SOME CONSPIRACIST SAID:
I never said the photos were altered. If you wish, you might say that the
unaltered photos don't comport with each other. They disagree with each
other mightily, however. In fact, they disagree in a way that makes them
OPPOSITES of each other in the area of the RIGHT FOREHEAD. One conclusion
would be that there was TAMPERING of the evidence. Do you have any other
answer that would explain the opposite evidence presented by the two photos?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Conspiracy theorists think that if every last thing isn't explained to
their perfect satisfaction, it means that something suspicious or
shady was taking place with respect to JFK's body, and his autopsy,
and the wounds, and the bullets, and Oswald, and the guns, and the
cops....everything.
But that's an approach to take only if you never want to accept ANY of
the evidence (or very little of it anyway) as being firm proof of any
conclusion in a large double-murder case that has a lot of evidence
attached to it, like the JFK/Tippit case does. Because there are bound
to be discrepancies in the record...and even in some pictures and films.
Take, for example, the "Chaney Isn't In The Right Position" discrepancy
in the Altgens and Zapruder images. Many CT-Kooks like to look sideways
at the Z-Film (or the Altgens picture) because of the anomaly that appears
in the Altgens photo regarding the position of James Chaney's motorcycle,
with some CTers actually favoring the notion that this discrepancy is proof
that the Z-Film is a fake. It's just nonsense, of course. Those kooks fail to
account for the differing angles of the two images. Altgens' perspective is
totally different from that of Zapruder, and we're getting a look at that
different perspective in Altgens' picture, naturally.
But that's just one example of how the CTers of the world willingly
and anxiously jump all over a slight photographic anomaly (or a
seeming discrepancy) and then immediately run to their soapbox to
shout out that a picture or film MUST be a fraud, because they can't
interpret what they're seeing correctly.*
I think much the same thing applies to "awthraw's" argument about
JFK's "missing forehead". Via the autopsy photos, JFK's forehead
appears to be mostly intact and undamaged.
And since we know that both the pictures and the X-rays were taken
during JFK's autopsy...on the same night of 11/22/63...at just about
the same general time (give or take)...and since we know that NONE of
those photographic materials (pictures and X-rays) have been "monkeyed
around with" (i.e., they are unaltered pictures of the dead JFK
himself)...and since we know that all 3 autopsy doctors declared that
JFK was shot by just two bullets, both coming from behind...then what
other conclusion can a reasonable person reach with respect to the
death of President Kennedy, other than to conclude that he was struck
ONLY FROM BEHIND by two and only two bullets in Dealey Plaza?
I have no "official" explanation for the A-P X-ray. But since I know
that NONE of the autopsy pictures or X-rays are phonies or fakes, I
can be quite confident of the fact that SOME reasonable and non-
conspiratorial explanation DOES exist with respect to ANY photographic
discrepancy that might crop up regarding the autopsy photos and X-rays
of John F. Kennedy -- even if I, myself, do not know what that
reasonable explanation is.
* = Along similar lines, I also can't make head nor tail out of the
"F8" autopsy photo (and I've admitted as much several times; that
picture is a mess and is, IMO, totally worthless as definitive evidence).
But I've never once suggested that F8 was a "fake" or that it has been
"altered" in some way (even when kooks like Gil Jesus prop up that very
photo as "proof" that JFK was shot in the head from the front).
I don't think for a minute that ANY of the official evidence is fake
in this case. IMO, that's just a stupid belief. It's merely a crutch
utilized by CTers who have got nothing else to use as ammunition to
combat the mile-high pile of "It Was Only Oswald" evidence in this
double-murder case.
David Von Pein
November 27, 2008
