Fake recording of "assassination" of King Aleksandar I. Karađorđević.

a reply to: NavyDoc

What similarities do you see in the facial structures of the two men, from the two different photos?

a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

How do you think people die from penetrating trauma? What do you think happens when someone has one ore more large holes poked in them? He was shot, he most definitely bled.

In addition the chauffer was also killed instantly, so there was more than one dead body in that car.

Interesting film, but not concrete proof that the King was not killed that day.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

How do you think people die from penetrating trauma? What do you think happens when someone has one ore more large holes poked in them? He was shot, he most definitely bled.

In addition the chauffer was also killed instantly, so there was more than one dead body in that car.

Interesting film, but not concrete proof that the King was not killed that day.

That is not what I asked you, and I think you are aware of it.
When I asked you about the evidence that Aleksandar bled out, I was thinking about the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE RECORDING, and only about that.
The reason why I asked you only about that, is because THE RECORDING IS THE OBJECT OF THE DEBATE!

There is no evidence in the recording that either of the two corpses had severe loss of blood.
Also, even if you are correct in your thesis that he had suffered severe loss of blood, he would still not have thinner cheeks.
When you mentioned the alleged connection between the thinner cheeks and the loss of blood, it became immediately clear to me, that you either don't have any idea what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.
Namely, when a body dies, not only that the body DOES NOT, lose in volume(becomes "thin"), BUT IT ACTUALLY INCREASES IN VOLUME!
www.pathologyoutlines.com...

But even if you are correct(you are actually not, but still...), you response is pretty stupid because ONE CORPSE HAS THINNER CHEEKS THAN THE OTHER!

So following your logic, one corpse has thinner cheeks then the other corps because of what exactly?

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

How do you think people die from penetrating trauma? What do you think happens when someone has one ore more large holes poked in them? He was shot, he most definitely bled.

In addition the chauffer was also killed instantly, so there was more than one dead body in that car.

Interesting film, but not concrete proof that the King was not killed that day.

That is not what I asked you, and I think you are aware of it.
When I asked you about the evidence that Aleksandar bled out, I was thinking about the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE RECORDING, and only about that.
The reason why I asked you only about that, is because THE RECORDING IS THE OBJECT OF THE DEBATE!

There is no evidence in the recording that either of the two corpses had severe loss of blood.
Also, even if you are correct in your thesis that he had suffered severe loss of blood, he would still not have thinner cheeks.
When you mentioned the alleged connection between the thinner cheeks and the loss of blood, it became immediately clear to me, that you either don't have any idea what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.
Namely, when a body dies, not only that the body DOES NOT, lose in volume(becomes "thin"), BUT IT ACTUALLY INCREASES IN VOLUME!
www.pathologyoutlines.com...

But even if you are correct(you are actually not, but still...), you response is pretty stupid because ONE CORPSE HAS THINNER CHEEKS THAN THE OTHER!

So following your logic, one corpse has thinner cheeks then the other corps because of what exactly?

First of all, stop with the all capitals thing. It makes you look like a hysterical person who is off his meds.

Secondly, I didn't say that he had thinner cheeks, I said that the pallor of death can make the cheeks appear thinner in a black and white photograph. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Thirdly, I've been polite in this discussion and I really don't see the need to call a person stupid or a liar simply for contributing to a discussion. Are you that unsure of your premise that you have to resort to insults when someone puts in potential alternate explanations?

And lastly, as a physician, I have seen a lot of people and a lot of gunshot wounds and death by gunshot wounds. If someone is shot so severely that they die in short order, they are going to lose a lot of blood. That's it. He was shot to death and thus, logically he bled. In addition, he died so that blood that remained in him would pool to the dependent parts of his body. Notice he was sitting/slouched against the seat...since he was dead the blood would have pooled into his legs, back, and buttocks. As one dies, this blood pools and a person freshly killed is going to look different than one who has been dead for several moments. Differences can be accounted for in the time of death after each photo was taken and the lividity of the tissues decreases with time after death increasing. That one photo was taken later than the first one can certainly account for the appearance of being slightly different...especially in a frame of 80 year old film.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

How do you think people die from penetrating trauma? What do you think happens when someone has one ore more large holes poked in them? He was shot, he most definitely bled.

In addition the chauffer was also killed instantly, so there was more than one dead body in that car.

Interesting film, but not concrete proof that the King was not killed that day.

