JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
So when will you supply actual evidence the photos are fake? You keep saying it, and not agreeing with your cherry picked misunderstanding of witness statements still doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Floyd Riebe, one of the official autopsy photographers, testified that "less than half the brain was there." Shown the official autopsy photographs of the brain that are currently at the National Archives, FBI agent Francis O'Neill, who witnessed the autopsy, claimed that the photogrpahs were inaccurate... "The official autopsy report documents the weight of the president's brain to be fifteen hundred grams, which is heavier than the average, complete human brain....

John stringer, the lead autopsy photographer, examined the autopsy photographs of the President's brain. He told the the Washington Post that the current pictures of the brain are not his and do not resemble anything he saw the night of the autopsy.

Why is this important? It shows that the Kennedy assassination evidence has been tampered with. Someone does not want the truth to be known.. -- Dr. Cyril Wecht in "Tales from the Morgue", p. 241

* * *

At every turn, the evidence ... simply does not add up to a lone gunman...Evidence is missing. Witnesses were asked to falsify affidavits. Testimony is dramatically altered. Documents are manipulated. What happend in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22nd, 1963 was an effort by two or more people to kill the president of the United States. What has happened since has been a conspiracy to hide the truth. -- Dr. Cyril Wecht in "Tales from the Morgue" Page. 243.
 
Robert Prey said:
Conspiracy was proved in that the fatal shot came from the vicinity of the grassy Knoll.
Click to expand...
My bold.

Assertion without proof. There is no proving something without proof.
Some of the individuals involved were named. Who the actual shooters were from each location is a matter of hearsay and speculation. But the fact of conspiracy is well established and that is the main point of the thread.
Click to expand...
There is no "fact of conspiracy" even remotely "established." I know you wish it more than life itself, but that's just too bad.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
My bold.

Assertion without proof. There is no proving something without proof.There is no "fact of conspiracy" even remotely "established." I know you wish it more than life itself, but that's just too bad.
Click to expand...

The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll is proof of conspiracy.
 
Robert Prey said:
The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll is proof of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face but the fact is that your list has been blown to pieces.
 
EventHorizon said:
You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face but the fact is that your list has been blown to pieces.
Click to expand...


You keep saying that, but the fact is, there have been just four challenges (Crenshaw, Akin, Newman, Willis) , all unsuccessful.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
...a drawing where he assumes lobes equate to regions of the head (though they do not equate directly to bones) and a drawing of a red arrow?
Click to expand...

The illustration of a brain with no collocated cranium, no discussion or further reference to anatomical features, is misleading. Landmarks on the head are not given with respect to the brain, but to the bones of the cranium. The lobes of the brain are named for the cranium bone beneath which they most closely lie. But this does not mean that the occipital lobe of the brain defines the occiput of the head.

Further, the herniation of the cerebellum need not occur through the occipital bone, but would just as easily occur through a fracture in the temporal bone. The cerebellum actually lies farther superior than most people think, locating itself generally right behind the ear. Substantial injury to the occipital bone would most likely result in a missing cerebellum.

Here is a more helpful illustration that roughly collocates the regions of the skull with the lobes of the brain.
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/306517/enlarge

Note the cerebellum, the more finely crenellated region. Posterior to it, barely visible, is the lambdoid suture, which demarcates the temporal bone from the cranial occipital bone. Therefore a cranial would that extended "to the occiput" (but didn't include it) [Giesecke] would clearly expose the cerebellum and subject it to possible herniation.

The superior boundary of the temporal bone corresponds roughly with the top of the corpus colossum, the uncrenellated body at the center of the brain's bulk. The parietal bone continues to the top (vertex) of the cranium. The witness testimony I see in this thread identifies the

My second thought: the extent of the wound described does not have to relate to the direction of travel as the arrow suggests.
Click to expand...

Indeed I rather ignore the red arrow. It has been added perhaps as a suggestion of bullet path, but Robert gives no discussion.

The witness that Robert belabors for the word "occiput" is clearly describing the geometric extent of the wound he remembers: vertically from the vertex (i.e., the sagittal crest) to the ear (cf. the auditory foramen in my illustration), longitudinally from browline to occupit. None of the other three limits suggest significant encroachment, hence there is no reason to suppose that the physician here "really" means to say up to and including the occipital bone.

Others [Akins] describe "occipitalparietal," which is not strictly a region, but rather describes features that share the occipital bone and parietal bone in common, or describes the lateral extent of the lambdoid suture. This is still confined to the side of the head and still allows for herniation of the cerebellum. Robert does not properly interpret the medical terminology in terms of actual locations on the head.

One outlier [Jenkins] describes injury to the "temporal and occipital" in his initial report, but doesn't specify the injured regions in his lengthier testimony in 1964. We crave additional information because temporo-occipital identification is rare and comprises only a small portion of the cranium. It is odd for those two regions to be combined in the description of the site of an injury. But then Dr. Jenkins is an anesthesiologist, not a surgeon or orthopedist, hence he can be forgiven for misidentifying the site of the injury. We can expect him to be an expert in the anatomy of tracheal and bronchial tissues (i.e., for intubation), but not necessarily proficient in the fine positioning of cranial anatomy under duress. His sworn testimony describes significant "heat of battle" confusion, including uncertainty over the number, site, and appearance of injuries to the patient.
 
Robert Prey said:
The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head...
Click to expand...

No, this has been thoroughly dissected. You don't seem very proficient at interpreting medical terminology.

along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll...
Click to expand...

I've spend considerable time in Dealey Plaza, with my good friends living in Dallas. I don't trust any witness's reliable estimation of where sounds there are coming from.

...is proof of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

No, it is at best demonstrations of inconsistency in the evidence, which you are using to try to erode faith in the widely-held Oswald hypothesis. The problem is why you think that such an erosion establishes any affirmation of a conspiracy. Show us evidence for the conspiracy, not just evidence away from Oswald. Until you can do that, you're just driving wedges into the inductive gap, and that's not science, history, or scholarship at all.
 
JayUtah said:
N
I've spend considerable time in Dealey Plaza, with my good friends living in Dallas. I don't trust any witness's reliable estimation of where sounds there are coming from.
Click to expand...

Well, then I guess in your view that must undercut all of those TSBD shot witnesses as well.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No, it is at best demonstrations of inconsistency in the evidence, which you are using to try to erode faith in the widely-held Oswald hypothesis. The problem is why you think that such an erosion establishes any affirmation of a conspiracy. Show us evidence for the conspiracy, not just evidence away from Oswald. Until you can do that, you're just driving wedges into the inductive gap, and that's not science, history, or scholarship at all.
Click to expand...

A widely-held Oswald hypothesis?? Widely-held by whom? You? The Warren Commission? Surely not the American People. But then the validity of truth does not depend on opinion polls.

"Show us evidence for the conspiracy, not just evidence away from Oswald."

The evidence has been shown and laid bare for all who do not close their eyes and ears. Nor have I eliminated Oswald as a possible co-conspirator. Only that there is no evidence that he even fired a single shot.
 
Robert Prey said:
Well, I guess that must undercut all of those TSBD shot witnesses as well.
Click to expand...

Approximately how many witnesses thought they heard shots from the depository? Approximately how many witnesses thought they heard shots from the grassy knoll? Approximately how many witnesses thought they heard shots from an entirely different place altogether? Where were each of these witnesses standing? Run the numbers for us.

The problem with your handling of this type of testimony is that you think there can be no way to cut through the uncertainty endemic to the circumstances. You want to cherry-pick certain specific witnesses and listen to them only. I spoke of discounting the testimony of individuals without putting them in context. Put them in context. Then maybe a picture will emerge.
 
Robert Prey said:
A widely-held Oswald hypothesis?? Widely-held by whom? You? The Warren Commission? But then the validity of truth does not depend on opinion polls.
Click to expand...

I'm simply identifying the hypothesis.

The evidence has been shown and laid bare for all who do not close their eyes and ears.
Click to expand...

Please don't rely on accusing your critics of closed-mindedness, especially when so many of our questions go unanswered by you.

And please understand my quote. All you keep showing us is evidence away from Oswald: merely items you say are inconsistent with Oswald's purported actions. You don't show us any evidence for another testable hypothesis: items consistent with some other party's guilt. You will never have credibility without a plausible, well-defined affirmative claim. And you will never sustain any affirmative claim by simply eroding the lone gunman theory.

Nor have I eliminated Oswald as a possible co-conspirator.
Click to expand...

That's the problem: you haven't reached any conclusion. Everything is "may be" or "could possibly be." But you don't seem to be undertaking any exercise to actually test the information you develop. This is what differentiates JFK conspiracy theories from a real investigation. You seem to be prolonging the debate, not testing the claims.
 
Robert Prey said:
The 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head along with the several close up Dealey plaza witnesses hearing and/or seeing a shot from the grassy knoll is proof of conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Please give a definition for your term "blow out."
 
JayUtah:

As a layman I'm fairly impressed with the work of Dale Meyers with regard to his assassination animation. Best I can tell by the details he provides, the reconstruction seems rigorous and thorough. Am I right to consider it worthwhile? In other words, do you have any thoughts?

Thanks.
 
Why "only four challenges"? My initial response to the list discounted more than four of the statements Robert claims supports his views.

Sorry, but the majority of the list made statements that do not support or contradict Robert. Even his quotes about Reibe not identifying the photographs are from a secondary source, (and proving the photo of the brain was tampered with -distinctly different from proving it is not how a guy remembered it- does not prove all the photos were fakes.

And again, whose head is in the sand? Testemony doesn't meet my minimum standard of evidence. When is Robert going to show a photoartefact that is actual evidence of tampering, and not rely on people proved wrong by the physical evidence?


One can only assume that Robert knows what will convince me, knows he doesn't have it, but responds to my posts with more testemony (or in this case somebody elses discussion of testemony) because one day I will with out reason decide that enough people being mistaken will be even better than actual testable evidence?

Sorry. Physical evidence trumps subjective memory. Every time. With out actual physical proof the photos are faked, I have no reason to believe they are and that trumps a flawed human memory filteredby flawed human description and somebody elses interpretation. Every time.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Why "only four challenges"? My initial response to the list discounted more than four of the statements Robert claims supports his views.

Sorry, but the majority of the list made statements that do not support or contradict Robert. Even his quotes about Reibe not identifying the photographs are from a secondary source, (and proving the photo of the brain was tampered with -distinctly different from proving it is not how a guy remembered it- does not prove all the photos were fakes.

And again, whose head is in the sand? Testemony doesn't meet my minimum standard of evidence. When is Robert going to show a photoartefact that is actual evidence of tampering, and not rely on people proved wrong by the physical evidence?


One can only assume that Robert knows what will convince me, knows he doesn't have it, but responds to my posts with more testemony (or in this case somebody elses discussion of testemony) because one day I will with out reason decide that enough people being mistaken will be even better than actual testable evidence?

Sorry. Physical evidence trumps subjective memory. Every time. With out actual physical proof the photos are faked, I have no reason to believe they are and that trumps a flawed human memory filteredby flawed human description and somebody elses interpretation. Every time.
Click to expand...

And how would you know whether the photos are faked or not, if only relying on the faked photos?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom