JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

reasonable people will simply accept his process and conclusions as interesting and even possible.

Why would we "Just accept" anything that is unsupported by evidence? Because he says so?

Nope. Sorry. Reasonable people use reason. That means looking at claims, looking at the evidence and reasoning if one is supported by the other. It does not mean "accept what some guy says with out question".

Oddly, if it DID mean that, then surely you would be a WC advocate? They say they have evidence, they are experts, they say LHO did it. Why is it reasonable to just accept one but not the other?


Double your standards much?

 

[Robert Prey]

O Ye Of Little Faith (and even less scholarship)

Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:

l. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

2, ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD

5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine

15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern

16 PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse

17. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL

18. NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON

Witnesses at Bethesda

19. GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid,

20. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

21. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

22. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

23. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

24. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

25. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle

26. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

27. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

28. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

29. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

30. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

31, SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER

32. FLOYD RIEBE

33. JAMES C. JENKINS

Dealey Plaza

34.Ken O'Donnell

35. DAVE POWERS

36. Gov. Connally

37. PHIL WILLIS

38. MARILYN WILLIS

39. LINDA WILLIS

40. ROSEMARY WILLIS

41. BEVERLY OLIVER

42. ED HOFFMAN

43. BILL NEWMAN

44. GAYLE NEWMAN

 

[Tomtomkent]

So what can we tell from this list. Do they agree with Robert?


l. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

2, ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg1.txt

MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD--In a contemporaneous note dated
11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration
on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing
a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation
and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that
the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit
#392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said,
""Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the
cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..."
(WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and
occipital wound was a wound of exit: "...the wound with the exploded
area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I
would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

Who can point to their right temple? Who knows where their scalp is?

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico
said, "The skull wound "...was a fairly large wound in the right side
of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see
blood and brains, both cerebellum/and cerebrum fragments in that
wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

Note once again, "Right side", and just to be clear the context suggests the "occipital" is referring to the bone, not the Occipital Lobe that Robert relies on to place the wond on the back of the head. At best this can be selectively quoted to appear to help his case. But under scrutiny? No.

On March 5, 1981, C. James Carrico sent a letter to Ben Bradlee (Jr.)
of THE BOSTON GLOBE responding to a query from Bradlee. Bradlee had
apparently asked him about the standard conspiracist claim that the
doctors saw the "back of the head" blown out, and that this
contradicted the autopsy photos.

Carrico told Bradlee that:

". . . there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is
incompatible with the injury as I remember it."

Not so good for Roberts assertion.



5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg13.txt

"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..."

So he looked over at the wound briefly by leaning over the table. The occipital bone again, which is not to be mistaken for the occipital lobe, which, if JFK was laying down... How would he see the head was blown out?

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician


7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe
below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound
in the back of the head?

Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's
head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and
skull fragments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg20.txt

So he couldn't see the back of the head? Hmm....

But assume for a second he did, give Robert that benefit:

He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal
region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit
on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head...". (Emphasis added throughout)
(WC-V6:67)

The Occipital bone being the protrubance from the rear of the skull, but not as Robert suggests meaning the rear face of the skull, and noting the shot came from "at least tangentially behind". Whoopsie, that undermines Robs "shot from the front" assertion. It directly contradicts it!


8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg19.txt
So the photos in the archive are fake? And this witness PROVES that right? Well, what did Peters say on seeing those photos in the archive?

"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President
Kennedy at the time."

Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he
believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain.

Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even
a trained observer can be wrong." Other evidence, including the
testimony of the autopsists and the photos of the brain make it clear
that neither Peters nor any of the other doctors could have seen
cerebellum.

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
The dishonesty of this man has been established previously in this thread.

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician
"...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing". (WC-V6:44)
Temporal anybody?

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg5.txt
That would be the guy who told the Boston Globe he saw:

two separate wounds: a large defect in the parietal area above the
right ear, and a second wound, about one-and-a-quarter inches in
diameter, located squarely in the occiput. Grossman, the only
physician to report seeing to such distinct wounds, was never called
to testify before the Warren Commission or the House Assassinations
Committee.

So a small wound in the occiput, a big wound on the parietal above the ear.
Small wound at the rear of the head, big wound on the right side. Sounds like the exact opposite to Roberts claims....

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident


13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology


14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine


15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern
Not this Kenny Everett then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FJDAep-WDg
(Joking aside, moving on...)

16 PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse


17. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL


18. NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON


Witnesses at Bethesda

19. GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid,

20. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

21. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

22. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

23. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

24. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

25. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle

26. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

27. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

28. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

29. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

30. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

31, SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER

32. FLOYD RIEBE

33. JAMES C. JENKINS

Dealey Plaza

34.Ken O'Donnell

35. DAVE POWERS

36. Gov. Connally

37. PHIL WILLIS

38. MARILYN WILLIS

39. LINDA WILLIS

40. ROSEMARY WILLIS

41. BEVERLY OLIVER

42. ED HOFFMAN:

Told the FBI he saw two men running from the TSBD then went back to claim he couldn't have because a fence was in the way.

43. BILL NEWMAN

44. GAYLE NEWMAN

 

[Tomtomkent]

One would think that since you've claimed this so often that you would have listed all 40+ witnesses and supplied at least one unaltered quote taken in context from each of them to show that they really do claim to have seen what you say they claim to have seen. But that's OK Robert, we know why you haven't done that.

So we have the list. When will Roberts scholarship extend to the highlighted bits?

Because I've supplied quotes for some, and they aren't showing this so far...


Or does Robert think we just accept they agree with him with out seeing the evidence?

 

[HSienzant]

Having put on my "big boy" pants, I would challenge you to put on yours and to read the entire ARRB interview. The assertion that Spencer's assertion that the photos she developed were pristine, cleanup up versions is correct. But the conclusion that the autopsy photos in the public domain that we are all familiar with are the same photos that Spencer developed is incorrect, according to Spencer herself:

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in -- you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

Do you need any further translation?? In the intervews session Spencer was later shown what was described as the original autopsy photos from the achives. These photos, as Spencer described them, were very different from the ones she developed, showing among other things, dryed blood and "There was no -- the film that I seen or the prints that we printed did not have the massive head damages that is visible here....none of the heavy damage that shows in these photographs were visible in the photographs that we did...

Q: In terms of the locations of the wound, do you see any differences or similarities with those that you developed in Nov., 1963?
A: No, there is no similarity...

Q: Is there any doubt in your mind that the photographs that you saw in Nov. 1963 also were of President Kennedy?

A: No, that was President Kennedy, but between those photographs and the ones that we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done to the President's body.

So, you are correct in stating that the photos S developed were different and done after the wounds were altered, but you are incorrect in deducing that these are the very same photos in the public domain. Thus, there were at least two sets of autopsy photos, and taking into account what Doug Horne has asserted, more than two, because he asserts that the so-called originals in the archives are also fake.

Robert,

Other than her recollection (more than three decades after the fact) that she developed some post-mortem photos of JFK, what evidence is there that she had anything to do with any autopsy photos of JFK?

Is there anything that supports her recollection, or is the sole evidence of these photos Spencer's recollection, and only her recollection?

Is there a work log, for example, that shows that on the night of 11/29 (or whatever) she was at work, and developed JFK autopsy photos? Is there a contemporaneous record of any sort (even a personal diary notation made back in November of 1963) that shows she developed JFK autopsy photos? Did she mention this to friends, co-workers, relatives? Anything?

Or does this whole issue stand - and fall - on her three-decade-plus recollection?

Thanks,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg20.txt

So he couldn't see the back of the head? Hmm....

But assume for a second he did, give Robert that benefit:

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

Quote:
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe
below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound
in the back of the head?

Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's
head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and
skull fragments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg20.txt

So he couldn't see the back of the head? Hmm....

But assume for a second he did, give Robert that benefit:

He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal
region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit
on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of
the head..." (Emphasis added throughout)

(WC-V6:67)
The Occipital bone being the protrubance from the rear of the skull, but not as Robert suggests meaning the rear face of the skull, and noting the shot came from "at least tangentially behind". Whoopsie, that undermines Robs "shot from the front" assertion. It directly contradicts it!

