JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/HSCA-JFK-head-7-125.jpg[/qimg]

Uh, uh. You left out an important part of Dr. Akin's testimony:

"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”; “I assume the
right occiptalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably
been hit on the other side of the head..."

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

 

[Robert Prey]

There was no hearsay quoted. The witness spoke of what he heard from Crenshaw's own lips.

Are you claiming that if Oswald confessed, the police could not testify to that because it would be hearsay?

Like most of your claims, that one makes no sense.

Here's the statement by Russo again:
It references conspiracy author Gus Russo directly, who relates:


Hank

It's still a hearsay Triple Play.

 

[Robert Prey]

Liar.

Here's Gayle and Bill Newman's statements you never rebutted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208591&postcount=6008

You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one.

Already rebutted them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uh, uh. You left out an important part of Dr. Akin's testimony:

"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”; “I assume the
right occiptalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably
been hit on the other side of the head..."

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

The other side from the exit wound?

LOL.



So there is no exit wound in the back of the head?

 

[Robert Prey]

Liar.

Here's Giesecke's statement you never rebutted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8210210&postcount=6018

You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one.

Hank

Already rebutted that too. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet???

"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." -- Dr. Giesecke

 

[JayUtah]

Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet???

I covered this at length. Address it or concede.

 

[Robert Prey]

That's a bold faced lie, Robert. You've been challenged on a lot of these.

Here's Jenkins statement you never rebutted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8207484&postcount=6003
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8031386&postcount=3257

You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one.
Hank

Already corrected you on this at least twice. Hank, this is getting boring. Please get up to speed on your challenges -- and restrict them to the ones not already demolished.

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head).

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once. And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

Must.... resist.... gift....

 

[JayUtah]

Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head).

Nor is it identically the rear of the head. The wound is described as extending "...to the occiput," (emphasis added) and the cerebellum is large enough to extrude from a wound to that portion of the cranium. I gave my qualifications for discussing cranial anatomy. What are yours, Robert? Put up or shut up.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The better question is if Robert understands where the occipital bones furthest extents are. Odd he exagerates this word, but has yet to address or discredit the numerous quotes that discuss the temple. Can you touch your temple? Now lets consider the statements that severley reduced the list of witnessess who might have supported robert. Or even Crenshaws varying descriptions...

 

[JayUtah]

Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once.

Shifting the burden of proof.

And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

That might explain your inability to discuss practically any point I've raised. May we please have your full attention?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once. And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

Betting this is stundied already with out looking.

 

[abaddon]

Already corrected you on this at least twice. Hank, this is getting boring.

Translation: you have no answers.

Please get up to speed on your challenges -- and restrict them to the ones not already demolished.

Just like you do. Or not.

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

And? Did you have a point to make?

Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head).

Your error here is that a bullet will pass through both regardless if it is from the front or the back.

 

[HSienzant]

Arrrrgh! McCelleand never said anything about a Large wound to the temple. But only that the shot entered the right temple causing a large wound to the head, including the parietal,, temporal and occipital lobes.

Here's what he said, Robert, with the substitution of right for his stated left, which we both agreed was simply an error on his part:

"Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT temple."

Where do you see him mention a wound anywhere but the right temple? Where do you see him mention anything but a massive wound?

That's precisely what the autopsy photo I cited shows - a massive wound to the right temple. This wound includes damage to the parietal, temporal, and occipital regions of the skull.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Arrrrgh! McCelleand never said anything about a Large wound to the temple. But only that the shot entered the right temple causing a large wound to the head, including the parietal,, temporal and occipital lobes.

Remember that McClelland mentioned the back of the head not at all. And everything above is merely your interpretation of what McClelland meant.

It is susceptible of another interpretation, one that fits the physical evidence you discard - the autopsy photo I cited.

So we can go with your interpretation, which necessitates throwing out the hard evidence and going with a witness statement that is not confirmed by any physical evidence, or we can go with my interpretation, which is supported by the physical evidence and doesn't involve an army of people altering the z-film and the autopsy photos and the body.

Hmmm... which one is more reasonable? Which one will Robert choose?



Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Everybody knows that McCelleand did not draw the sketch, that it was merely dictated. So what?

Actually, you are wrong about that. Read what Josiah Thompson, the man who commissioned the sketch, actually said.

And you didn't know McClelland did not draw the sketch six months ago. We had to clear that up for you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

For the sake of coherence, one at a time please. Which Willis???

Let's start with Phil.
I already gave his Warren Commission Testimony.

What do you got?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy photo is fake. The drawing is only of the wound to the back of the head. So,what is your problem????

It is curious that the supposed faked photo fits the description of so many doctors, then.

Like Giesecke and Jenkins and McClelland. Amazing how the alterations could make that photo fit their statements so well.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Already rebutted that too. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet???

"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."[/B] -- Dr. Giesecke

I laughed my ass off reading your response. Merely highlighting one word does not do the description justice.

He said the wound extended from the top of the head to the [right*] ear, and from the browline to the back of the head [*we previously agreed on the point that Giesecke said left, when he meant anatomical right].

Precisely what we see in the autopsy photo.

He didn't say the wound was located in the occiput, and only in the occiput, which is what you like to pretend it means.

Hank