• 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:
"Dr.(Cyril) Wecht says one of the greatest failures of the Warren Commission was in not challenging a poorly performed autopsy of the president. He has said the autopsy was replete with deficiencies, ineptitude and incompetence, and that the attending physicians who conducted the autopsy were not even experienced in gunshot trauma."

http://www.cyrilwecht.com/journal/archives/jfk/index.php
Click to expand...

You want to call Wecht to the stand? Fine by me.

I call Wecht to the stand also.

Please see Cyril Wecht's first published article on the JFK assassination. "The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” published in Forensic Science in 1974.

When Cyril Wecht first examined the autopsy materials, he found no fault with the autopsy whatsoever. He concluded that the evidence indicated the two shots that struck the president both came from the rear, and there was no evidence of shots from any other location. He agreed totally with the original autopsy conclusions 100%.

Since that time, he has become a conspiracy believer, and it has affected his original conclusions reached after he first viewed the autopsy materials.

But originally? He said the autopsy and the autopsy conclusions were fine. I trust his original conclusions - unvarnished by conspiracy rhetoric - more than the modified and altered conclusions he reached later.

You need another expert witness. I can impeach this one with his own words.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
There is no such a thing as a William Muchmore film. Don't you know anything about the assassination???
Click to expand...

Sorry, Marie Muchmore. Obviously was thinking too much about William 'Bill' Newman.

Now, address the points I made, or is Mark Lane your idol?

When talking about Lane's conspiracy points about the assassination, one wit pointed out that good lawyers have a common trait - they go right for the jugular. But Mark Lane? He goes right for the capillaries, said this person (no, I don't remember who said it. It was back in 1966 or so).

Now, do you have any substantial criticism of any of the points I made, or is this the best you can do? Next you'll be reduced to pointing out spelling and grammar errors.

I put my original post below, to give you a fair chance to make a actual point and point out any substantive errors in my post.

Hank

HSienzant said:
I am trying to capture another frog. How come everytime you post you are saying something clearly not true?

William [oops - Marie] Muchmore took a film which can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbG_XWj8ccU

You are showing one frame of that film. It isn't a stand-alone still image, it's one frame from a film. Don't you know anything about the assassination?

The Z-film is universally recognized as a much-clearer, much-closer film. (Not only was he standing closer to the limo at the time of the head shot, but Zapruder's camera was set for telephoto lens, which zoomed the image).

You're welcome.

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
No. The Muchmore photo is shot after the fatal shot to the head by reason of the fact that K's head is down in Jackie's lap. This is well after the shot, and after Jackie tried to retrieve K's brains on the back of the trunk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw
Click to expand...

It occurs to me that there's an easier way to disprove your nonsense than citing the films and photographs as I did earlier. First off, I believe you meant the frame from the Nix film I cited, rather than the frame from the Marie Muchmore film you cited. But the disproof is easy: Clint Hill reaches the limo in the above film YOU cited as Jackie starts to climb out of the seat. He climbs onto the back of the limo and then onto the trunk as Jackie retreats in her seat. He is on the limo for the entire ride to Parkland.

Now, I am old and my eyes are failing, so please point out to me where Clint Hill is in either the Nix image I cited or the Muchmore image you cited (both images below) if, in fact either of these images is "well after the [head] shot and after Jackie tried to retrieve K's brains on the back of the trunk" and then went back to the limo seat.

Quite clearly, you are opting to just throw mud against a wall at this point and hoping some of it sticks.

HSienzant said:
Here's an image from the Nix film, showing where Newman was in relation to both Zapruder and the limo. My placement approximates these positions far better than yours. Yours makes no sense whatsoever.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/NixFrame.jpg
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
NO. He never was behind the Limo. At the instant of the Head shot he was just in front of the Limo as one can deduce just after the shot where he is at the side of the Limo as depicted in this clearer Muchmore photo:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f34443b9f2fe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Oh my.

And remember Dr. Jenkins? He said the damage was a great laceration to the right side of the head. He did not say the damage extended to the back of the head..
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to repeat falsehoods that you have been corrected on time and again. Here is what Jenkins said:

"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...."

The words Occipital and Cerebellum refer to the back of the head. Get it????
 
Originally Posted by HSienzant
Here's an image from the Nix film, showing where Newman was in relation to both Zapruder and the limo. My placement approximates these positions far better than yours. Yours makes no sense whatsoever.

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

Comment: That pic does not show Newman to be behind the Limo, but right on the side, just after the head shot.
 
HSienzant said:
Sorry, Marie Muchmore. Obviously was thinking too much about William 'Bill' Newman.

Now, address the points I made, or is Mark Lane your idol?

When talking about Lane's conspiracy points about the assassination, one wit pointed out that good lawyers have a common trait - they go right for the jugular. But Mark Lane? He goes right for the capillaries, said this person (no, I don't remember who said it. It was back in 1966 or so).

Now, do you have any substantial criticism of any of the points I made, or is this the best you can do? Next you'll be reduced to pointing out spelling and grammar errors.

I put my original post below, to give you a fair chance to make a actual point and point out any substantive errors in my post.

Hank
Click to expand...

Your claim, if I can follow your gobbedegook, is that Newman should have seen the back of JFK's head. Your claim is false as depicted in the pics as shown.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why do you continue to repeat falsehoods that you have been corrected on time and again. Here is what Jenkins said:

"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...."

The words Occipital and Cerebellum refer to the back of the head. Get it????
Click to expand...


Funny Robert forgot to mention the "Temporal" bit that I highlighted.

Does temporal mean "Back of the head", or is Robert misrepresenting some cherry picked descriptions to make it seem like it supports his theory?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=sk...tart=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=59&ty=33

HOLY TEMPORAL LOBES BATMAN! No it doesn't.

It also says the Cerebullum and Occipital extended. Almost like something bullet shaped had punched its way from the back of the head and out of the front. You know, like it was some kind of bullet related trauma. Fancy that!
 
HSienzant said:
You want to call Wecht to the stand? Fine by me.

I call Wecht to the stand also.

Please see Cyril Wecht's first published article on the JFK assassination. "The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” published in Forensic Science in 1974.

When Cyril Wecht first examined the autopsy materials, he found no fault with the autopsy whatsoever.

Hank
Click to expand...


Like most of the rest of your junk, that statement is false. From the original article of Forensic Science:

Forensic Science. 3 (1974)105-128

THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

"The autopsy of President Kennedy was deficient in failing to report a numher of
accurate measurements of the locations of the wounds."

3.3. Present state of knowledge of the details of the shooting
"The Warren Commission's "single-bullet theory" is untenable, and the Commission's
conclusion that there was only one assassin cannot be reconciled with available evidence.
Medical and photographic data, including measurements of wound angles and calculations
of bullet trajectories, strongly suggest that there were two rifles used..."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis...A Disk/Autopsy JFK Cyril Wecht Dr/Item 18.pdf
 
Still waiting for that one piece of physical evidence proving the existence of the wounds as described by Robert.

Get the feeling it will be a very long wait. 80 pages and not a single piece of physical evidence that passes scrutiny.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I still want to know from robert:
1)How he believes the cloud of ejecta in the Z film he considers to be the "jet effect" of an entry wound can be travelling in all the directions of the visible cloud if it came from a small hole. (Boy oh boy turning on a faucet in the Prey household must be an adventure given how the laws of physics seem to work there).
2) how the large "blow out" exit wound that can't be seen caused ejecta in such a narrow arc of directions that none of it touched the back of the limo except for the one piece he claims to have identified.
3). Why said blow out is invisible on the z film and polaroid.
4) what directions robert thinks mass would "blow out in" so they hit an outrider but nothing else.

Boy oh boy physics is fun! If robert is right about the head being under pressure, and if his witnesses are correct about a massive (ie large amount of mass) exit wound on the back of the head, isn't odd none of it at all was travelling downwards? In spite of the bullet path Robert drew?

Pesky laws of inertia! Damn Issaac Newton for ruining Roberts theories!
Click to expand...

That's all water under the bridge, answered time and time again. Get a life.
 
Bill Newman:


"We were looking more or less directly at the Pres when he was hit. he was more or less directly in front of us..."

End of story.
 
Robert Prey said:
That's all water under the bridge, answered time and time again. Get a life.
Click to expand...

Time and time again?

Show me the post(s) where you explain how the arch of trajectories visible from the Z film matches the description of the alleged entry wound you claim they correspond to. Show me how "jet effect" can cause that volume of mass to travel in that range of dirrections through a small hole.

Show me anything other your unfounded claims of tampering, or pointless claims of blurryness that explains how and why your alleged exit wound to the back of the head is invisible on all available photographs and film. Or how the comparratively small amount of ejecta from an "entry" wound is visible with no visible "exit wound" ejecta?

Show me the explanation of how no splatter other than the single small fragment you claim to have identified in one image is visible on the back of the limo. Please refere me to the multiple times where you have addressed how the blood and soft tissue that apparently "blew out" of the lower portion of JFKs head managed to avoid landing on the trunk of the limo.

In fact direct me to a single post where you address number 4) at all. As far as I can see you have shown no understanding of the description of exit wounds you keep copying and pasting. You show absolutey zero comprehension of where the matter "blown out" of this hole would go or what tace would be left. Are you now suggesting the entire back portion of JFKs head hit the motorcycle rider in tact? As otherwise you will have to explain where you think the rest of the brrain (remember, your own source stated the skull had been emptied) went.

Or how it apparently ignored the laws of physics.

I have a life Robert. What I want are answers that make sense. You supply none. Zero. Nada. Nowt.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why do you continue to repeat falsehoods that you have been corrected on time and again. Here is what Jenkins said:

"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...."

The words Occipital and Cerebellum refer to the back of the head. Get it????
Click to expand...

Yes, you keep telling me that. But where did Jenkins place the wound, in plain English?

"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head ... " Oh boy.

Funny he said right side of the head if he actually meant there was a large wound in the back of the head that looked like the image you keep posting.

The image below, looks to me like a great laceration on the back of the head.
Are you claim this image is actually a wound on the right side of the head, and Jenkins described it correctly?

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

Why do you suppose he said "right side of the head" if the wound was actually in the back of the head as you insist? Was English not his native language?

I think he meant what he said "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head ... "

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Bill Newman:


"We were looking more or less directly at the Pres when he was hit. he was more or less directly in front of us..."

End of story.
Click to expand...

lol.

It wasn't that long ago that you told us there was problems with Newman's eyewitness testimony. Don't you remember posting this:

Robert Prey said:
What is inconsistent is the fact that Newman said the shot was directly behind where he was standing, and the first shot he placed himself 50 feet before the Limo, the second shot, he placed himself still in front of the Limo. So something is wrong -- the placement of the limo, the shot or shots, and his position. One thing for sure, it's no where near the TSBD.
Click to expand...

Now, of course, you want to quote one vague line from Newman's testimony and say 'end of story'. Sorry, no. In the sentence you quote, Newman himself qualifies his position as '*more or less* directly in front of us.' More or less. There's some leeway there. And a close examination of the images of the assassination shows Newman was slightly behind the limo.

This image

http://simfootball.net/JFK/MoormanFBIprint-1.jpg

shows that a straight line drawn between Moorman and Newman intersects no part of the limo (all of the limo is to the left of that line from the vantage point of Moorman) and that means the limo (and most certainly JFK) was already past both Moorman's and Newman's position. Remember as well that JFK's head was canted to the left of the centerline of the limo, establishing that Newman could see much of the back of JFK's head.

You claimed originally that Newman couldn't see the back of JFK's head because he was in front of the limo at the time of the head shot:

Robert Prey said:
... Just checking two additional witnesses (Bill and Gayle Newman) which you cite as observing a wound to the right side of the head (that is not in dispute, sir, the right side of the head exploded, the back of the head is not observed since the witness was in front of the limo) ....
Click to expand...

So we are making real progress here. You are capable of learning after all. You still haven't retracted the above, however. Do you admit now your claim that Newman was in front of the limo was incorrect? You now appear to be placing him at the side of the limo.

Remember as well that you misplaced the limo (yellow highlight in the far right lane), Newman (red X), and the area Newman marked as the source of the shots (blue X) in the map you submitted:

Robert Prey said:
Based on Newman's statements that the shots came from directly behind him, I would revise your Dealey Plaza illustration as follows:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f33a1c171e55.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So are you ready to concede that Newman was slightly behind and to the right of the limo at the time of the head shot? And not in front of the limo as you originally posted?

Would you not agree then, that given Newman's position, he had a view of the back of the head, and yet he failed to mention any damage to the back of the head? He mentioned only damage to the right temple (as you yourself conceded a while ago, arguing the back of the head damage was not seen because he was in front of the limo). You are now moving Newman further back, alongside the limo, and that position would still give Newman a view of the back of the head.

So could you explain now why Newman mentioned only a large blowout in the right side of the head and said nothing about damage to the back of the head?
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
lol.

It wasn't that long ago that you told us there was problems with Newman's eyewitness testimony. Don't you remember posting this:



Now, of course, you want to quote one vague line from Newman's testimony and say 'end of story'. Sorry, no. In the sentence you quote, Newman himself qualifies his position as '*more or less* directly in front of us.' More or less. There's some leeway there. And a close examination of the images of the assassination shows Newman was slightly behind the limo.

This image

http://simfootball.net/JFK/MoormanFBIprint-1.jpg

shows that a straight line drawn between Moorman and Newman intersects no part of the limo (all of the limo is to the left of that line from the vantage point of Moorman) and that means the limo (and most certainly JFK) was already past both Moorman's and Newman's position. Remember as well that JFK's head was canted to the left of the centerline of the limo, establishing that Newman could see much of the back of JFK's head.

You claimed originally that Newman couldn't see the back of JFK's head because he was in front of the limo at the time of the head shot:



So we are making real progress here. You are capable of learning after all. You still haven't retracted the above, however. Do you admit now your claim that Newman was in front of the limo was incorrect? You now appear to be placing him at the side of the limo.

Remember as well that you misplaced the limo (yellow highlight in the far right lane), Newman (red X), and the area Newman marked as the source of the shots (blue X) in the map you submitted:



So are you ready to concede that Newman was slightly behind and to the right of the limo at the time of the head shot? And not in front of the limo as you originally posted?

Would you not agree then, that given Newman's position, he had a view of the back of the head, and yet he failed to mention any damage to the back of the head? He mentioned only damage to the right temple (as you yourself conceded a while ago, arguing the back of the head damage was not seen because he was in front of the limo). You are now moving Newman further back, alongside the limo, and that position would still give Newman a view of the back of the head.

So could you explain now why Newman mentioned only a large blowout in the right side of the head and said nothing about damage to the back of the head?
Click to expand...

Everything you have stated in this post is upside down, backwards double-talk and baloney. And also untrue.
 
Robert Prey said:
Everything you have stated in this post is upside down, backwards double-talk and baloney. And also untrue.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Typical conspiracy theorist response. Robert, I thought you were better than this, and would point out specifically where I was mistaken.

I am truly shocked and surprised that you won't take the time to point out the errors I made, so you can educate me and convince me you are correct.

All I did, of course, was present your differenting versions of events, complete with the links back to your original posts, and contrast those versions with what the images actually reveal.

So please reconsider your short, inadequate response above, and go into detail about where my errors are.

Unless of course, I made no errors.

Thanks,
Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Originally Posted by HSienzant
Here's an image from the Nix film, showing where Newman was in relation to both Zapruder and the limo. My placement approximates these positions far better than yours. Yours makes no sense whatsoever.

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

Comment: That pic does not show Newman to be behind the Limo, but right on the side, just after the head shot.
Click to expand...

Reminder: that's not where you placed Newman originally, Robert:
Robert Prey said:
Just checking two additional witnesses (Bill and Gayle Newman) ... the back of the head is not observed since the witness was in front of the limo) ...
Click to expand...
"Just checking two additional witnesses (Bill and Gayle Newman) ... the back of the head is not observed since the witness was in front of the limo) ..."

And the picture shows what I said it shows. It is about a second before the head shot, not after the head shot as you falsely allege, and it was cited to disprove your original assertion that Newman was in front of the limo at the time of the head shot and thus had no view of the back of JFK's head at the time of the head shot.
The image I cited shows Newman alongside the limo BEFORE the head shot, and it shows Newman's position relative to Zapruder. It establishes therefore that I marked the Dealey Plaza map far more accurately than you.

My map (Red X is Newman, Yellow box is the limo, the blue swipe is the area Newman said the shots came from):
http://simfootball.net/JFK/DealeyMap-NewmanMarked.jpg

Your map (Red X is Newman, Yellow highlight in black box is the limo, the blue X is the area Newman said the shots came from):
http://simfootball.net/JFK/PreyMap.jpg

Robert, does your map look anything like the image from the Nix film in terms of the positions of Newman and the limo?
 
Last edited:
Hank wrote:

"It wasn't that long ago that you told us there was problems with Newman's eyewitness testimony. "

Comment: A lie. I never said that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom