JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Hank simplistically wrote:
Here's McClelland's contemporaneous statement on the wound, which conflicts with his later recollection that Josiah Thompson had converted into the image above showing damage to the back of the head:

"...massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." He says on page two that JFK's "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Nothing in his contemporaneous notes about a massive gunshot wound in the back of the head.

Why is that, do you suppose? And why doesn't his drawing showing the massive wound in the left temple, or even the right temple? Instead, it's moved to the back of the head, where he didn't mention a wound on the weekend of the assassination.
Click to expand...

Comment:

So in the biased mind of a dedicated Lone Nutter, a doctor is not exempt from making a simple right/left mistake??? Pathetic.

Interview with Dr. Robt. McCelleand by

V. Bugliosi "...before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McCelleand of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note... he had written that the president died 'from a gunshot wound of the left temple.' "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the President's left temple."

From: "Reclaiming History," P. 406
Click to expand...


Another straw argument by Robert!

Robert, we are on to you.

I conceded the point that McClelland probably made a simple left / right error (asking "And why doesn't his drawing show... the massive wound in the left temple, or even the right temple?") I also asked why the damage was in the temple, according to his earliest statement, with no mention of the back of the head. Instead of answering the question I raise, you answer one I didn't!

Here it is again, and I bolded it above.

Here's McClelland's contemporaneous statement on the wound, which conflicts with his later recollection ...

"...massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." He says on page two that JFK's "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Nothing in his contemporaneous notes about a massive gunshot wound in the back of the head.
Click to expand...


Yet you call him a back of the head witness when his contemporaneous notes put a wound in the temple, not the back of the head.

Here's his earliest statement corrected for the left / right error: "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT temple." And here's the autopsy photo side by side with the drawing. Which of these does his earliest description best resemble, if we correct for the left / right error as you claim?

aut10_HI.jpg
picture.php
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

And oh, yeah, with the medical witnesses giving such divergent statements about the head wound, how can you just blindly accept the ones that you think confirm a shot from the knoll and disregard the rest? I would think the divergent statements would tend to impeach each other, calling into question the credibility of these witnesses.

Hank

Comment:

The Medical statements are not diverse. Wound to the right temple; wound to the side of the head, large blow-out wound to the back of the head -- these are not divergent statements but cumulative descriptions, all of which are true.
Click to expand...


Wound to the right temple, wound to the left temple, wound to the parietal, wound to the temporal, wound to the occipital... a wound extending from the apex of the head ...

How come McClelland's drawing doesn't show a wound at the top of the head? How come it doesn't show a wound to either temple?

Those are diverse descriptions, unless the doctors are claiming they witnessed one large wound that touched on all those areas. Sort of like the massive wound in the autopsy photo in the post above.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Like the 40 plus immediate, on the scene witnesses who confirm a shot from the grassy knoll.

No Robert. That's a lie. We've seen you admit it with Newman, putting him in a listing you originally classified as "40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of [JFK's] head". You admitted here he didn't belong in the listing as he was neither a medical witness, nor observed a blowout in the back of the head. Your listing was falsely inflated to make it appear stronger than it really was

Comment:
I would remind you again that the list of 40 plus was a list of 'witnesses" that would provide evidence of a shot from the knoll. The list was not entirely of medical witnesses, all who observed a large wound to the back of the head, but only of 'witnesses".
Click to expand...


That's not how you classified it originally. And you tripped all over yourself explaining why Newman was on a listing of 40 medical witnesses who purportedly saw a blowout in the back of the head, when Newman was neither a medical witness, nor saw a wound in the back of the head.

Robert Prey said:
The purpose of listing 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, is to point out that logically the fatal shot came from the right front -- the grassy knoll. In the Case of Newman, while he did not say he observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, he is not a medical witness, but a Dealey Plaza witness who did not need to see the large blow-out in the back of the head...
Click to expand...


And Newman doesn't confirm a exit wound to the back of the head for two reasons:

1. He only mentioned damage to the right side of the head as you concede above
2. The source of the shots he mentioned was behind and to the right of the limo. Look at a map. A shooter in the location where Newman placed him is wholly inconsistent with a shot EXITING the back of the head.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Thus far, only two challenged -- Crenshaw and Newman and both challenges soundly refuted.
Click to expand...


Bulloney, Robert.

You haven't rebutted anything concerning Crenshaw's description sounding like the autopsy photo seen a few posts previous to this one. You posted a straw rebuttal argument for McClelland's wound description (not Crenshaw's), and you totally ignore what Newman said, rebutting none of the points I made concerning Newman.

And you have ignored all the other posts here contained herein, with numerous witnesses among your 40+ witnesses challenged:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Unlike so many of the Lone Nutters on this board, I prefer to be brief and concise. But here is a more comprehensive list of on the scene witnesses, including many more medical witnesses as complied

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

JFK: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE:
WHO'S WHO IN THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE---
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES FROM NOVEMBER 22,1963

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. PARKLAND HOSPITAL:

1) DR. KEMP CLARK
2) DR. MALCOLM PERRY
3) DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND
4) DR. MARION JENKINS
5) DR. C. JAMES CARRICO
6) DR. RONALD JONES
7) DR. GENE AKIN
....

311) PHIL WILLIS
312) MARILYN WILLIS
313) LINDA WILLIS
314) ROSEMARY WILLIS
315) BEVERLY OLIVER
316) ED HOFFMAN
317) VINCENT DRAIN
318) JAMES ALTGENS
319) BILL NEWMAN
320) GAYLE NEWMAN
Click to expand...


I noticed you did not characterize them as 'Back-of-the-head' witnesses.
And they are not characterized as On the Scene Witnesses to a Blowout in the Back of the Head.

But merely as on the scene witnesses.

Fine with me for the most part. That's a list of witnesses. Most of whom support the damage to the right side of the head. Like Gayle and Bill Newman, as we've already seen. Like Phil Willis as we've already seen. Like Doctor Jenkins, as we've already seen.

So the list doesn't advance your argument one iota. And without in-context quotes from any of the witnesses, none of which you provide, it's just a list of names. A list that includes some names of people who haven't been established to be anywhere near the scene of the crime - and includes some bogus ones at that - like Beverly Oliver and Ed Hoffman.

For each of the witnesses you wish to classify as a back-of-the-head witness, please provide some contemporaneous quotes from the weekend of the assassination or from their testimony to the Warren Commission. That would eliminate some of the names you list immediately. It would definitely eliminate Dr. McClelland, who on the weekend of the assassination, noted only a massive blowout in the left temple (which you claim - and I agree - is a simple error of transposition). So McClelland's earliest notes put a massive wound in the right temple area, and mentions the back of the head not at all. Agreed?

PS: I thought #7 was spelled AIKIN. Or is that another doctor? If it's the same guy, we've already examined his claims therein and found you are exaggerating his confirmation of a back-of-the-head wound. True to form, you ignored it all:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208208&postcount=6006
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
I noticed you did not characterize them as 'Back-of-the-head' witnesses. But merely as on the scene witnesses.
And they are not characterized as On the Scene Witnesses to a Blowout in the Back of the Head.

Fine with me for the most part. That's a list of witnesses. Most of whom support the damage to the right side of the head. Like Gayle and Bill Newman, as we've already seen. Like Phil Willis as we've already seen. Like Doctor Jenkins, as we've already seen.

So the list doesn't advance your argument one iota. And without in-context quotes from any of the witnesses, none of which you provide, it's just a list of names. A list that includes some names of people who haven't been established to be anywhere near the scene of the crime - And includes some bogus ones at that - like Beverly Oliver and Ed Hoffman.

For each of the witnesses you wish to classify as a back-of-the-head witness, please provide some contemporaneous quotes from the weekend of the assassination or from their testimony to the Warren Commission. That would eliminate some of the names you list immediately.

PS: I thought #7 was spelled AIKIN. Or is that another doctor? If it's the same guy, we've already examined his claims therein and found you are exaggerating his confirmation of a back-of-the-head wound. True to form, you ignored it all:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208208&postcount=6006
Click to expand...

The matter of Beverly Oliver is a matter of opinion, McAdams notwithstanding. She says she was there and even before even seeing the Z film, she went to the exact spot of the Bobuska lady. Moreover, she accurately describes the fatal shot as having taken the back of the President's head off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akIp9Q5x3EY

As to the other on the scene witnesses, I leave it to you and your fellow Lone Nutters to find a single medical witness who has made statements adverse to the ones I have cited. Good Luck. Knock yourselves out.
 
HSienzant said:
Bulloney, Robert.

You posted a straw rebuttal argument for McClelland's wound description (not Crenshaw's), and you totally ignore what Newman said, rebutting none of the points I made concerning Newman.

And you have ignored all the other posts here contained herein, with numerous witnesses among your 40+ witnesses challenged:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

Hank
Click to expand...

I only answer one challenge at a time. The Crenshaw and the Newman challenge have been refuted.
 
HSienzant said:
Wound to the right temple, wound to the left temple, wound to the parietal, wound to the temporal, wound to the occipital... a wound extending from the apex of the head ...

How come McClelland's drawing doesn't show a wound at the top of the head? How come it doesn't show a wound to either temple?

Those are diverse descriptions, unless the doctors are claiming they witnessed one large wound that touched on all those areas. Sort of like the massive wound in the autopsy photo in the post above.
Click to expand...

The dictated McCelland drawing was done only for the purpose of showing the back of the head.
 
HSienzant said:



Another straw argument by Robert!

Robert, we are on to you.

I conceded the point that McClelland probably made a simple left / right error (asking "And why doesn't his drawing show... the massive wound in the left temple, or even the right temple?") I also asked why the damage was in the temple, according to his earliest statement, with no mention of the back of the head. Instead of answering the question I raise, you answer one I didn't!

Here it is again, and I bolded it above.




Yet you call him a back of the head witness when his contemporaneous notes put a wound in the temple, not the back of the head.

Here's his earliest statement corrected for the left / right error: "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT temple." And here's the autopsy photo side by side with the drawing. Which of these does his earliest description best resemble, if we correct for the left / right error as you claim?

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=826&pictureid=5905[/qimg]
Click to expand...

A gunshot wound to the right temple is only part of McCelland's statements as you very well know. Going over this same ground over and over again is getting boring.
 
JayUtah said:
It has been shown that you're unfamiliar with the testimony of the smaller list of witnesses you provided. I reject this longer list on the grounds that it is very unlikely that you have studied these witnesses' testimony and have reconciled it with your beliefs. The underlying problem of the Gish Gallop is not improved by adding horses, Robert.
Click to expand...

Just trying to get you poor, uninformed Lone Nutters a chance to find even one medical witness with statements adverse to the ones I have quoted. Knock yourselves out.
 
JayUtah wrote:

You're changing the subject, Robert. May we have your final word please on White and Wilson before moving on to other witnesses?

Comment:
As to the autopsy photos, Wilson's conclusions, interesting, and perhaps true. As to the backyard photos, White's conclusions, interesting, and perhaps true.
 
Robert Prey said:
The matter of Beverly Oliver is a matter of opinion, McAdams notwithstanding. She says she was there and even before even seeing the Z film, she went to the exact spot of the Bobuska lady. Moreover, she accurately describes the fatal shot as having taken the back of the President's head off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akIp9Q5x3EY

As to the other on the scene witnesses, I leave it to you and your fellow Lone Nutters to find a single medical witness who has made statements adverse to the ones I have cited. Good Luck. Knock yourselves out.
Click to expand...


You can quote her until the cows come home. That doesn't make her truthful.

You need to provide something besides her word, Robert. She didn't come forward until 1969 as a supposed witness, and the story she tells is bizarre beyond belief. Let me give you a clue: When she starts mentioning knowing Ruby, Oswald, David Ferrie, and a host of others all of whom are in the conspiracy literature, and seeing them all together in Ruby's nightclub the weekend before the assassination, then you know the witness is lying. Ferrie was in New Orleans the weekend she puts him in Ruby's nightclub.

Please provide some evidence she was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting. You have nothing in that regard, and we both know it. Your statement about what she said when (went to the spot of the Babushka lady before seeing the Z-film) won't withstand scrutiny.

You haven't cited anything with the newest list. It includes 'on the scene' witnesses like CHARLES KILLIAN, CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM, ROBERT FRAZIER [named in #61]... Ditto with #317) VINCENT DRAIN

All of whom were in Washington, DC, the weekend of the assassination, and were responsible for some of the tests conducted by the Warren Commission. They never saw the body, the shooting, nor the autopsy photos or x-rays. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime. They were investigators into the crime. Drain was the agent who transported the rifle back to Washington on the weekend of the assassination. Since when are investigators classified as on-the-scene witnesses?

I can see a new list coming of over 20,000 names shortly. Robert's theory apparently being if you can't dazzle them with the facts, bury them in bulloney.
 
Last edited:
Rich_C said:
So you admit you lied when you said 40 medical witnesses?

And 40 is still a lie. Others have shown you are incorrect on at least 20 of them.
Click to expand...


Not so. Crossing out names is not a challenge.Only two challenges so far: Crenshaw and Newman and both shown to be without foundation.
 
Robert Prey said:
A gunshot wound to the right temple is only part of McCelland's statements as you very well know. Going over this same ground over and over again is getting boring.
Click to expand...


Only boring to you because you cannot support your claims. I have no problem hammering you with the truth over and over.

I can keep this up all day.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Just trying to get you poor, uninformed Lone Nutters a chance to find even one medical witness with statements adverse to the ones I have quoted. Knock yourselves out.
Click to expand...


McClelland's earliest statement put the head wound in the temple. He did not mention the back of the head at all.

Curious, isn't it?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
A gunshot wound to the right temple is only part of McCelland's statements as you very well know. Going over this same ground over and over again is getting boring.
Click to expand...


Please quote something of McClelland's from the weekend of the assassination that puts a massive wound in the back of the head.

We both know you cannot.

His statement from that weekend [that I quoted and you avoided] puts the massive wound in the
temple.

Hank​
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom