just Presidents who got shot by rifles in Texas.)
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t know who conspired to kill him or why. I have no trouble acknowledging that Oswald shot him. But he wasn’t the only one. I don’t even know if Oswald knew there would be anyone else.
The two hour Peter Jennings program did not address any of the reservations that I have and underscored some of the objections to the lone gunman theory. I do find it interesting that they claimed that Johnson went to his grave believing that there was a conspiracy. (I don’t know that I agree that Johnson thought that.)
As I said earlier, most of my information has come from a forty year interest. The particular cite that I gave for certain information was the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. I have certainly not been limited by that program only, but it does present a variety of opinions and many interviews with those involved including the doctors.
CurtC, I will see if I can find a link to what the doctors in Dallas had to say.
reliable and diversified cite?
I never heard JFK make any such claim and unlike our current President, he held frequent press conferences. Can you provide a sound clip or a reliable cite for such an accusation? You are giving skeptics a bad name.
I did hear RFK speak on Vietnam in person and he was certainly in support of total withdrawal.
BTW, Minty Green, judging from an earlier comment you made, I take it that you never read McNamara’s more recent confessions that he lied about the war in Vietnam.
I have not resorted to namecalling. Would you provide a evidence for that accusation, please? Namecalling is not permitted in Great Debates. Your posts continue to be disingenuous in their claims and this is another example.
CurtC, what I saw on television was a face to face interview with one of the doctors and a film of another doctor making the announcement to the press.
However, for what it’s worth, here is a link to the Warren Report’s testimonies from various doctors and nurses at Parkview in Dallas and from the doctors at Bethesda:
-Of course there are unanswered questions. As I already pointed out, this is not an Agatha Christie novel or a Sherlock Holmes short story.
There’s so-called evidence that’s purely irrelevant (like the three bums- whoa, homeless people near train tracks in a big city! Veeery suspicous!) claims that are wholly illogical (shooters firing from storm drains, an angle from which the shot would have been impossible) and reams of unsubstantiated, random and chaotic eyewitness reports from untrained observers looking the wrong way when it happened.
Goddam straight there’s unanswered questions. There’s unanswered questions about September 11th, but does that mean four airplanes were NOT hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists?
Not to change the subject, but is the Zapruder film available online anyplace for viewing? The frame-by-frame breakdowns are interesting and informative, but I’d like to see it and hear it realtime if it’s possible. I think ordering it on DVD would be silly…
Nevermind, I found it.