And AIKEN admits he only *assumes* the wound in the back of the head was the exit. Emphasis added above. He further assumed the shot hit JFK from the left side of the head or tangentially. The autopsy, of course, determined AIKEN was incorrect on all his assumptions.

Here's the HSCA drawing of the damage to the head again. Note the damage extends to the back of the head in the official version.
The language of all the witnesses who described seeing damage to the back of the head must be parsed very carefully -- and without bias -- to determine if their description is in conflict with the below image.

Most are not.

 

[LSSBB]

Robert, so far some of the ones you listed don't appear to be solid, based on what Hank and Tom show. Do you still swear by them? Why should I (or anyone else) even bother with believing the rest, if you haven't identified these issues in their testimony with regards to your case? Didn't you bother vetting them yourself first? I asked for a list that you swear by.

 

[HSienzant]

34.Ken O'Donnell

35. DAVE POWERS

36. Gov. Connally

37. PHIL WILLIS

38. MARILYN WILLIS

39. LINDA WILLIS

40. ROSEMARY WILLIS

41. BEVERLY OLIVER

42. ED HOFFMAN

43. BILL NEWMAN

44. GAYLE NEWMAN

You have two people listed in there that don't belong for the simple reason that there's no evidence they were in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting or anywhere near enough to see anything of note. These two people's claims are questionable for another reason -- there's no evidence they came forward to tell any story about the assassination until years after the event. Many people believe they simply made up their accounts out of whole cloth simply to put themselves into the historical record.

Those two people are, of course, Beverly Oliver and Ed Hoffman.

The others did not give any testimony consistent with an exit wound in the back of the head.

For example, Bill Newman, who was discussed extensively a month or so ago, said the wound was on the right side of the head. His wife, Frances Gayle Newman, said much the same thing. He never put the wound in the back of the head. But these are supposedly witnesses in Dealey Plaza that you attest confirm the existence of the large wound of exit in the back of the head. They don't. Both Newman and his wife saw a wound on the right side of the president's head. Neither mentioned a wound in the back of the head of any sort. Your claims are falsehoods, if not deliberate lies.

Here's Bill's first statement, given 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.”
From the website: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b:reasontobelieve

In his affadavit signed later that day, he put the President's wound in the side of his head: "By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/wnewman.htm

In an affadavit he signed for the FBI on Sunday, 11/24/63, the FBI noted "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot and he heard the thud when the bullet struck the President."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1432.htm

In his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, he testified, "that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear..."

Quite simply, Bill Newman never put the large wound in the back of the head.
That is a falsehood by you.

Mrs Newman's statements were very similar:

"I saw blood all over the side of his head" (Sheriff's office affidavit: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gnewman.htm)

"he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear. ... The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side..." (Shaw testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/newmfsh.htm)

You assert another falsehood when you claim Mrs. Newman's statements corroborate a back-of-the-head wound you claim the staff in Parkland asserted (and as we've seen, those claims about the Parkland staff are exaggerated as well, with claims out of context and outright mis-statements of fact).

Here's a short loop from the Z-film which pretty much shows what the Newman's saw - note there is no damage visible in the back of the head:

Hank

PS: Don't even think the Willis family gave testimony consistent with a back-of-head wound. They didn't.

 

[HSienzant]

Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:

3. MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing...

31. SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER

41. BEVERLY OLIVER

42. ED HOFFMAN

43. BILL NEWMAN

44. GAYLE NEWMAN

No, I posted about Giesecke in the past and you didn't even bother to respond.

Do you remember this:

Let's see; did you even read what you posted?

Correcting for the left/right reversal, I see this claim:

The wound extended from the top of the head (vertex) to the right ear, and from the browline to the occiput. Do you agree or disagree?

Does that look a lot like the damage visible here or not:

Let me know where you see the discrepancies between his description and the photo above.

From what I see, his description of the wound looks like the autopsy photo above, and is not any evidence of anything except your desire to inflate the medical witnesses.

Hank

Here's the original post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8110502&postcount=4038

 

[HSienzant]

The Medical Witnesses

Thus, either the Warren Report is a lie, or all of these observations constitute a lie of multiple proportions.

I vote for a lie of monstrous proportions.

Not by the witnesses.

But by the conspiracy theorists from whom you get your nonsense. It's pretty clear the witness statements we've examined don't support the story you allege. That is not a coincidence -- that is because the story you allege is a complete fabrication.

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

All of that is baloney squared. Mentioning a bio does not claim anything but the fact that the bio exists and from diverse sources. Wilson's evidence has been around a long time, some question it, some believe it to be rational. But no one but you and your alter ego has questioned the bio: 30 years with US steel, Vice Presdent of US Steel, Accepted as expert witness in Federal court, worked with other assassination experts such as Cyril Wecht. You you and your alter ego can stamp your feet, and scream about expertise, but reasonable people will simply accept his process and conclusions as interesting and even possible, but absolutely not necessary in proving that the autopsy photos are fake, a conclusion that was beyond any reasonable doubt long before Wilson ever came on the scene.

No.

But it's highly amusing that you think so.

 

[Robert Prey]

It's expert testimony. It's worthless unless it derives from expertise. That's why the claims to expertise are given; without them there is no evidence -- just uneducated guesses. The people advocating Wilson's claims understand this. That's why they try to establish Wilson as an expert by citing his alleged work at U.S. Steel and his alleged federal testimony; they know that such things, if true, would cast favorable light on the claim that Wilson is an expert and that his conclusions regarding the Kennedy photos derive from properly applied expertise.



No. That's not at all how expertise works.



You invoked Wilson when the rest of that argument failed. Now you're backpedaling away from your salvation. That means we're done here.

Indeed you are.

 

[Robert Prey]

ONe challenge at a time,please. As to Dr. Giesecke:


"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing."

Right/Left confusion.

Substitute "right" for Giesecke's left and read his comment again. And if necessary, look up the word "Occiput."

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, so far some of the ones you listed don't appear to be solid, based on what Hank and Tom show. Do you still swear by them? Why should I (or anyone else) even bother with believing the rest, if you haven't identified these issues in their testimony with regards to your case? Didn't you bother vetting them yourself first? I asked for a list that you swear by.

The list is incomplete. There were more than 40 witnesses.

 

[Robert Prey]

TomTom wrote citing a false, slanderous blog by McAdams.

CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
The dishonesty of this man has been established previously in this thread.

Comment: That is false. And previously proved false. An apology and a retraction, please.

 

[JayUtah]

Indeed you are.

Don't get snippy. You tried to establish Wilson as an expert, failed, and are now backpedaling away from him. I suppose the backpedaling is the closest we're ever going to get to a concession from you.

 

[HSienzant]

All of that is baloney squared. Mentioning a bio does not claim anything but the fact that the bio exists and from diverse sources. Wilson's evidence has been around a long time, some question it, some believe it to be rational. But no one but you and your alter ego has questioned the bio: 30 years with US steel, Vice Presdent of US Steel, Accepted as expert witness in Federal court, worked with other assassination experts such as Cyril Wecht. You you and your alter ego can stamp your feet, and scream about expertise, but reasonable people will simply accept his process and conclusions as interesting and even possible, but absolutely not necessary in proving that the autopsy photos are fake, a conclusion that was beyond any reasonable doubt long before Wilson ever came on the scene.

Hi Robert,

Not too long ago you were claiming his process was understandable and clear, implying you understood it.

In relation to the autopsy photos, his method was explained and clear.

Wilson explains his method in "The Men who Killed Kennedy."

Computer expert Tom Wilson explains it all for you in Living Color in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

I asked you to explain the process to us, so we could attempt to replicate it. You were also asked to cite the statement of Wilson where he explains the process. You never did either.

You've avoided responding to that, probably because you don't understand Wilson's supposed processing

It's okay to admit it. Since Wilson never explained his supposed processing, nobody understands it. Nobody can replicate it, either. That's because it is what I called it initially, flim-flam, hocus-pocus.

He explained nothing. Can you replicate his methodology and duplicate his results? It's hocus-pocus, Robert. Flim-flam. A con game. And you fell for it.

It's understandable too that you would back away from your initial claims about this process, saying now it's only "interesting" and "possible". But your initial claims in this regard were much stronger. You cited Wilson's process when you were asked about the autopsy photos. You asserted Wilson's process established they were fakes, that the pre-autopsy photos were established by Wilson as fakes because [JFK's head] was covered with paint and mortician's wax. Now it's not something you are asserting as strongly. I'll take that as a retraction by you, since you never retract any of your bogus claims, but merely retreat a bit for a while, then come back a week or two later with the same claim again.

You have pre-autopsy photos covered with paint and mortician's wax. ...

I've been googling this and not having much luck.
Could you point me to a specific link, please?

Computer expert Tom Wilson explains it all for you in Living Color in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

 

[HSienzant]

ONe challenge at a time,please. As to Dr. Giesecke:


"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing."

Right/Left confusion.

Substitute "right" for Giesecke's left and read his comment again. And if necessary, look up the word "Occiput."

Occiput: The back of the head.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4616

The occiput is the anatomical term for the posterior (back) portion of the head...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occiput

Definition of OCCIPUT : the back part of the head or skull
https://www.google.com/search?q=m-w...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

See these images below:

You do understand the damage as seen in the autopsy photo and in the diagram both show damage extending to the occiput, correct?
It is merely your *interpretation* that Giesecke is talking about a different wound entirely, a large exit in the rear of the head. But that is nonsense. Read Giesecke's entire description and tell me it it sounds like this:

"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing."

Where's the wound in the vertex (the top of the head) in your drawing?
Where's the wound at the browline in your drawing?

Your drawing has neither. The HSCA drawing and the autopsy photo have both. They match Giesecke's description exactly. Your drawing doesn't, and your interpretation of Giesecke's description fails for that reason.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

All of that is baloney squared. Mentioning a bio does not claim anything but the fact that the bio exists and from diverse sources. Wilson's evidence has been around a long time, some question it, some believe it to be rational. But no one but you and your alter ego has questioned the bio: 30 years with US steel, Vice Presdent of US Steel, Accepted as expert witness in Federal court, worked with other assassination experts such as Cyril Wecht. You you and your alter ego can stamp your feet, and scream about expertise, but reasonable people will simply accept his process and conclusions as interesting and even possible, but absolutely not necessary in proving that the autopsy photos are fake, a conclusion that was beyond any reasonable doubt long before Wilson ever came on the scene.

Not too long before citing Wilson, you told us this:

Any "expert" who claims that he, and only he can perceive the truth, should be discarded as a probable shaman.

Then you cited Wilson, who never explains anywhere how his process works, and says he can see stuff in the images - like being able to prescribe an eyeglass prescription to the Grassy Knoll Shooter supposedly seen in the Moorman photo - that nobody else can see.

He also sees - according to Cyril Wecht - that JFK was shot from the front and the fibers of his jacket as seen in the Zapruder film reveal that, when subjected to his process. The problem is, as pointed out by Dr. Bob Artwohl, that JFK's suit jacket is in the National Archives and has no damage in the front (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/twilson.txt).


Curious, isn't it?

Tell me how Wilson doesn't fit YOUR definition of a shaman.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Robert, so far some of the ones you listed don't appear to be solid, based on what Hank and Tom show. Do you still swear by them? Why should I (or anyone else) even bother with believing the rest, if you haven't identified these issues in their testimony with regards to your case? Didn't you bother vetting them yourself first? I asked for a list that you swear by.

The list is incomplete. There were more than 40 witnesses.

Yeah, so? He said "so far..."

If we establish that ten of those names are quotes out of context, or merely *interpretations* of their statements by you that have other interpretations, including being wholly consistent with the HSCA findings, it establishes that your vaunted 40+ witnesses is a load of malarkey and that a lot of the names on the list are merely on the list to inflate it, and to make the listing sound more impressive than it really is.

Once we get to 20 names not belonging on the list, your listing and you, and your sources, have lost all credibility. We don't need to impeach all 40+ before your credibility is sunk.

How credible is any listing where half the names on the list don't belong? It's a coin flip - that's not science, and that's not the way to get to the truth.
But I've told you that before. Your sources are out to sell books, not to get after the truth.

Hank