JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Still not willing to list which members of the autopsy team are dishonest or unreliable Robert?

You can redact your previous statement if you are unwilling to substantiate it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Still not willing to list which members of the autopsy team are dishonest or unreliable Robert?

You can redact your previous statement if you are unwilling to substantiate it.

The autopsy report is dishonest, if for no other reason that it is missing the most important component -- the original photos and x-rays which were denied to the Warren Commission. But that does not necessarily require dishonesty, where incompetence is also a possibility. Here is but one example:

Head Autopsy Doctor Commander Humes made this statement at the WC hearings. Would you characterize this statement as accurate, logical and coherent?

Referring to the bullet wound in the back of the head:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360


Can this statement be interpreted as confirming a shot from the back, or a shot from the front, or both??? How does one characterize a man, a professional pathologist, as dishonest when he merely may have a scrambled brain??

 

[Robert Prey]

The parkland statements do not match the material evidence.
That indicates flaws with pakland testimony, not the photographs. The photographs are of known provenance..

Oh, what a bunch of garbage. Known provenence? When the autopsy photographers say they are a fraud, when the photo developers say they are a fraud? What twilight zone are you living in?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, what a bunch of garbage. Known provenence? When the autopsy photographers say they are a fraud, when the photo developers say they are a fraud? What twilight zone are you living in?

Oh? So why did you submit them? Its bad enough they dont show what you claim, but undermining your own evidence? Priceless.

Oh look, more claims lacking material evidence.


And does "all photos" mean all photos? Are the z film and polaroids fake too?

Fine... discount all photos for the sake of argument. What material evidence does that leave you with Rob? Not claims, or what people say or think they remember, evidence. Material evidence. Do you have any at all?

 

[Robert Prey]

I don't need to prove the common narrative or anything for that matter, That's why YOU are here. Burden of proof shift much? I've watched you do it for 45 pages now. Those are our rules, deal with it or be dismissed as irrelevant.

I kind of think you are a newcomer to this board, or a casual observer. I won't call you liar because you may be merely non-observant. This thread was started by Walter Ego with the Deep Thinking observation that JFK ct's were a bunch of Loons and Wacktards. I challenged him and all the rest of the Amen Chorus to provide some proof of their Lone Nutter theory. When they failed to do so I gladly took up the gauntlet and provided a mountain of evidence for conspiracy, including, but not limited to the observations of a blow-out wound in the back of the head made by all of the Parkland Personnel, many of the Bethesda personnel, and the closest on the scene witnesses, Agent Clint Hill, DAve Powers and Ken O'Donnell riding in the limo just behind the President who both heard and saw a shot or shots from the grassy knoll. So for you or anyone else on this board to claim that I have not provided evidence for conspiracy is completely and totally false and dishonest. Now, I invite you to provide your proof of the Lone Nutter theory, or forever hold your peace.

 

[erwinl]

The autopsy report is dishonest, if for no other reason that it is missing the most important component -- the original photos and x-rays which were denied to the Warren Commission. But that does not necessarily require dishonesty, where incompetence is also a possibility. Here is but one example:

Head Autopsy Doctor Commander Humes made this statement at the WC hearings. Would you characterize this statement as accurate, logical and coherent?

Referring to the bullet wound in the back of the head:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360


Can this statement be interpreted as confirming a shot from the back, or a shot from the front, or both??? How does one characterize a man, a professional pathologist, as dishonest when he merely may have a scrambled brain??

There is no other way to interpret this as saying that the bullit came from behind and that the direction it had when exiting the skull was from behind and thus toward the front.
So I entirely fail to see your problem.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The autopsy report is dishonest, if for no other reason that it is missing the most important component -- the original photos and x-rays which were denied to the Warren Commission. But that does not necessarily require dishonesty, where incompetence is also a possibility. Here is but one example:

Head Autopsy Doctor Commander Humes made this statement at the WC hearings. Would you characterize this statement as accurate, logical and coherent?

Referring to the bullet wound in the back of the head:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360


Can this statement be interpreted as confirming a shot from the back, or a shot from the front, or both??? How does one characterize a man, a professional pathologist, as dishonest when he merely may have a scrambled brain??

So that is one name. Based on your personal inability to understand his words. Want to name the rest?

Then you can name the folks in Military Intelligence, the FBI and dallas PD who must be lying to support your other claims.

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh? So why did you submit them? Its bad enough they dont show what you claim, but undermining your own evidence? Priceless.

Oh look, more claims lacking material evidence.


And does "all photos" mean all photos? Are the z film and polaroids fake too?

Fine... discount all photos for the sake of argument. What material evidence does that leave you with Rob? Not claims, or what people say or think they remember, evidence. Material evidence. Do you have any at all?

Whats so-called "material" evidence does that leave you with? Zero.

 

[Robert Prey]

There is no other way to interpret this as saying that the bullit came from behind and that the direction it had when exiting the skull was from behind and thus toward the front.
So I entirely fail to see your problem.

So, it's a problem for you, so you put words in his mouth. He said what he said. "Exited from behind" meaning the back of the head. Owellian Double-think-- the only tac left for the poor defeated Lone Nutter.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Whats so-called "material" evidence does that leave you with? Zero.

So the rifle, the body, the palm print, the bullets, and the autopsy records don't count.

I have seen you dismiss them from your case, but as you never managed to prove them to be flawed, I will happily still cite them.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, it's a problem for you, so you put words in his mouth. He said what he said. "Exited from behind" meaning the back of the head. Owellian Double-think-- the only tac left for the poor defeated Lone Nutter.

You have confused exiting from a direction consistant with a shooter from behind JFK for exiting JFKs behind.

It only means exiting the back of JFKs head in your misunderstanding.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This thread was started by Walter Ego with the Deep Thinking observation that JFK ct's were a bunch of Loons and Wacktards.

And yet, with your kind assistance, Walter Ego's observations have been confirmed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The autopsy report is dishonest, if for no other reason that it is missing the most important component -- the original photos and x-rays which were denied to the Warren Commission. But that does not necessarily require dishonesty, where incompetence is also a possibility. Here is but one example:

Head Autopsy Doctor Commander Humes made this statement at the WC hearings. Would you characterize this statement as accurate, logical and coherent?

Referring to the bullet wound in the back of the head:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360


Can this statement be interpreted as confirming a shot from the back, or a shot from the front, or both??? How does one characterize a man, a professional pathologist, as dishonest when he merely may have a scrambled brain??

Very kind of you to confirm that the chief autopsy surgeon states that the bullet came from behind. As it says on page 86 in Chapter 3 of the WCR (you had homework to read this page):

The detailed autopsy of President Kennedy performed on the night of November 22 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital led the three examining pathologists to conclude that the smaller hole in the rear of the President's skull was the point of entry and that the large opening on the right side of his head was the wound of exit.

Did you mean to shoot yourself in the foot again? Bang!

 

[Robert Prey]

You have confused exiting from a direction consistant with a shooter from behind JFK for exiting JFKs behind.

It only means exiting the back of JFKs head in your misunderstanding.

To diagnose your problem, look up the word "doublethink."

 

[Robert Prey]

Very kind of you to confirm that the chief autopsy surgeon states that the bullet came from behind. As it says on page 86 in Chapter 3 of the WCR (you had homework to read this page):
Did you mean to shoot yourself in the foot again? Bang!

* * *

 

[RoboTimbo]

And how is that conclusion consistent with this passage from the same report:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietaal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter"-- Autopsy Report, p,. 540, WR.

Do you know where the occipit is located? Hint: It's not in front. And do you know how big 13 cm is??? Very much like the drawings of Paul O'Connor and Dr. McCellend.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

But how does someone's drawing square with what we see in the Zapruder film where you were also kind enough to note that

... the right front head wound as depicted in the Z film ...

Were you lying or simply mistaken when you said the wound is in the right front of the head? Or were you lying or simply mistaken when you said it wasn't?

How did Oswald's rifle get to the 6th floor of the TSBD? How did his handprint get on an inaccessible place on the rifle? How did the bullets that killed officer Tippitt get out of the Oswald's revolver that he was carrying when he was arrested in the theater?

None of your cowardly dodging now, Robert.

 

[EventHorizon]

And how is that conclusion consistent with this passage from the same report:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietaal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter"-- Autopsy Report, p,. 540, WR.

Do you know where the occipit is located? Hint: It's not in front. And do you know how big 13 cm is??? Very much like the drawings of Paul O'Connor and Dr. McCellend.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

More stellar reading comprehension from Robert. You seem to have highlighted the wrong word. I've put in red the words that you've ignored. Of course this doesn't match the drawing you've posted at all. It would if those two very important adjectives were reversed, but alas they are not. So coming as a shock to no one (other than Robert) the testimony actually matches this drawing far more closely:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=6


Two more shots to the feet.

 

[RoboTimbo]

* * *

A bit late now that two people have quoted you. LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

Very kind of you to confirm that the chief autopsy surgeon states that the bullet came from behind. As it says on page 86 in Chapter 3 of the WCR (you had homework to read this page):
Did you mean to shoot yourself in the foot again? Bang!

And how is that conclusion consistent with this passage from the same report:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietaal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter"-- Autopsy Report, p,. 540, WR.

Do you know where the occipit is located? Hint: It's not in front. And do you know how big 13 cm is??? Very much like the drawings of Paul O'Connor and Dr. McCellend.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And how is that conclusion consistent with this passage from the same report:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietaal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter"-- Autopsy Report, p,. 540, WR.

Do you know where the occipit is located? Hint: It's not in front. And do you know how big 13 cm is??? Very much like the drawings of Paul O'Connor and Dr. McCellend.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994ed3b4529ef1e.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7797061#post7797061

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7797034#post7797034

None of your cowardly dodging, Robert. Answer the questions.