Negative on that. You claimed they lied. You don't get out of establishing that here by posting a couple of links to conspirary theorist arguments I'm not going to bother to read.
If you can't be bothered to post the evidence here, I can't be bothered to rebut it.
Otherwise, you might want to read this and rebut it:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/contents.htm
What are you on about? The autopsy doctors and the photographer said they took views of the interior of the dissected body showing the damage to the right lung, as well as close-up views of the exterior and interior of the small wound in the scalp/skull. Those photographs are not in the collection today.
And you know that how? And you know what they show how?
Have you seen the entire collection so you can attest to what they show and what's missing?
And have you ever wondered why there are no photographs which clearly show the original head wound detailing the damage to the brain?
Same questions as above.
Plus, Saundra Pencer's testimonies have already confirmed that there once existed post-mortem photographs of Kennedy's body once it had been partially reconstructed by the autopsy doctors.
Her recollections from 33 years after the fact hardly *confirm* anything. Nobody's recollections would.
Then you have other stories, an x-ray of a probe going from the back to the throat, a photograph of probes going into the wounds on the body. Who knows.
"Stories" is a good name for this stuff. "Stories", as in "fish stories". You should've seen the photographs that got away.
You should know that Lattimer located the back wound way too high. The photographs and clothing evidence show that the back wound was slightly lower anatomically than the throat wound.
How should I know that? How do YOU know that? Enlighten us.
The HSCA determined the wound would be downward and hit Connally after exiting JFK's throat, did they not?
Lattimer determined the same thing, did he not?
The three autopsists determined the path was downward through JFK, did they not?
Didn't the HSCA determine, from the wound locations, that the sniper's nest was within the area from which the shots that struck JFK could have emanated?
You don't get around all this by claiming Lattimer misplaced the wound and claiming I should know this.
Wecht wrote it off as a minute fragment from a missile that entered the back and exited the throat. You should know that any fragment there couldn't be from that. This fragment needs more investigation.
How should I know that? How do YOU know that? Enlighten us.
For some people, all the evidence in the world isn't enough.
MicahJava, meet MichaJava. MicahJava, MicahJava.
Gary Cornwell of the HSCA that admitted 20 years later in his own book Real Answers that he coerced Humes and that he thought Humes was a lying prick trying to cover his ass for being wrong in the autopsy report.
Okay. That's an assertion by you about something Gary Cornwell supposedly said. Let's do this in order.
Quote EXACTLY (and source, including the specific page number) what Cornwell said.
And then, answer this: What's the evidence for this assertion by Cornwell? Got any? What confirms or corroborates it?
Please state your case based on any sampling of witness evidence for a loud gunshot before Zapruder frame 190.
No. You don't get to shift the burden of proof here. You need to establish your claims. I don't need to prove they are not true.
I think you're confusing witnesses describing large head shot.
Not in the least.
This is just your deflection from the points and evidence I cited that rebut your silly arguments.
For example, you argued the shot that hit the governor might have been silenced. I quoted Nelly Connally, seated beside the Governor, saying she heard the shot that hit the Governor. That established your 'silenced' weapon argument was nonsense. I also pointed out the bullet travels faster than sound, so the Governor not hearing the shot that wounded him was perfectly understandable, as his sensory system might have been a bit overloaded by the time the sound of the bullet arrived.
You also argued that the Governor said there was only a brief moment between the first and second shots. I quoted the Governor saying the entire assassination sequence was brief - and he defined brief as ten to twelve seconds.
I also pointed out you were contradicting an earlier assertion of yours where you claimed the last two shots were bunched, but now you're claiming the first two were bunched.
You also brought up that some witnesses thought the shots came from the knoll, but ignored all the rebuttal arguments I presented previously, including the fact that according to your own arguments, these witnesses (the vast majority of which thought ALL the shots came from the knoll) must be wrong, because you don't argue all the shots came from the knoll, but rather, you argue for multiple shooters in multiple locations.
You can pretend not to understand the rebuttal point, or you can ignore it until well after the cows come home and start filling your house with cow patties. But that won't make the rebuttal point go away.
NONE of this has anything to do with a head shot, and if you don't understand why, I am loss to help you understand.
Your dismissal of my points with this sentence (
"I think you're confusing witnesses describing large head shot") shows you're not serious about anything except prolonging the conversation, because you presented no rebuttal argument for any of my points whatsoever.
The witness evidence indicates that the last two out of three loud gunshots were closely bunched together, to the point that many apparently mistook the last two shots as only one shot.
Yet you quoted the Governor in all apparent seriousness as saying the first two were bunched to make another point. Why not try to reconcile your own arguments in your own head before you present them here?
And then try to explain how both your arguments can be true. And then admit if they can't, that you were wrong about one and tell us which one you were wrong about.
Hank
