To be fair to Morningstar, when he wrote his blog is there were people arguing over the conflicting JFK autopsy photos available on the internet. That Tippet's and Kennedy's both found their way onto the web, and were both presented as JFK was a neat solution.
There are no conflicting JFK autopsy photos. If you believe so, let's discuss. Present a link to the supposed conflicting photos, and explicate what's in conflict.
Tippit's wounds were argued to have been presented by conspirators as JFK's wounds by Morningstar, not from any Tippit autopsy photographs, but from the Tippit autopsy report. He claimed to have noticed a supposed similarity in the wounds, but there is no such similarity:
Here's what Morningstar said:
"While studying the entry wound diagrams by Dr. Rose, I saw a remarkable similarity between Dr. Rose's Tippit diagrams and the wound I perceived in the purported JFK lateral x-ray. I realized that the lateral x-ray purported to be that of the late President might in fact be that of Officer J. D. Tippit."
See the entry wound diagram at this page for Tippit's head wound:
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=17710
JFK had the entire top of his head removed by a bullet that created an entry wound in the back of the head (according to his autopsy report, and his autopsy x-rays and photos), and then exited the right top of his skull. Tippit had an entry wound at the temple, the bullet did not exit, and his skull was intact. There is no similarity in the wounds, other than what Morningstar imagines.
It is the same old conspiracy theorist conjecture, presented as fact.
Morningstar is arguing that Tippit's autopsy photo was switched by conspirators and presented as JFK's in a deliberate attempt to mislead, but he presents no evidence of that.
If the reality was more a case of CT's wanting to see medical evidence that better matched their claim, than any deliberate conspiracy to switch the two.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Not sure if the "If" in your quoted sentence above is necessary; and if it's removed, I agree to an extent... Morningstar was simply presenting Tippit's autopsy diagrams and arguing that Tippit's wounds could have been presented as JFK's, but he presents no evidence that's the case, and he finds "similarities" in the wounds that simply don't exist in an effort to support his arguments.
It was Robert Ramsey, of the Fortean Times and the Lobster magazines who first (to my knowledge) worked out what Morningstar had stumbled on, in the mainstream(ish) media, and did give Morningstar credit.
I'm confused.... What exactly do you think Morningstar stumbled upon, except assuming what he needed to prove -- that Tippit's autopsy photos were falsely being represented as JFK's?
Hank
