• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so.

Thanks,

RP
Click to expand...

DiMaio is a recognized forensic expert, which is why you question his bona fides.

I remind you that the HSCA medical panel viewed the extant autopsy materials. Cyril Wecht and a number of other pathologists viewed the autopsy x-rays and photos and verified the x-rays were of JFK head. The HSCA medical panel concluded from the available evidence there was only one bullet wound to JFK's head, and that said bullet entered the right rear, and that it exited the right top. Exactly as the original pathologists at Bethesda concluded on the night of the autopsy on 11/22/63.

You lose.

Here's the HSCA panel's conclusions. I urge you to read it, instead of the conspiracy book out-of-context arguments for conspiracy.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0042a.htm
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Dr.McCelleland, Yes, at Parkland.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]


Paul O'Connor
Yes, at Bethesda.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This is gotta be a joke. Do you not realize the two drawings look nothing alike?

Was JFK shot in the head sometime between Parkland and Bethesda or is at least one of those drawings inaccurate?

Please advise which one is wrong. One picture shows only a large wound in the back of the head and no damage forward of that. The other drawing you cite shows damage extending from the face to the back of the head. They both can be wrong, but they both cannot be right, as they are so different from each other. Surely you do see the drawings are different?

BTW, both drawings also conflict with the closely cropped 'pre-autopsy' photo you cited elsewhere. Here's that one again: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Neither of the drawings you cite show a bullet hole in the right top of the forehead, where you claim the photo shows one (there isn't one there in the photo you cite either, but that's an argument for another day).

So if the photo is correct, both the drawings you cite are wrong. You realize all that, right?

And of course, all three (the two drawings and the photo you insist shows a bullet entry hole in the right forehead) all contradict your claim that JFK was hit with a dum-dum or frangible bullet from the front:

Robert Prey said:
Nothing is "clearly visible" in the Z film. Nothing contradicts the Parkland witnesses. An exit wound in the front? What the devil are you talking about? All you can see in the Z film is a blur of blood and tissue sprayed upward which is consistent with a shot from the front using a frangible bullet. The death stare pre-autopsy pic is taken from the HSCA collection by Charles Groden.
Click to expand...

You do realize that forward of the President at the time of the head shot is the overpass, not the grassy knoll, right? You do further realize that JFK's head was canted 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo, as established by Thomas Canning for the HSCA? You further realize that a shot from the knoll hitting JFK in the forehead from the knoll would not exit the rear of the head but the left side?

Here's an image of JFK from the Zapruder film just before the head shot. I drew a line from the area you claim is an entry wound to the area you claim is an exit wound (if I drew these incorrectly, please feel free to draw the correct line). From what I see of your claims of these wounds, the shooter would have to be Nellie Connally or the driver. Do you think either of those is a viable candidate?

http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Bullet Wound to right temple here.
Click to expand...

Who identified this as a bullet wound?

Besides you, I mean?

Does this person have any expertise in this area of bullet wounds and/or autopsies and/or photographic interpretation?

What makes you think because somebody drew an arrow there, there's a bullet hole there? (Other than the obvious fact that it fits with your belief of a conspiracy, I mean).

Hank
 
Robrob said:
So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So even when questions are asked in the form and manner Robert says he will answer, he fails to answer. Have you been keeping track of how many times Robert didn't bother to answer your question?

I counted eight times for his avoiding my question about why conspirators would destroy perfectly legitimate backyard photos of Oswald with a rifle only to substitute what he claims are falsified photos showing essentially the same thing - Oswald with a rifle.

After eight tries, I figured he had enough of a chance to answer and clearly would not answer the question no matter how many times I asked.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
So even when questions are asked in the form and manner Robert says he will answer, he fails to answer. Have you been keeping track of how many times Robert didn't bother to answer your question?

I counted eight times for his avoiding my question about why conspirators would destroy perfectly legitimate backyard photos of Oswald with a rifle only to substitute what he claims are falsified photos showing essentially the same thing - Oswald with a rifle.

After eight tries, I figured he had enough of a chance to answer and clearly would not answer the question no matter how many times I asked.

Hank
Click to expand...

Because it's a ridiculous hypothetical, irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the question of conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is another one of your Red Herrings. I don't know that any photos were destroyed and neither do you. I don't know if there any photos prior them being made up and forged on the night of Nov. 22nd. And if there were such photos, I don't know if there was a rifle in them or not and neither do you.. AlI know is that the photos in evidence are faked and were used to convict LHO in the court of public opinion in order to prevent a public and/or congressional clamor to find the real shooters and/or accomplices.
 
HSienzant said:
This is gotta be a joke. Do you not realize the two drawings look nothing alike?

Was JFK shot in the head sometime between Parkland and Bethesda or is at least one of those drawings inaccurate?

Please advise which one is wrong. One picture shows only a large wound in the back of the head and no damage forward of that. The other drawing you cite shows damage extending from the face to the back of the head. They both can be wrong, but they both cannot be right, as they are so different from each other. Surely you do see the drawings are different?

BTW, both drawings also conflict with the closely cropped 'pre-autopsy' photo you cited elsewhere. Here's that one again: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Neither of the drawings you cite show a bullet hole in the right top of the forehead, where you claim the photo shows one (there isn't one there in the photo you cite either, but that's an argument for another day).

So if the photo is correct, both the drawings you cite are wrong. You realize all that, right?

And of course, all three (the two drawings and the photo you insist shows a bullet entry hole in the right forehead) all contradict your claim that JFK was hit with a dum-dum or frangible bullet from the front:



You do realize that forward of the President at the time of the head shot is the overpass, not the grassy knoll, right? You do further realize that JFK's head was canted 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo, as established by Thomas Canning for the HSCA? You further realize that a shot from the knoll hitting JFK in the forehead from the knoll would not exit the rear of the head but the left side?

Here's an image of JFK from the Zapruder film just before the head shot. I drew a line from the area you claim is an entry wound to the area you claim is an exit wound (if I drew these incorrectly, please feel free to draw the correct line). From what I see of your claims of these wounds, the shooter would have to be Nellie Connally or the driver. Do you think either of those is a viable candidate?

http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Hank
Click to expand...

One question at a time so I'll only answer the first one. The only differences in the two drawings is the fact that McClelland's reflects the Parkland observations, the O'connor reflects what he saw at Bethesda. They both show a large blow-out in the back of the head which makes them consistent.
 
HSienzant said:
DiMaio is a recognized forensic expert, which is why you question his bona fides.

I remind you that the HSCA medical panel viewed the extant autopsy materials. Cyril Wecht and a number of other pathologists viewed the autopsy x-rays and photos and verified the x-rays were of JFK head. The HSCA medical panel concluded from the available evidence there was only one bullet wound to JFK's head, and that said bullet entered the right rear, and that it exited the right top. Exactly as the original pathologists at Bethesda concluded on the night of the autopsy on 11/22/63.

You lose.

Here's the HSCA panel's conclusions. I urge you to read it, instead of the conspiracy book out-of-context arguments for conspiracy.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0042a.htm
Click to expand...

And the Warren Commission concluded that a single full metal jacketed bullet was the bullet that hit the president's head. But what was observed on those authenticated x-rays was snow-storm spray of fragments indicating a frangible bullet. A supporting explanation comes from the book of your very own 'expert" Vincent Di Maio:


FORENSIC SCIENCE AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS

Michael T. Griffith
2002
@All Rights Reserved
Second Edition

"The Warren Commission claimed President Kennedy was struck in the head by a 6.5 mm full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullet fired from a low-to-medium-velocity Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and that no other missile hit his skull. The Clark Panel and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) claimed that a sizable fragment was sheared off from this alleged missile as it entered the president's skull, that the fragment imbedded itself on the outer table of the skull, and that the remainder of the bullet went on to leave dozens of tiny fragments inside the skull. There is compelling evidence that these claims are incorrect, and that President Kennedy was struck in the head by high-velocity, frangible ammunition.

As stated earlier, I asked several medical examiners about the likelihood that an FMJ bullet would leave dozens of fragments inside a skull. The two medical examiners who replied, Dr. Jimmy W. Green and Dr. Eric Berg, both indicated they felt this was unlikely. Dr. Green said that "almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces. . . ." Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull, and he quoted from Dr. Vincent DiMaio's book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be "few":

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a "lead snowstorm". . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added)
 
The Doctor Is In

RoboTimbo said:
So the picture of the gunshot exit wounds to the bottom of your feet is accurate?

thum_267444efb7302cca59.jpg


Could you color them in with your Crayolas?
Click to expand...

LOL. Robert could use a business card too. :D

Robert Prey said:
I do have a PhD in common sense. Self proclaimed and bestowed.
Click to expand...

(Click on image to enlarge.)
 

Attachments

  • Robert Prey.jpg
    Robert Prey.jpg
    26.5 KB · Views: 6
That's Dr. Prey To You

In addition to his PhD, Robert has also recently acquired an M.D. (self bestowed, natch) so I guess we all have to start taking him seriously about this forensic medical stuff

NOT!

Robert Prey said:
Baloney. Anyone can have a professional Medical Opinion. M.D.s, non M.Ds, DMO,s Chiropractors, Nurses, researchers, scholars, citizens, librarians, even nitwits who call themselves "Deep Thinkers". If you need an MD to tell you to go take poison for a cure, then, that's your choice. I prefer to uses common sense.
Click to expand...
 
Robert has the most uncommon common sense I've ever seen. For his own safety and the safety of those around him I sincerely hope he doesn't have access to sharp objects.

And please tell me the quote above has been nominated for a Stundie.
 
Last edited:
A citizen can have a professional opinion? How does one become a professional in the field of citizenship?
 
GregHouseMD said:
I never mentioned the second drawing which proof of nothing. However, did Dr. McCelleland draw the image you are so proud? Although I cannot see why you would be since it does not resemble any photo of JFK.
Click to expand...

However Dr. McCelleland did say this when interviewed by Spector for the WCR.


Mr. SPECTER - Based on the experience that you have described for us with gunshot wounds and your general medical experience, would you characterize the description of the wound that Dr. Perry gave you as being a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or was the description which you got from Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter and Dr. Carrico who were there before, equally consistent with whether or not it was a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or how would you characterize it in your words?
Dr. McCLELLAND - I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound, either an entrance or an exit type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible.
Click to expand...
 
GregHouseMD said:
However Dr. McCelleland did say this when interviewed by Spector for the WCR.

Quote:
Mr. SPECTER - Based on the experience that you have described for us with gunshot wounds and your general medical experience, would you characterize the description of the wound that Dr. Perry gave you as being a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or was the description which you got from Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter and Dr. Carrico who were there before, equally consistent with whether or not it was a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or how would you characterize it in your words?
Dr. McCLELLAND - I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound, either an entrance or an exit type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible.
Click to expand...

The question I have for you is do you realize which wound is being referred to here? I have never even addressed the neck wound, but that is what Dr. McClellland and Spector are referring to. My question to you, is did you realize that or are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?
 
Last edited:
GregHouseMD said:
I never mentioned the second drawing which proof of nothing. However, did Dr. McCelleland draw the image you are so proud? Although I cannot see why you would be since it does not resemble any photo of JFK.
Click to expand...


McCelland dictated the drawing as you very well should know.
 
All you have is eyewitness testimony, to which I respond: Who gives a gnats flying left testicle what witnesses say when they are directly contradicted by physical evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom