JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Your entrance wound on the zfilm does not match the entrance wound you claim was on the pre-autopsy photo. You have the entrance wound in the hair and to the left of the hairline in the zfilm (and too high to boot).

The pre-autopsy photo shows a wound on the forehead, in the bare skin. You will have to move the entrance wound lower and more forward to get it to align with the pre-autopsy photo (about where I put it, I think).

Your claim of a wound in the forehead: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg
Your cleaimed entrance wound on JFK: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletpath.jpg

We haven't even discussed the differences between the pre-autopsy photo above and this drawing by Paul O'connor:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg

Nor the differences between the O'Connor drawing and the illustration of McClelland's wound description as it appeared in Six Seconds in Dallas (by Josiah Thompson, 1966): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg

Try this one on here.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Try this one on here.

He did. He even included it in his post. Right where he explained how it didnt fit you other sources.

Why does it not fit your other sources and claims Robert?

 

[BravesFan]

Try this one on here.

OMG!!! JFK was actually attacked by an invisible pacman! With a drawing compass in his mouth! From the Grassy Knoll!!

I knew somehow Bigfoot was involved

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sigh... Another one bites the dust.

Don't worry, Robert. I'm still here to remind you of your self-inflicted foot injuries.


Bang!

Robert, tell us about the pee stained doofus holding his broom handle again. Don't you agree that he should put the bristles back on it and get back to work? LOL.

 

[Walter Ego]

I have come to the conclusion that Robert is a performance artist, nothing more. He has no beliefs in any CT's he simply is arguing for the sake of arguing.

1. He is short on facts. He regurgitates the same comments over and over because he has not taken the time to do any in depth, independent research.

2. He repeats the same meaningless phrases time and again without respect to whatever question has been presented.

3. He refuses toi answer questions or even enter into a discussion.

4. His arguments, if you can call them that, make s=no sense or are based on no evidence whatsoever.

I love a spirited discussion with both sides presenting their views and true debate but this is nothing like that.

I have not changed my mind about anything. I still think LHO acted alone.
I think vaccines saves millions of lives every year.

I think Robert Prey is a fool with nothing better to do than try and bait people.

I choose not to be part of this farce any longer.

Good luck to you all. I suggest you follow my path and find a more meaningful way to spend your time on this wonderful website.

I disagree with you about the performance artist part. I think Robert is serious. As serious as cancer. I do agree with you, however, that attempting to engage him in further discussion on any topic is a waste of time.

 

[Wolrab]

I'm still curious as to how the 30 or whatever Parkland witnesses were able to view the head wound with any thoroughness. Thirty + people in a trauma room would make it awfully damned crowded and make working on JFK near impossible.

Here is my one question: Did all those witnesses walk up to the body, lift/turn the head and examine the wound?

 

[Wolrab]

Here is another few observations seeing as I have used up my one question.

Anyone have a clue as to how big the ER was at Parkland?

Wouldn't it have been a cool thing to say you were one of the few that saw JFK's wounds. It would be the ultimate answer to the question,"Where were you when JFK was shot?"

Thirty plus seems like a very high number of people being able to get a good view of his head. I would think some of those thirty might have been exaggerating just a smidgen.

 

[Walter Ego]

I'm still curious as to how the 30 or whatever Parkland witnesses were able to view the head wound with any thoroughness. Thirty + people in a trauma room would make it awfully damned crowded and make working on JFK near impossible.

Here is my one question: Did all those witnesses walk up to the body, lift/turn the head and examine the wound?

Kennedy's body was never turned over at Parkland Hospital during the frantic attempts to resuscitate him. (Gerald Posner, Case Closed p. 288) Or even after Kennedy was dead.

"When we decided to declare him dead," says [Dr.Pepper] Jenkins, "people just started to fade away... With Mrs. Kennedy there, we were not about to start examining the wounds or turning the body over. No one even lifted the head, although a few doctors passed by and quickly looked at the wound." (Posner, p. 292)

----

Anyone have a clue as to how big the ER was at Parkland?

Wouldn't it have been a cool thing to say you were one of the few that saw JFK's wounds. It would be the ultimate answer to the question,"Where were you when JFK was shot?"

The trauma room at Parkland seems to have been very crowded on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 by people who weren't there.

There must have be three hundred people who claim there were in there that day, and there's no way that could be true. It's interesting that those of us who were intimately involved don't talk about it, and the others do.

Dr. Malcolm Perry (Posner, p. 291 footnote)

 

[Robert Prey]

Kennedy's body was never turned over at Parkland Hospital during the frantic attempts to resuscitate him. (Gerald Posner, Case Closed p. 288) Or even after Kennedy was dead.
The trauma room at Parkland seems to have been very crowded on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 by people who weren't there.

But here is what Walter would like to forget that Dr. Jenkins actually stated to the Warren Commission:

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

* * *

And as to Dr. Perry:

MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78."

Walter complains that I repeat myself. True enough, but only in response to his incessant repetition of the same old un-truths.

 

[Robert Prey]

"When we decided to declare him dead," says [Dr.Pepper] Jenkins, "people just started to fade away... With Mrs. Kennedy there, we were not about to start examining the wounds or turning the body over. No one even lifted the head, although a few doctors passed by and quickly looked at the wound." (Posner, p. 292)

Quote:
There must have be three hundred people who claim there were in there that day, and there's no way that could be true. It's interesting that those of us who were intimately involved don't talk about it, and the others do.
Dr. Malcolm Perry (Posner, p. 291 footnote)

But here is what Walter and Gerald Posner would like to forget that Dr. Jenkins actually stated to the Warren Commission:

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

* * *

And as to Dr. Perry:

MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78."

Walter complains that I repeat myself. True enough, but only in response to his incessant repetition of the same old un-truths.

* * *

 

[TheRedWorm]

...<snip>...

Who cares what eyewitnesses say when they are directly contradicted by physical evidence? Why do you keep ignoring that question, Robert?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Repeat it as much as you like. The wounds describe do not make the varying drawings, claims of bullet paths or the entrance wound you depicted on the cropped photo match up.

Neither does it counter the actual material evidence available. Do you have any to support these claims yet?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Who cares what eyewitnesses say when they are directly contradicted by physical evidence? Why do you keep ignoring that question, Robert?

Because he wants to pretend that falliable testemony is more important.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Because he wants to pretend that falliable testemony is more important.

As was mentioned just so, so many pages ago, that is his irreducible delusion...

 

[EventHorizon]

But here is what Walter would like to forget that Dr. Jenkins actually stated to the Warren Commission:

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

* * *

And as to Dr. Perry:

MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78."

Walter complains that I repeat myself. True enough, but only in response to his incessant repetition of the same old un-truths.

So the body wasn't turned over. Dr. Perry just leaned over the table to get a look at the wound. Glad that's cleared up then. Walter was right.

 

[Walter Ego]

When You're Wrong, You're Wrong

So the body wasn't turned over. Dr. Perry just leaned over the table to get a look at the wound. Glad that's cleared up then. Walter was right.

I was addressing Wolrab's two questions: (a) Was Kennedy's body ever turned over at Parkland? and (b) how many people may have later claimed to be in the trauma room while Kennedy was being treated who were not in fact there? The answers: (a) No and (b) A lot, apparently.

Dr. Pepper Jenkins:

We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. (Posner, p. 309)

Other trauma room doctors at Parkland that day concurred with Jenkins.

"We never had the opportunity to review his wounds, " Dr. Carrico told the author, "in order to describe them accurately. "We were trying to save his life." Dr. Adolph Giescke agrees: "We had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us. "I don't think any of us got a good look at the head wound," confirms Dr. Perry. "I didn't examine it or really look at it that carefully." (Posner, p. 309)

Dr. Micheal Baden who reviewed the JFK autopsy evidence for the HSCA.

"The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off -- there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about the [head] wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don't know what they were talking about since there is nothing there but the injury [i.e., the entry wound] in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from the Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies." (Posner, p. 309)

From the JAMA article Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark quoted by SpitfireIX:

The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim....

As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time.

It is also worth noting that the only two Parkland doctors who were actually in the trauma room who still be believe they saw an entry wound on the back of Kennedy's head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw, both of whom later went on to promote conspiracy theories about the assassination and co-author conspiracy books.

ETA:

McClelland has made many contradictory statements about what he observed that day and fibber Crenshaw later backed off the claims in his conspiracy book about the importance of his role in the trauma room on 11/22/63.

Crenshaw.. backed away from the book's claims as to how central he was, saying that [co-authors] Hansen and Shaw "took poetic license" on this issue. Crenshaw "admitted . . .that the role he played in Kennedy's case was minor."

cf. New York Times, May 26, 1992.

 

[Robert Prey]

Ihe observed that day and fibber Crenshaw later backed off the claims in his conspiracy book about the importance of his role in the trauma room on 11/22/63.

It's old ground, I've corrected you on before. But once again, you call Crenshaw a "fibber'?? And exactly for the record what was his fib????

 

[Robert Prey]

Quote:
"We never had the opportunity to review his wounds, " Dr. Carrico told the author, "in order to describe them accurately. "We were trying to save his life."

But here is what Dr. Carrico originally reported:

" The Parkland doctors attempted "...to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted."

"I believe there was shredded and macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of skull."

"This [wound] was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area."

"[There was]...a fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

Is it reasonable to suppose Dr. Carrico never got a look at the wound to the Cerebral Lobe and the Cerebellum or to estimate a wound 5 cm by 17 cm defect int he posterior of the skull without examining it? Is Carrico a liar? I don't think so. But Posner? Even the Bug man denigrates Posner for his lack of integrity.

 

[Robert Prey]

I

Dr. Micheal Baden who reviewed the JFK autopsy evidence for the HSCA.

Quote:
"The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off -- there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about the [head] wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don't know what they were talking about since there is nothing there but the injury [i.e., the entry wound] in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from the Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies." (Posner, p. 309)
.

All anybody really needs to know about the credibility of Dr. Michael Baden is the fact that he testified at the OJ Simpson trial For the Defense. Nor was Baden present at Parkland, nor at Bethesda. All he could do was interpret autopsy photos which the photographer says were not the ones he took.

 

[Robert Prey]

But:

From: Explore Forensics

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds
Author: Jack Claridge - Updated: 20 July 2010

"The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound,

Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound."

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html