This thread is once again becoming a prime example of why CTs fail to convince sceptics.
Are you a real sceptic?
Humans are not perfect. They make mistakes. But the CT always sees the sinister instead of inept, and sees good evidence as being too good.
And you are making things up as you go.
We have good evidence of LHO using false ID. So of course it was faked.
No, we have evidence of Oswald using the name, "A. Hidell/Alek Hidell" on a phony member chart of a phony chapter of the FPFC, on a post-box application in New Orleans, and, according to Army Intelligence, as an alias.
Beyond that we have three wallets found by the police after the murders of JFK and DPD J.D. Tippit. One found on the Tippit murder scene containing a false ID with the Name Alek Hidell and Oswalds picture. After that the DPD found a second wallet, this time in Oswalds pocket driving him to DPD HQ after arresting him at Texas Theater, also containing a false ID with the name, "Alek Hidell" and Oswalds picture and a proper ID with Oswalds picture and real name under it. After that they found a wallet in Marinas care at the Paines residence containing some 170 dollars but no ID at all.
Why all this wallets and ID's strewn around on critical junctures in Oswalds alleged whereabouts? And, which one is the real one?
If you can't explain the latent print lifted from the rifle,
It was an OLD print, easy to fake as I explained above.
1. Lets say that the shell casings belonged to the alleged murder weapon (CE-139), what difference does it make when there is no evidence of Oswald buying, owning, keeping, transport, or using it on the day of the murder?
2. There is no chain of custody on record for the three casings, and when asked to photograph and point out engraved initials from among others, DPD's Lt. Carl Day, NARA couldn't find any.
jump on a minor issues instead.
It is problems with
e v e r y s i n g l e i s s u e in this case. Everywhere you look.
Read too much into people looking down a barrel (or not),
This is a trivial matter? To see if the weapon suspected to have been used in the murder of the nations president, has been fired recently?
Define trivial.
or marks on the shell casings.
What?
It doesn't matter if the are other methodologies, or if other evidence was collected, look for innuendos of conspiracy that mean nothing.
This is not innuendo, it is the core physical evidence used to posthumously convict Oswald of the murder of JFK, and incidentally letting the real killers of the hook, still at large.
Apparently we should be suspicious of the autopsy photos because they don't match what some people think the doctors described,
You are severely misrepresenting the evidentiary record. The autopsy photos do not match any of the reports from the medical witnesses from three hospitals that day. Parkland-, Methodist- (Harper fragment) and Bethesda Naval Hospital. That includes the three pathologists who performed the autopsy.
A big gaping wound at the back/posterior/occipital/occipital-parietal of JFK's head. There is NO sign of this in any of the existing autopsy photos or x-ray photos.
Adding to this, there is convincing technical evidence presented by David Mantik which is now corroborated by another medical doctor, Michael Chesser. Both of them have independently performed measurements with densitometer on the x-rays at NARA and come to the same conclusion:
http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/
- There is evidence of a right frontal entry wound.
- The white patch is artificial, most likely added to obscure temporal/occipital skull defect +/- fragments.
- The 6.5 bright object is artificial, most likely added to implicate the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
- The "burn marks" do not appear consistent with burn marks. The proposed purpose is to obscure fragments or entry/exit wound in the right temporal vs occipital region.
- These images are not that difficult to interpret, unless the reviewer is blind to the possibility of tampering. There are thousands of individuals qualified to review them.
- The viewing of these images has been severely limited. I believe that viewing by a wider audience will reveal more of the truth that has been hidden for decades.
More proved tampering, shown by David Mantik and the "bright object". A peer reviewed article in KEI Journals (free download):
http://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177/78
THE JOHN F. KENNEDY AUTOPSY X-RAYS: THE SAGA OF THE LARGEST “METALLIC FRAGMENT”
or remembered years later?
Always go by the earliest testimony. Important rule of thumb.
No. We should be Suspicious of the photos if there is any evidence they were faked.
No. We should weigh the probabilities for each contradicting evidence being false or true. The art of tampering with photos is as old and trivial as the art of photography itself. In this case it's silly to deny the high probability of tampering. 100% proof? Of course not, but enough to demand that representatives of the public get access and settle the matter once and for all.
Exhumation, if necessary. Put him to rest.
As there is none, no artefact or feature to suggest fakery, then surely it is the photographs that prove what the doctors saw. The photos don't change over time, and are objective.
See above.
And guess what? If the wound was visible by standing at the head of the gurney, while JFK lay on his back, unmoved, it is because the wounds match the photographs. As it doesn't matter where you stand, unless you can see through the gurney, you weren't going to see the back of his head.
No, the wound was clearly visible when standing at the head of the gurney. From the sides, from the head and even from above. Read the testimonies.
There we have it rear portion, right of the head, reaching the occipital bone behind the ear. Just as the doctors described at the tine, as the autopsy described, and the photos show. Not as the CT needs to believe.
No you are tweaking the semantics. Read the testimonies.
That is the thing. You can complain Maria
Mari[n]a.
is not a reliable witness. But that does not change the photographs she took.
Self perpetuating logic. Closed loop.
Or the documents that support the purchase of the rifle.
No they do not. See above.
It is because human beings are not always reliable that we use other forms of evidence.
Yes we do know that. And?
We can not assume witnesses are perfect when they support a ct.
We do not operate in that silly manner, no.
You could have a thousand people seeing a rifle on the grassy knoll, smelling smoke, or hearing the shot. Unless you can provide evidence to support the claims, it is worthless. And unfortunately the dictabelt is flawed evidence. There was no bike to record the shot.
Arguments by solemn proclamations. Church of the Lone Assassin.
