Post by Steve M. GalbraithPost by Ace KeffordPost by Jason BurkePost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by Amy JoyceMost of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Chris
So parts is fake and parts is real.
Good thing we have Chris to sort all of this out for us.
The alterationists have a great thing going. Not only do they get to pick
and choose what evidence is real and what evidence is altered based on no
objective criteria but simply on what they want to believe is real or
altered, but also which parts of the otherwise real evidence are altered.
And then of course comes the next step of "interpreting" the evidence that
they claim is not altered.
Finally, although I might be skipping some steps, is making up a fanciful
story that covers all of their interpretations of their favored evidence
or parts of evidence no matter how unlikely or more often impossible that
story is in the real world, while of course omitting the mountains of
evidence that show their tale does not reflect reality.
Yes, that's exactly how they approach it. Not all; but the general
approach is to follow that pattern. This is how conspiracists approach
every event, not just the JFK assassination. It's the same pattern with
9/11 and Pearl Harbor (e.g., the claim that FDR allowed it to happen), et
cetera.
As a proud CT, I'm here to put that falsity to bed. I found that the
white blob in the photo in question was Jackie's glove.
Post by Steve M. GalbraithHumes is both a conspirator - he altered the wounds - and someone who
revealed the conspiracy - he was heard mentioning the surgery (that he
performed!) on the head.
I'll have to clear up your errors here too. Humes was NOT a
conspirator. He was a military person that HAD to follow orders, as long
as he was given a good excuse for them, and there is such an excuse. He
also did NOT "reveal" any conspiracy, he simply tried half jokingly to
distance himself from the work he had done himself, so that the
clandestine work wouldn't be obvious. Either he got away with it, or no
one called him on it.
Post by Steve M. GalbraithThe x-rays and photos are faked but they reveal
the frontal shot.
Yet another error! Many of the 'leaked' autopsy photos were OBVIOUSLY
faked or altered to fool the onlookers. The bullet hole that got through
in one photo was missed by the person filtering the photos and X-rays to
remove any proofs of plotting or multiple shooters. Surely when hiding
proof of multiple shooters that photo would have been left out or altered
too, but it wasn't because it was missed. Even the medical panels missed
that evidence.
Post by Steve M. GalbraithThe FBI covered things up but also revealed in the
Sibert/O'Neill report that same conspiracy that altered the wounds.
There were many individuals in the FBI in Dallas on this case. Some
were involved in covering up any sign of multiple shooters. Sibert and
O'Neill were not covering up any such situations. They reported what they
saw and heard, as best we can tell.
Post by Steve M. GalbraithThe Z
film shows a shot from the front but also shows alteration; it's both
legitimate and illegitimate.
How did you determine that the Z-film shows a frontal shot? The
'official' report says it was from behind. And the film does indeed show
alteration, frames missing at the critical point so the slowdown to almost
a stop doesn't show as obviously, and changes in the stances of some of
the people on the midfield grass. Did you bother to check the evidence
videos of these proofs? Doubtful. Here they are again for you:
Post by Steve M. GalbraithUp is up but also, when needed, down; and down is down but also, when
necessary, up.
The usual opinions that count for nothing. Use evidence and proofs.
Choose an example and speak to it, not in general, which is a method to
avoid being argued with.
Chris