• 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.
HSienzant said:
No, Robert. I am watching you paint yourself into a corner.

So you don't think the conspiracy involved the Parkland doctors.
But you do believe in body alteration, I believe you said.

Now simply explain what set of doctors was going to do the body alteration that was planned, per Lifton, from the beginning, if not the Parkland doctors.

As Lifton pointed out, the Parkland doctors would be the logical suspects, as JFK would be rushed to the nearest hospital - and that would be Parkland.

Or do you believe the body alteration plan was something cobbled together at the last minute?
Hank
Click to expand...

Nope. I've never said I believed in body alteration, though I don't dismiss it either. But certainly not at Parkland. But the autopsy photos and x-rays -- according to those who took them -- they are altered or fake substitutes.

*" Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
And where in there do you see that Kilduff said the bullet entered the temple?

And if you believe that Kilduff is implying that by pointing to the head in the photo you cite, note he could just as well be pointing to the large *exit* wound the autopsy and the z-film show in the right side of the head.

If, however, you believe that Kilduff was pointing to an entrance wound in the right temple, please tell me where he got that information.

It cannot be the Parkland doctors, because you keep telling us they saw a wound in the back of the head, not the temple and not the forehead.

Did he see the wound himself? Why did the Parkland doctors not see this wound?
Click to expand...

Marion Jenkins, (Professor And Chairman Of Anaesthesiology):

"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)...even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound...."
 
HSienzant said:
And where in there do you see that Kilduff said the bullet entered the temple?

QUOTE]


Oh, but it is you who claimed Kilduff pointed to the place of the large wound to the head without any attribution. You just made it up.

Originally Posted by HSienzant
And let's not forget Malcolm Kilduff who pointed to his right temple in Parkland on the day of the assassination as the place for the President's large wound to the head. He didn't point to the back of his head. He didn't point to the forehead. He pointed to the temple.

FAct is, he pointed to his temple and said the fatal shot was to the brain.
Click to expand...
 
I just heard about the new JFK tapes on Piers Morgan. Can a skeptic tell me why they don't matter?
 
Robert Prey said:
Marion Jenkins, (Professor And Chairman Of Anaesthesiology):

"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)...even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound...."
Click to expand...

This quote agrees with the autopsy report, as does Malcolm Kilduff's pointing to the temple as the location of the large wound on the right side of the head.

You do realize the occipital bone is in the back and well as both sides of the head, yes?

Here's a view of the occipital bone looking up at it:
http://www.eskeletons.org/taxon/human/boneviewer/skull/occipital.html#Inferior

You do realize the quote you supplied says the great laceration was on the right side of the head, not the back of the head, right?

You do realize that Kilduff pointed to the right side of his head, not the back of the head, right?

You do realize the autopsy puts the large exit wound in the right side of the head, not the back of the head, right?

You do realize the z-film shows this same damage immediately after Z312, right? Extensive damage to the right side of the head, right?
You do realize the z-film shows no damage to the back of the head, right?

Thanks!

Hank

PS: For months you've been telling us the Parkland doctors were unanimous in saying the large wound was in the back of the head, then you supply a quote saying Doctor Jenkins described the wound as on the right side of the head. Read it yourself.

I think you don't need me to suppy any more paint. You are doing a great job painting yourself in a corner on your own.
Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
HSienzant said:
And where in there do you see that Kilduff said the bullet entered the temple?

QUOTE]


Oh, but it is you who claimed Kilduff pointed to the place of the large wound to the head without any attribution. You just made it up.


Originally Posted by HSienzant
And let's not forget Malcolm Kilduff who pointed to his right temple in Parkland on the day of the assassination as the place for the President's large wound to the head. He didn't point to the back of his head. He didn't point to the forehead. He pointed to the temple.

FAct is, he pointed to his temple and said the fatal shot was to the brain.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't make it up. Do you think there was a small wound in the right temple? Of course you don't. Nobody with any sense believes that. Nobody testified to that, and Kilduff certainly didn't see any small wound there. If he saw or was describing any wound in the right temple, he was pointing to the location of the massive blowout clearly visible in the z-film, the same wound described in the autopsy as an exit wound. The same wound Doctor Jenkins described. The large wound that you attributed to a dum-dum bullet a few months ago. Remember that wound?