That is not what I asked you, and I think you are aware of it.
When I asked you about the evidence that Aleksandar bled out, I was thinking about the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE RECORDING, and only about that.
The reason why I asked you only about that, is because THE RECORDING IS THE OBJECT OF THE DEBATE!

There is no evidence in the recording that either of the two corpses had severe loss of blood.
Also, even if you are correct in your thesis that he had suffered severe loss of blood, he would still not have thinner cheeks.
When you mentioned the alleged connection between the thinner cheeks and the loss of blood, it became immediately clear to me, that you either don't have any idea what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.
Namely, when a body dies, not only that the body DOES NOT, lose in volume(becomes "thin"), BUT IT ACTUALLY INCREASES IN VOLUME!
www.pathologyoutlines.com...

But even if you are correct(you are actually not, but still...), you response is pretty stupid because ONE CORPSE HAS THINNER CHEEKS THAN THE OTHER!

So following your logic, one corpse has thinner cheeks then the other corps because of what exactly?

First of all, stop with the all capitals thing. It makes you look like a hysterical person who is off his meds.

Secondly, I didn't say that he had thinner cheeks, I said that the pallor of death can make the cheeks appear thinner in a black and white photograph. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Thirdly, I've been polite in this discussion and I really don't see the need to call a person stupid or a liar simply for contributing to a discussion. Are you that unsure of your premise that you have to resort to insults when someone puts in potential alternate explanations?

And lastly, as a physician, I have seen a lot of people and a lot of gunshot wounds and death by gunshot wounds. If someone is shot so severely that they die in short order, they are going to lose a lot of blood. That's it. He was shot to death and thus, logically he bled. In addition, he died so that blood that remained in him would pool to the dependent parts of his body. Notice he was sitting/slouched against the seat...since he was dead the blood would have pooled into his legs, back, and buttocks. As one dies, this blood pools and a person freshly killed is going to look different than one who has been dead for several moments. Differences can be accounted for in the time of death after each photo was taken and the lividity of the tissues decreases with time after death increasing. That one photo was taken later than the first one can certainly account for the appearance of being slightly different...especially in a frame of 80 year old film.

WHETHER CAPITAL LETTERS BOTHER YOU OR NOT DOESN'T CONCERN ME.

But I do have a question for you.

fy538cddb0.png[/pic] ]

wp538cddb9.png[/pic]]

Why does the corpse in the second photo, have thinner cheeks?

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

How do you think people die from penetrating trauma? What do you think happens when someone has one ore more large holes poked in them? He was shot, he most definitely bled.

In addition the chauffer was also killed instantly, so there was more than one dead body in that car.

Interesting film, but not concrete proof that the King was not killed that day.

That is not what I asked you, and I think you are aware of it.
When I asked you about the evidence that Aleksandar bled out, I was thinking about the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE RECORDING, and only about that.
The reason why I asked you only about that, is because THE RECORDING IS THE OBJECT OF THE DEBATE!

There is no evidence in the recording that either of the two corpses had severe loss of blood.
Also, even if you are correct in your thesis that he had suffered severe loss of blood, he would still not have thinner cheeks.
When you mentioned the alleged connection between the thinner cheeks and the loss of blood, it became immediately clear to me, that you either don't have any idea what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.
Namely, when a body dies, not only that the body DOES NOT, lose in volume(becomes "thin"), BUT IT ACTUALLY INCREASES IN VOLUME!
www.pathologyoutlines.com...

But even if you are correct(you are actually not, but still...), you response is pretty stupid because ONE CORPSE HAS THINNER CHEEKS THAN THE OTHER!

So following your logic, one corpse has thinner cheeks then the other corps because of what exactly?

First of all, stop with the all capitals thing. It makes you look like a hysterical person who is off his meds.

Secondly, I didn't say that he had thinner cheeks, I said that the pallor of death can make the cheeks appear thinner in a black and white photograph. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Thirdly, I've been polite in this discussion and I really don't see the need to call a person stupid or a liar simply for contributing to a discussion. Are you that unsure of your premise that you have to resort to insults when someone puts in potential alternate explanations?

And lastly, as a physician, I have seen a lot of people and a lot of gunshot wounds and death by gunshot wounds. If someone is shot so severely that they die in short order, they are going to lose a lot of blood. That's it. He was shot to death and thus, logically he bled. In addition, he died so that blood that remained in him would pool to the dependent parts of his body. Notice he was sitting/slouched against the seat...since he was dead the blood would have pooled into his legs, back, and buttocks. As one dies, this blood pools and a person freshly killed is going to look different than one who has been dead for several moments. Differences can be accounted for in the time of death after each photo was taken and the lividity of the tissues decreases with time after death increasing. That one photo was taken later than the first one can certainly account for the appearance of being slightly different...especially in a frame of 80 year old film.

WHETHER CAPITAL LETTERS BOTHER YOU OR NOT DOESN'T CONCERN ME.

But I do have a question for you.

fy538cddb0.png[/pic] ]

wp538cddb9.png[/pic]]

Why does the corpse in the second photo, have thinner cheeks?

My you are a nice fellow.

As I have explained it to you, several times, the change in lividity (change in color) after death and after exsanguination can give the appearance of facial structures being thinner, especially in black and white photography.

Look closely...are they really thinner?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

How do you think people die from penetrating trauma? What do you think happens when someone has one ore more large holes poked in them? He was shot, he most definitely bled.

In addition the chauffer was also killed instantly, so there was more than one dead body in that car.

Interesting film, but not concrete proof that the King was not killed that day.

That is not what I asked you, and I think you are aware of it.
When I asked you about the evidence that Aleksandar bled out, I was thinking about the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE RECORDING, and only about that.
The reason why I asked you only about that, is because THE RECORDING IS THE OBJECT OF THE DEBATE!

There is no evidence in the recording that either of the two corpses had severe loss of blood.
Also, even if you are correct in your thesis that he had suffered severe loss of blood, he would still not have thinner cheeks.
When you mentioned the alleged connection between the thinner cheeks and the loss of blood, it became immediately clear to me, that you either don't have any idea what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.
Namely, when a body dies, not only that the body DOES NOT, lose in volume(becomes "thin"), BUT IT ACTUALLY INCREASES IN VOLUME!
www.pathologyoutlines.com...

But even if you are correct(you are actually not, but still...), you response is pretty stupid because ONE CORPSE HAS THINNER CHEEKS THAN THE OTHER!

So following your logic, one corpse has thinner cheeks then the other corps because of what exactly?

First of all, stop with the all capitals thing. It makes you look like a hysterical person who is off his meds.

Secondly, I didn't say that he had thinner cheeks, I said that the pallor of death can make the cheeks appear thinner in a black and white photograph. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Thirdly, I've been polite in this discussion and I really don't see the need to call a person stupid or a liar simply for contributing to a discussion. Are you that unsure of your premise that you have to resort to insults when someone puts in potential alternate explanations?

And lastly, as a physician, I have seen a lot of people and a lot of gunshot wounds and death by gunshot wounds. If someone is shot so severely that they die in short order, they are going to lose a lot of blood. That's it. He was shot to death and thus, logically he bled. In addition, he died so that blood that remained in him would pool to the dependent parts of his body. Notice he was sitting/slouched against the seat...since he was dead the blood would have pooled into his legs, back, and buttocks. As one dies, this blood pools and a person freshly killed is going to look different than one who has been dead for several moments. Differences can be accounted for in the time of death after each photo was taken and the lividity of the tissues decreases with time after death increasing. That one photo was taken later than the first one can certainly account for the appearance of being slightly different...especially in a frame of 80 year old film.

WHETHER CAPITAL LETTERS BOTHER YOU OR NOT DOESN'T CONCERN ME.

But I do have a question for you.

fy538cddb0.png[/pic] ]

wp538cddb9.png[/pic]]

Why does the corpse in the second photo, have thinner cheeks?

My you are a nice fellow.

As I have explained it to you, several times, the change in lividity (change in color) after death and after exsanguination can give the appearance of facial structures being thinner, especially in black and white photography.

Look NavyDoc, the appearance, "of something", can be either true or false.
You haven't proven that the appearance, in this particular case is false.

But let me tell you something else.
I know that you are either Navy intelligence, or a Navy doctor that is specialized in mind control.
And because of that I am done debating with you.
To be sure, you are not particularly good at mind control, but still, I don't want to waste my time with shills like yourself.

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: john666

Nose, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows. The second photos appears to have thinner cheeks but you have to understand that he just bled out. In black and white, pallor can be mistaken for tissue density changes.

Chin looks similar too, but on first glance one might be confused by the cloth there.

Again, not saying that they must be the same person but one cannot say for sure that they are not either.

What evidence do you have that he bled out?

How do you think people die from penetrating trauma? What do you think happens when someone has one ore more large holes poked in them? He was shot, he most definitely bled.

In addition the chauffer was also killed instantly, so there was more than one dead body in that car.

Interesting film, but not concrete proof that the King was not killed that day.

That is not what I asked you, and I think you are aware of it.
When I asked you about the evidence that Aleksandar bled out, I was thinking about the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE RECORDING, and only about that.
The reason why I asked you only about that, is because THE RECORDING IS THE OBJECT OF THE DEBATE!

There is no evidence in the recording that either of the two corpses had severe loss of blood.
Also, even if you are correct in your thesis that he had suffered severe loss of blood, he would still not have thinner cheeks.
When you mentioned the alleged connection between the thinner cheeks and the loss of blood, it became immediately clear to me, that you either don't have any idea what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying.
Namely, when a body dies, not only that the body DOES NOT, lose in volume(becomes "thin"), BUT IT ACTUALLY INCREASES IN VOLUME!
www.pathologyoutlines.com...

But even if you are correct(you are actually not, but still...), you response is pretty stupid because ONE CORPSE HAS THINNER CHEEKS THAN THE OTHER!

So following your logic, one corpse has thinner cheeks then the other corps because of what exactly?

First of all, stop with the all capitals thing. It makes you look like a hysterical person who is off his meds.

Secondly, I didn't say that he had thinner cheeks, I said that the pallor of death can make the cheeks appear thinner in a black and white photograph. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Thirdly, I've been polite in this discussion and I really don't see the need to call a person stupid or a liar simply for contributing to a discussion. Are you that unsure of your premise that you have to resort to insults when someone puts in potential alternate explanations?

And lastly, as a physician, I have seen a lot of people and a lot of gunshot wounds and death by gunshot wounds. If someone is shot so severely that they die in short order, they are going to lose a lot of blood. That's it. He was shot to death and thus, logically he bled. In addition, he died so that blood that remained in him would pool to the dependent parts of his body. Notice he was sitting/slouched against the seat...since he was dead the blood would have pooled into his legs, back, and buttocks. As one dies, this blood pools and a person freshly killed is going to look different than one who has been dead for several moments. Differences can be accounted for in the time of death after each photo was taken and the lividity of the tissues decreases with time after death increasing. That one photo was taken later than the first one can certainly account for the appearance of being slightly different...especially in a frame of 80 year old film.

WHETHER CAPITAL LETTERS BOTHER YOU OR NOT DOESN'T CONCERN ME.

But I do have a question for you.

fy538cddb0.png[/pic] ]

wp538cddb9.png[/pic]]

Why does the corpse in the second photo, have thinner cheeks?

My you are a nice fellow.

As I have explained it to you, several times, the change in lividity (change in color) after death and after exsanguination can give the appearance of facial structures being thinner, especially in black and white photography.

Look NavyDoc, the appearance, "of something", can be either true or false.
You haven't proven that the appearance, in this particular case is false.

But let me tell you something else.
I know that you are either Navy intelligence, or a Navy doctor that is specialized in mind control.
And because of that I am done debating with you.
To be sure, you are not particularly good at mind control, but still, I don't want to waste my time with shills like yourself.

LOL. "Mind Control?" "Shill?" For simply discussing an interesting film? Did you really want to discuss the film or did you just want people to agree with you?

I've not proven anything--I have simply pointed out that the video, although interesting, is not proof that the assassination was faked or that the film shows two separate individuals. What you think shows different individuals may very well be the same individual in different stages of death or blood loss photographed with a crappy black and white camera 80 years ago. They are not that dissimilar in appearance to say that they are definitely different people.

Naval intelligence? My dear, dear paranoid and irrational friend. You are not that important for Navy intelligence to be wasting time messing with you.

You "know" I'm Navy Intelligence? How? The same way that you "know" this film must be faked or staged--because it fits into your fantasy world?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, is there still an NIS Station in Philadelphia Pa.? I was on TDY there in the '80's(messed up my right leg on a landing,thought they'd keep me busy and out of trouble.).

Take a look at the location of the seats in the vehicle. One body is in the middle seat, the other is in the rear seat. Or that's what these old eyes tell me.

Sempher FI!