JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

This was covered in detail a few months ago. Your suppositions about what should or should not have been seen by the public are nonsense, especially since the President's own brother - the Attorney Generaal of the U.S. - was opposed to the autopsy photos of his brother being published anywhere.

How do you know that?

 

[Robert Prey]

T
Instead of that, you published a cropped image and claimed it showed a entry wound to the forehead. Remember that?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Nothing is cropped. And since the head is not taken apart, it is obviously a pre-autopsy photo which nonetheless cannot be trusted as un-altered. But the notion that a commission investigating the crime of the century did not want to see the autopsy photos is ludicrous, In fact, even Arlen Spector requested to see them.

 

[Robert Prey]

Did he say whether the bullet entered the temple, or exited the temple?

Fact is, he did not say. Nor is he qualified to say whether the large wound in the temple was an exit or entrance.

He simply pointed to the temple as the location of the wound.

And it is clearly the most obvious wound, as seen in the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos.

And you cited Dr. Jenkins as the possible source of this info, but Jenkins clearly was describing a LARGE wound in the area of the temple:



So if Jenkins is the source, and Kilduff simply relaying info he got from the doctors, specifically Jenkins, Kilduff is putting the large wound in the right temple area, as I said originally. As I've said, you're doing a great job painting yourself into a corner. Using the evidence you provided, we see that Kilduff did indeed put the large wound in the temple.

This is further first day evidence (not decades later evidence), along with Zapruder's statement on local TV, that the large wound was in the temple, not the back of the head.

So we've got Dr. Jenkins, Abraham Zapruder, and Malcolm Kilduff all putting the large wound in the right side of the head.

A laceration is a tear. And nobody disputes that is front to back. Kilduff did not say it was a 'Large" wound to the temple. That is your own brainwash.

""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...." A great laceration is a tear. There is nothing in his statement that says a large wound to the temple, but a laceration (a tear) from front to back. Try to be a little more honest in summing up a quote.

 

[Robert Prey]

ir.
DA: Versus the documentary record of the autopsy, witnessed by personell from the forces, supported by a photographic record? No contest. One slam dunk becomes 40 opertunities for own goals.

You have yet to provide any quotes or observations of anybody on the scene either at Parkland, Bethesda or Dealey Plaze which contradicts that observations of 40 plus on the scene witnesses.

 

[Robert Prey]

I hope you are not counting Doctor Jenkins among them.

By your own admission, Dr. Jenkins put the head wound "on the right side of the head".

Not the back of the head, the right side.

Precisely where we see it in the z-film and the autopsy photos.

You do remember posting the below, right? English is your native tongue, correct?

Do you still not accept that the word occiptal refers to the back of the head??? So the laceration was front to back on the right side of the head. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

TomTom wrote:

You know what is a bigger slam dunk than a meer 40 eye witnesses in court?

Film, so you can see the wound yourself, and not rely on subjective opinion of a guy who is not a pathologist, and 39 other people who arent pathologists and didnt inspect the back of jfks head.

Comment: What Pathologist said what?

Photos of the wounds. Both taken immediately after the fatal shot, and at the autopsy, including those Robert himself submitted.

Comment: There are no photos taken immediately after the shot. The autopsy photos have been declared fraud by their authors.

The rifle, shell casings and fingerprints.

Comment: You cannot prove Oswald ever took receipt of the rifle. The original rifle found was describe as a German Mauser, 7.65, and there were no fingerprints.


Photos of the killer, holding the murder weapons.

Comment: More question begging. You have not proved LhO to be a killer, but I have proved the photos to be faked.


The reciepts for the murder weapons.
Comment: With a forged signature.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Unlike exit wounds, entrance wounds do not "extrude."

I will not hold my breathe waiting for substantiation of that claim.

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

Entrance Wounds
The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound, which can sometimes be ragged with skin, tissue, and muscle and bone damage. Entrance wounds are often ringed with the residue of gunpowder and cordite - the two substances contained within a bullet.

Exit Wounds
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

 

[RoboTimbo]

Comment: You cannot prove Oswald ever took receipt of the rifle. The original rifle found was describe as a German Mauser, 7.65, and there were no fingerprints.

Are you lying or simply mistaken?

Photos of the killer, holding the murder weapons.

Comment: More question begging. You have not proved LhO to be a killer, but I have proved the photos to be faked.

What times are it?


LOL.

Did Half a Beer Doofus Pleather Boy hit you with his broom handle?

LOL.

The reciepts for the murder weapons.
Comment: With a forged signature.

Are you lying or simply mistaken?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Entrance Wounds
The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound, which can sometimes be ragged with skin, tissue, and muscle and bone damage. Entrance wounds are often ringed with the residue of gunpowder and cordite - the two substances contained within a bullet.

Exit Wounds
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

Post that video showing entrance and exit wounds to steel plates again where you shot yourself in the foot the first time.

Bang!

LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is further first day evidence (not decades later evidence), along with Zapruder's statement on local TV, that the large wound was in the temple, not the back of the head.

Have you no shame? That is also factually incorrect. Zapruder said that after the first shot there was a 2nd and perhaps a third shot. "His head practically opened up, all blood all over and everything (and as he said that he placed his clawed fingers on the right side of his head.)" He said nothing about a large wound in the "temple."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29REZV_NT9E&feature=related

A little more honesty would be appreciated. Shame.

 

[HSienzant]

Nothing is cropped. And since the head is not taken apart, it is obviously a pre-autopsy photo which nonetheless cannot be trusted as un-altered. But the notion that a commission investigating the crime of the century did not want to see the autopsy photos is ludicrous, In fact, even Arlen Spector requested to see them.

If it can't be trusted, why did you cite it?

It is most certainly cropped. It is a cropped image of the second image seen on this website:
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html

Compare to what you posted:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Yours is rotated 90 degrees and most certainly cropped to exclude almost all the damage to the head that is actually visible.

I did not say the Commission staff (including Arlen Spector) didn't want to see the autopsy photos; I said Earl Warren decided not to publish them: "As Earl Warren stated, the commissioners and the staff were neither doctors nor pathologists, and so were not qualified to interpret neither the photos nor the x-rays, so he felt it best if the pathologists who performed the autopsy describe the wounds in detail in laymen's terms in their testimony. This was done."

You know the difference between the Warren Commissioners and the Warren Commission staff, right?

Or do you?

Hank

 

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Unlike exit wounds, entrance wounds do not "extrude."



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

Entrance Wounds
The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound, which can sometimes be ragged with skin, tissue, and muscle and bone damage. Entrance wounds are often ringed with the residue of gunpowder and cordite - the two substances contained within a bullet.

Exit Wounds
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

I'm glad I didn't hold my breathe as I would still be holding it. Here is the quote from the Doctor as you posted it:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Dr. Kemp Clark, Associate Professor and Chairman of Neurosurgery:
"There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar tissues were extruding from the wound."

So muchfor Dr.Clark's non-observations.

Nowhere does the Doctor make a distinction between exit or entry wound. It was one wound that began in the right occiput. That is where the beveled entry wound is. The skull blew out a big chunk from the entry wound to the exit wound.

How, what you posted as a reply, has anything to do with what your own source says, is beyond me.

 

[HSienzant]

Have you no shame? That is also factually incorrect. Zapruder said that after the first shot there was a 2nd and perhaps a third shot. "His head practically opened up, all blood all over and everything (and as he said that he placed his clawed fingers on the right side of his head.)" He said nothing about a large wound in the "temple."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29REZV_NT9E&feature=related

A little more honesty would be appreciated. Shame.

....on the right side of the head?

Thank you!

There you go painting yourself into a corner again.

Why is your supposed back of the head witnesses keep saying right side of the head?

This agrees with where Dr. Jenkins put the damage.
....on the right side of the head!


Not in the back of the head.

And it agrees with the head area indicated by Kilduff for the large wound. and the area indicated by Zapruder.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/Zapruder.jpg

http://simfootball.net/JFK/Kilduff.jpg

None of these witnesses said 'back of the head' for the large damage to the head, Robert.