But it wasn't a small wound. It was a large one. That's what I said. Read it again.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Nope. I've never said I believed in body alteration, though I don't dismiss it either. But certainly not at Parkland. But the autopsy photos and x-rays -- according to those who took them -- they are altered or fake substitutes.

*" Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html
Click to expand...

Nobody believes in body alteration at Parkland. Not even Lifton. He said the original plan had to have included the doctors at Parkland, but when the Secret Service took the body, the plan had to be altered. You are not telling me anything I don't know. The autopsy photos and x-rays were verified by experts as being of JFK in the HSCA's term.

What are the dates of those statements you quote, Robert?

How many decades after the fact did those men make those statements?

Thanks much. I tend to put more credence into earlier statements, closer to the actual incident. Like Kilduff pointing to his right temple as the location of the large wound to JFK's head, like Zapruder holding his hand over his right side of his head to locate the large wound.

I tend to discount statements made 30 or more years after the fact.

What about you?
 
Last edited:
Robert, why should we believe any statement contradicted by the physical evidence?

Why have you not been able to show us a single photographic artefact to prove the autopsy photos were. Faked?

Why did you submit some yourself? Call them pre-autopsy if you like, but you have been shown the uncropped original images. You have been shown the series they are part of. Your own evidence contradicts the Parkland testemony. They apparently missed the vast exit wound on the temple. So why should we consider any of their claims accurate?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Robert, why should we believe any statement contradicted by the physical evidence?

Why have you not been able to show us a single photographic artefact to prove the autopsy photos were. Faked?

Why did you submit some yourself? Call them pre-autopsy if you like, but you have been shown the uncropped original images. You have been shown the series they are part of. Your own evidence contradicts the Parkland testemony. They apparently missed the vast exit wound on the temple. So why should we consider any of their claims accurate?
Click to expand...

Your argument is akin to the youth who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy due to the fact that he is now an orphan. The perps destroyed the evidence so all we have that is true, and unaltered are the observations of first hand witnesses, so many in number that in a court of law their testimony would be a slam dunk, your altered, substituted forgeries, thrown on the trash heap of invalid "evidence."
 
Robert Prey said:
Your argument is akin to the youth who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy due to the fact that he is now an orphan. The perps destroyed the evidence so all we have that is true, and unaltered are the observations of first hand witnesses, so many in number that in a court of law their testimony would be a slam dunk, your altered, substituted forgeries, thrown on the trash heap of invalid "evidence."
Click to expand...

So you wont offer any reason to assume a witness statement is correct when it is contradicted by physical evidence, you will just assume the evidence is flawed, stamp your feet and make ad hominem attacks. Oh, and ignore historical prescedent with an assumption of what a court of law would find. (Apparently the CSI effect causes dubious verdicts in the real world, but not on Robert Worl).

Well done. Now try again:

What reason is there to assume witness statement to be correct when it is contradictedby the physical evidence?

How do you know their accounts are more accurate than any others, that are SUPPORTED by physical evidence (which you have failed to discredit)?
 
Please also prove:
There were Perps.
They destroyed evidence.
Your witness have some form of psychiatric anomoly that exempts from the limitations of human faliabilty.

as all you have offered so far is a childish tantrum that something MUST be true because you happen to believe it.

I can offer 45 good and honest witnesses that a magician vanished the statue of liberty. Will you concede that by your own standard the statue of liberty must no longer be visisble?
 
HSienzant said:
Nobody believes in body alteration at Parkland. Not even Lifton. He said the original plan had to have included the doctors at Parkland, but when the Secret Service took the body, the plan had to be altered. You are not telling me anything I don't know. The autopsy photos and x-rays were verified by experts as being of JFK in the HSCA's term.

What are the dates of those statements you quote, Robert?
Click to expand...

Your questions are too non-specific. Have you not read the Warren Report? The doctors statements in the WR are dated Nov. 22, 1963.
 
