JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Yes, I agree it's ridiculous logic to cite the opinion of the autopsy doctor on one hand, then to argue he has little credibility on the other hand, but that's exactly what you did.

And remember, the statements of the medical personnel at Parkland are in dispute. I pointed out previously that Drs. Crenshaw, McClelland and Kemp Clark all gave statements indicating the wound was precisely where the autopsy placed it. Chiefly in the Parietal bone, with damage extending to other areas of the head.

Crenshaw:
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear." [Crenshaw's book]

McClelland:
"...right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself ..." (WC--V6:33)

Clark:
"There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... there was considerable loss of scalp and brain tissue...both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound..." (WR Appendix VIII, p.518)

Hank

So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.

 

[Robert Prey]

A pity you are just making that up and have no evidence to support your accusation. It would be a much better story if you could actually prove it.

Yeah, well I also have the results of a lie detector test with the PSE device on Humes. And on Oswald as well (O'Toole's "The Assassination Tapes". What do you think were the results? Oh, you don't want to know.

Humes: high stress lies throughout .
Oswald: "I'm just a Patsy." low stress, truth.

 

[Robert Prey]

What matters is where the fatal bullet entered and exited, yes. But the witness you cited as giving evidence of a large exit wound in the back of the head gave statements that clearly mean something different. For example, on McClelland:

Originally Posted by HSienzant

I'm getting kind of tired responding to the same garbage time and again. You know very well Dr. Mc believe the fatal shot to the head came from the Grassy Knoll. Give it up. You're done. Finished.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.

Just like in that video you posted showing entry and exit wounds? Look at the bottom of your feet for more examples of exit wounds. Bang! LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

One question at a time.

"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.

 

[EventHorizon]

"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.

"Because I say so" is not proof. Are you going to attempt to prove anything at any point?

(That should be easy, it's only one question.)

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm getting kind of tired responding to the same garbage time and again. You know very well Dr. Mc believe the fatal shot to the head came from the Grassy Knoll. Give it up. You're done. Finished.

Who exactly is done?

If you are tired of having the same questions you KNOW all you have to do is supply material evidence.

Yet you can't.

And you can't face that the descriptions you rely conflict with the mans own words, and do NOT support your claims.

You are done Robert. Deluding yourself otherwise isn't helping. Pretending you have proven anything, when the available material evidence directly contradicts you is futile. You came with nothing, you produced nothing, repeating it isn't going to suddenly turn it to something.

 

[Tomtomkent]

"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.

Nine ways? You haven't even produced valid evidence for one way.

Your "proof" is a doofus holding his analogue in a different way, invalidating any claims of "impossible" shadows. And yet ample examples of the "impossible" aspects being replicated have been supplied. The danged photo has been recreated for you by another poster.

Marina admits she took the photos. Your claims of impossible shadows are bunk. I make that a big fat zero ways you have "proven" them fake. You do not understand the concept of proof.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah, well I also have the results of a lie detector test with the PSE device on Humes. And on Oswald as well (O'Toole's "The Assassination Tapes". What do you think were the results? Oh, you don't want to know.

Humes: high stress lies throughout .
Oswald: "I'm just a Patsy." low stress, truth.

You know why "lie detectors" are not generally accepted as proof of anything, and are limited in their range of what it is indicative of? You know it is a polygraph and not a lie detector?

You know that Oswald believing does not mean he was?

Yeah, common sense often gets in the way of your little theories doesn't it.

 

[HSienzant]

So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.

You do realize your version of the wound above (parietal damage) is clearly different from the image you posted to illustrate McClelland's version of the wounds, don't you?

Here's the image that is supposed to illustrate the wound McClelland saw (previously posted by you): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=24590

Now please try to explain why the description of the wounds as seen by McClelland in Parkland don't match the wounds you say were caused by the bullet(s) in Dealey Plaza.

Is your witness for the head injury suffered perhaps mistaken [gasp!] as to the extent of the injuries?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, well I also have the results of a lie detector test with the PSE device on Humes. And on Oswald as well (O'Toole's "The Assassination Tapes". What do you think were the results? Oh, you don't want to know.

Humes: high stress lies throughout .
Oswald: "I'm just a Patsy." low stress, truth.

That book was written in the 1970's. I read it then.

For those who haven't read it, O'Toole's claim is that you can take a tape recording of somebody, and by slowing down and graphing their speech, you can determine whether the person is speaking with high stress (which, he claims, denotes a lie) or with low stress (which, he claims, denotes the truth).

The problem I had at the time was the technology was new, so I wasn't prepared to necessarily believe his assertions about whether the stress levels were the determining factor.

I figured I'd put the assertions in the book aside, and let the technology prove itself and revisit the claims in a later decade.

About four decades later:

How many police departments use O'Toole's methodology for solving crimes?
How many courts in the USA accept his methodology?

To my knowledge, none and none.

Now, if this technology is as 'foolproof' as you would like to believe, it should be accepted almost everywhere - DNA is a example of a technology that wasn't available when O'Toole wrote his book, yet police departments and courts now routinely accept the validity of DNA evidence today universally.

But O'Toole's PSE, which pre-dates DNA evidence?

Nowhere to be seen. Not accepted in courts, and not used by the police to solve crimes.

Do you have an explanation for this, except that O'Toole's PSE isn't the foolproof lie-detector he claims?
I would love to hear it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.

Remember that the autopsists found evidence on the skull itself of the direction the bullet was travelling, and it was back-to-front.

Do you know what bevelling is, and what it means? If not, look it up.

And you are aware that noted conspiracist Cyril Wecht, who is a legitimate expert on this subject, disagrees with you entirely, are you not?

As Wecht told the HSCA when he testified to it after seeing the autopsy materials as a member of the HSCA medical panel:

Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there.I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.

The FORENSIC SCIENCE issue of 1974 published an article by Dr. Cyril Wecht and Robert Smith titled "The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy". In that article it is claimed that Connally was hit with a bullet fired from a high floor and Kennedy was hit with a bullet from a low or intermediate floor. . . . but they go on to say: "The available evidence, assuming it to be valid, gives no support to theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front of the Presidential car."

In June of 1975, Dr. Wecht issued a press release saying that the Rockefeller Commission misrepresented his testimony. Wecht says "I must emphasize that I have never myself advocated that President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll or similar forward locations, . . ."

Wecht went on to say ". . . Warren Commission's single-bullet theory is wrong, and that the available medical, physical and photographic evidence all point to the fact that the assassination was carried out by two gunmen. The fact that both gunmen were located to the rear of the President, which after all includes half of the earth's surface, in no way diminishes the impact of the conclusion."

Wecht's disagreements with the Warren Commission conclusions stems from his belief that one bullet could not have hit both Kennedy and Connally, and done the damage it did, and end up in the condition it did. He at no time supported a shot from the knoll.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Robert dodged the question for a Sixth SEVENTH time!

Here it is again. I've placed it in boldface below in case you have trouble finding it amidst my answers to your other bogus issues.

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth fifth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries.

So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble.

...

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?

Hank

 

[CORed]

Robert, why can't you just answer questions one at a time?

Because he can't answer one question.

 

[vtbub]

Wecht went on to say ". . . Warren Commission's single-bullet theory is wrong, and that the available medical, physical and photographic evidence
all point to the fact that the assassination was carried out by two gunmen. The fact that both gunmen were located to the rear of the President, which after all includes half of the earth's surface, in no way diminishes the impact of the conclusion."


Hank

That would be quite the feat considering how they were sitting in the limo. Lets play devil's advocate here and say Wecht is right. We have only accounted for two bullets from the shooting, The so-called magic bullet and the fatal shot. They both were fired from a Manlicher-Carcano. Does Wecht assume that Kennedy's neck wound was fired by someone else?

Where from behind would Connally been struck by another shooter considering JFK was in the way and the women in the car were not struck? The Dal-Tex building? Any place else from the TSBD would have been more easily detected.

Sounds like a not so plausible idea to me.

 

[HSienzant]

Marguerite molded Oswald's personality and they shared many traits in common, namely arrogance, self-absorption, a sense of grievance and entitlement and the belief that they were smarter than everyone else.

Marguerite was a truly bizarre woman and she was probably the first person to assert Oswald was a secret agent for American Intelligence. ... For Marguerite the assassination was a golden opportunity to be the center of attention, something she always craved (and another attribute she shared with her son Lee). It was also an opportunity to turn an easy buck.

She also admitted that perhaps Lee did do the shooting, but if he did, it should be viewed as a mercy-killing, in that the President suffered from "Atkinson's" [Addison's] disease.

Since Robert subscribes to Marguerite's "My son was an agent" assertion, I wonder if he also believes this one.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant



Hank

Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.

 

[HSienzant]

That would be quite the feat considering how they were sitting in the limo. Lets play devil's advocate here and say Wecht is right. We have only accounted for two bullets from the shooting, The so-called magic bullet and the fatal shot. They both were fired from a Manlicher-Carcano. Does Wecht assume that Kennedy's neck wound was fired by someone else?

Where from behind would Connally been struck by another shooter considering JFK was in the way and the women in the car were not struck? The Dal-Tex building? Any place else from the TSBD would have been more easily detected.

Sounds like a not so plausible idea to me.

A shooter in the southwest corner of the TSBD might not have to shoot through JFK to hit Connally, depending on when the shot that struck the Governor was fired. Perhaps that is where Wecht envisioned the shooter.

My recollection is Wecht agrees that bullet transited JFK's body, but he doesn't think it's a given that it hit Connally.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Remember that the autopsists found evidence on the skull itself of the direction the bullet was travelling, and it was back-to-front.

Do you know what bevelling is, and what it means? If not, look it up.

And you are aware that noted conspiracist Cyril Wecht, who is a legitimate expert on this subject, disagrees with you entirely, are you not?

As Wecht told the HSCA when he testified to it after seeing the autopsy materials as a member of the HSCA medical panel:

Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there.I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.

The FORENSIC SCIENCE issue of 1974 published an article by Dr. Cyril Wecht and Robert Smith titled "The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy". In that article it is claimed that Connally was hit with a bullet fired from a high floor and Kennedy was hit with a bullet from a low or intermediate floor. . . . but they go on to say: "The available evidence, assuming it to be valid, gives no support to theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front of the Presidential car."

In June of 1975, Dr. Wecht issued a press release saying that the Rockefeller Commission misrepresented his testimony. Wecht says "I must emphasize that I have never myself advocated that President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll or similar forward locations, . . ."

Wecht went on to say ". . . Warren Commission's single-bullet theory is wrong, and that the available medical, physical and photographic evidence
all point to the fact that the assassination was carried out by two gunmen. The fact that both gunmen were located to the rear of the President, which after all includes half of the earth's surface, in no way diminishes the impact of the conclusion."

Wecht's disagreements with the Warren Commission conclusions stems from his belief that one bullet could not have hit both Kennedy and Connally, and done the damage it did, and end up in the condition it did. He at no time supported a shot from the knoll.

Hank

Cyril Wecht has said a lot of things.

Reprinted from Reclaiming History.


"I reminded Dr. Wecht that at the London trial I had asked him to be more specific as to the location of his possible second gunman, and he ended up positioning the triggerman not on the grassy knoll but "around the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and more down towards the other end [far west side] of the building."' When I pointed out to him in our phone conversation that from that position-not as far behind the president as Oswald was believed to be, but still to the president's right rear at the time of the first shot that hit him-it would have been physically impossible for a bullet shot from there to enter the front of the president's throat, he replied, "Yes, of course. And that's why I want to drop that position of mine and put the possible second gunman more to the west [right front] in the area of the grassy knoll. I know I testified to the other position in London and also wrote that in one of my articles in the past' but I no longer believe that to be true."

 

[Tomtomkent]

Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.

So what prevents you answering WHY the photos needed to be faked, if there were already genuine pictures Marina admitted taking, of LHO holding the exact same guns?

There is a red herring here. It is your answer.