Why do you suppose that is?

Did Zapruder see an altered body? Or altered photos?

Or did he see the large blowout that is clearly visible to all of us in the z-film?

Hank

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Comment: More question begging. You have not proved LhO to be a killer, but I have proved the photos to be faked.

No, you have not. Please direct me to the post where you identify a photographic artefact in any of the photos that proves fakery. Your only claims have been of impossible shadows, long since debunked and proven wrong by the shadows being replicated multiple times.

The reciepts for the murder weapons.
Comment: With a forged signature.

The signiature forged by LHO, for an identity he used with the false identity being carried at the time of the shooting.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If it can't be trusted, why did you cite it?

It is most certainly cropped. It is a cropped image of the second image seen on this website:
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html

Compare to what you posted:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

It may have been before you started posting here, but Robert also stated "the uncropped version" was in a you-tube video. He has had all this pointed out to him before, but can not, for some reason bring himself to see the obvious lie he has told (inadvertantly or otherwise).

There was a time I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed the photo he cropped at least featured the wounds he described. However most sites have stopped claiming photos of Tippit are JFK, since one of the worst written CT sites did some basic research and Mr Morningstar (of all people) pointed out the error.

Having been directed away from that false direction I, with the help of other posters here, soon identified which photos Robert had cropped and rotated. It is the same old trick his source, Groden uses. Though Robert claims not to have cited Groden, while just happening to use his photos with his description.

There is no room for Robert to be mistaken now. The deciet has been pointed out to him, the place of the photo he submitted in the series of images from the same film have been pointed out. He still insists those are "pre"autopsy photos, as a worm around his own claim that any and all photos of JFK in the morgue are faked.

Exactly why and how he can claim that, then not retract his own statements is beyond me.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and Robert, arguing against other peoples evidence isn't the same as proving your own case.

This is a simple yes or no question: Can you supply a single piece of evidence that proves the second gunman, and meets the same (impossible) standard you expect from "the lone nutters"?

 

[HSienzant]

Do you still not accept that the word occiptal refers to the back of the head??? So the laceration was front to back on the right side of the head. Obviously.

Do you still not accept that Dr. Jenkins said the wound was "..on the right side of the head?"

Do you think Dr.Jenkins meant "back of the head" when he said this?

 

[HSienzant]

....on the right side of the head?

Thank you!

There you go painting yourself into a corner again.

Why is your supposed back of the head witnesses keep saying right side of the head?

This agrees with where Dr. Jenkins put the damage.
....on the right side of the head!


Not in the back of the head.

And it agrees with the head area indicated by Kilduff for the large wound. and the area indicated by Zapruder.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/Zapruder.jpg

http://simfootball.net/JFK/Kilduff.jpg

None of these witnesses said 'back of the head' for the large damage to the head, Robert.

Why do you suppose that is?

Did Zapruder see an altered body? Or altered photos?

Or did he see the large blowout that is clearly visible to all of us in the z-film?

Hank

And how about the statements of these additional two witnesses to damage to the side of the head:

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman told Jay Watson on TV station WFAA: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out."

From the website: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b:reasontobelieve


Curiously, neither these witnesses, nor Zapruder on Elm, nor Malcolm Kilduff nor Dr. Jenkins at Parkland, said a word about damage to the back of the head.

That's five contemporaneous witnesses talking about damage to the side of the head, not the back of the head.

All placed the damage on the right side of the head.

Why is that, you suppose?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Comment: What Pathologist said what?

You seem to miss the point. How many of your 40 witnesses are pathologists? I will give you a clue: It's less than 40.

Do you know why, in a court of law, it would be of no small importance, if they were or were not pathologists?

I'm guessing you don't, after all I have read your own description of your qualifications to give a "professional medical opinion" when asked.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Fritz Springmeier said on the Alex Jones show today that Onassis was one of those who planned the JFK assassination and Springmeier has a photo with Jackie Kennedy in relation to Onassis.

The Onassis are a part of the Illuminati top bloodline families! And the Illuminati is into mind control. And Jackie Kennedy looks like acting out of mind control in the Zapruder film!