HSienzant said:
Nobody believes in body alteration at Parkland. Not even Lifton. He said the original plan had to have included the doctors at Parkland, but when the Secret Service took the body, the plan had to be altered. You are not telling me anything I don't know. The autopsy photos and x-rays were verified by experts as being of JFK in the HSCA's term.
Click to expand...

NO. The conclusions of the HSCA as to the veracity of the autopsy photos and x-rays were contrary to the testimony given.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Please also prove:
There were Perps.
They destroyed evidence.
Your witness have some form of psychiatric anomoly that exempts from the limitations of human faliabilty.

as all you have offered so far is a childish tantrum that something MUST be true because you happen to believe it.

I can offer 45 good and honest witnesses that a magician vanished the statue of liberty. Will you concede that by your own standard the statue of liberty must no longer be visisble?
Click to expand...

There were no magicians at Parkland. Only medical personnel trying to save the life of an assassinated President.
 
HSienzant said:
Robert Prey said:
No, I didn't make it up. Do you think there was a small wound in the right temple? Of course you don't. Nobody with any sense believes that. Nobody testified to that, and Kilduff certainly didn't see any small wound there. If he saw or was describing any wound in the right temple, he was pointing to the location of the massive blowout clearly visible in the z-film, the same wound described in the autopsy as an exit wound. The same wound Doctor Jenkins described. The large wound that you attributed to a dum-dum bullet a few months ago. Remember that wound?

But it wasn't a small wound. It was a large one. That's what I said. Read it again.
Click to expand...

If there was a large blow-out wound in the right temple, seems to me the original autopsy photos would not have been hidden from examination by the WC and the public.
Click to expand...
 
HSienzant said:
This quote agrees with the autopsy report, as does Malcolm Kilduff's pointing to the temple as the location of the large wound on the right side of the head.

You do realize the occipital bone is in the back and well as both sides of the head, yes?

Here's a view of the occipital bone looking up at it:
http://www.eskeletons.org/taxon/human/boneviewer/skull/occipital.html#Inferior

You do realize the quote you supplied says the great laceration was on the right side of the head, not the back of the head, right?

You do realize that Kilduff pointed to the right side of his head, not the back of the head, right?

You do realize the autopsy puts the large exit wound in the right side of the head, not the back of the head, right?

You do realize the z-film shows this same damage immediately after Z312, right? Extensive damage to the right side of the head, right?
You do realize the z-film shows no damage to the back of the head, right?

Thanks!

Hank

PS: For months you've been telling us the Parkland doctors were unanimous in saying the large wound was in the back of the head, then you supply a quote saying Doctor Jenkins described the wound as on the right side of the head. Read it yourself.

I think you don't need me to suppy any more paint. You are doing a great job painting yourself in a corner on your own.
Thanks again!
Click to expand...

Tortured and twisted. First you make a challenge that there was no wound in the right temple, and now you say there was a large wound.
A great laceration from the temporal to the occipital refers to the bullet path, front to back. The quote is consistent with all of the other doctors. Perhaps you need a primer on where the lobes are located. Occipital and cerebellum indicates a large blow-out in the back of the head.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
There were no magicians at Parkland. Only medical personnel trying to save the life of an assassinated President.
Click to expand...

And?

Their memories decades after the event are as liable as anybody elsestobe faliable. You believe that one witness can be corroborated by weight of numbers. Ergo, my forty pluss witnesses who saw the statue of liberty vanish, despite physical evidence, must also be correct by your standard.

Please explain how and why your claims should be given special credence as supernaturaly accurate, given they are the SOLE evidence you have provided, and we have objective physical evidence that proves them to be flawed.
 
Robert Prey said:
You tend to discount any statements that conflict with the official script which you foolishly bought into and now are desperate to justify.
Click to expand...

No. Statements that conflict with the physical evisdence are discounted as unreliable.

We know they are unreliable as the evidence proves them wrong.

Your assesment of the methodology of a sceptic is skewered, to justify calling other "foolish"

Why do you believe stories when there is real evidence to hand?

Why can you not prove "the perps" destroyed the "real" evidence?

Why do you even NEED to misrepresent others to justify your refusal to consider the actual evidence?


The answer to all these questions, and many more is: "Because You are wrong Robert".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom