JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

You mean the witness list you previously falsely claimed was 40+ medical witnesses? That one?

You mean the list that contains a number of people who weren't medical witnesses? That one?

You mean the list that contains about 20 people whose entire purpose for being on the list has been seriously questioned? That list?

And that when those posts containing the points of rebuttal to your claims were posted, you totally ignored them? That list?

You really want to keep hammering away at a list that is specious, false, and absolutely untrue, do you?

Be my guest, but no one here thinks your list is absolute or even meaningful.

As you previously admitted, it's all in the interpretation of what they meant.

When you were doing the counting, it was 40+ medical witnesses. Now that we've examined your claims, your count has been established to be bogus.

k

Bogus?? Nonsense. The fact is 40 witnesses is an understatement. I suggest you check out a far more comprehensive list and just count the doctors, nurses and medical technicians. Its' far in excess of 40.

Volume 4, Number 2 (2006)

THE JFK ASSASSINATION MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963

VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2.html

Table of Contents

PART 1 / Parkland Hospital

PART 2 / Dallas, Parkland, and Bethesda

PART 3 / Bethesda

 

[HSienzant]

Nor are your assertions evidence, especially the assertion that LHO fired all or any of the shots without a scintilla of evidence. But a reasonable theory to explain what might appear to be contradictions in testimony cannot be dismissed and the fact is, Phil Willis stated he was "dead sure" the fatal shot came from the Knoll,

Yep. Twenty years later.

His contemporaneous statements contradict that claim and impeach his credibility on that statement.

You do understand how it works in a trial, right?

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's the Willis testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

The words 'closed session' appear nowhere in the record of Willis testimony.

No? Why don't you read it again instead of doing a search for those specific words. Or just search Discussion off the Record. Same difference.

 

[HSienzant]

Bogus?? Nonsense. The fact is 40 witnesses is an understatement. I suggest you check out a far more comprehensive list and just count the doctors, nurses and medical technicians. Its' far in excess of 40.

Volume 4, Number 2 (2006)

THE JFK ASSASSINATION MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963

VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2.html

Table of Contents

PART 1 / Parkland Hospital

PART 2 / Dallas, Parkland, and Bethesda

PART 3 / Bethesda

Robert, the challenge for you is simple: Cite one contemporaneous statement from any witness at Bethesda that supports a back of head wound as you suggest. Until you do, the claim stands: Bogus evidence.

Don't give me a list of names with no documentation or quotes; with multiple witnesses on the list more than once, and with other people who were not witnesses to any event concerning the assassination also listed. I already checked it out previously and posted a number of problems with it. True to form, you ignored those posts.

That listing proves nothing - it depend on who is doing the counting, remember?

You told us that yourself.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Here's the Willis testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

The words 'closed session' appear nowhere in the record of Willis testimony.

No? Why don't you read it again instead of doing a search for those specific words. Or just search Discussion off the Record. Same difference.

Thank you for echoing back what I just told you. You are capable of learning after all.

You've demonstrated it now two ways:

By repeating what I said, changing your original claim.
By quoting incompletely, just like Feldman did in the article you cited.​

Here's what I actually wrote about that.

Here's the Willis testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

The words 'closed session' appear nowhere in the record of Willis testimony.

And you are simply assuming what you have to prove. Your assumption that if the lawyer went 'off the record' (which does appear in the testimony) it was because they had something to hide...

Note that in responding to my point, you stopped quoting after the second sentence, leaving out what I wrote in the very next line. Your entire point, therefore, is merely a time-wasting bit of nonsense, as you are pointing out something to me I already pointed out to you. In short, you have no legitimate rebuttal, which is established by your stooping to this quoting out of context nonsense.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Hi Robert,

Who called Phil Willis as a witness? The prosecution or the defense?

It was the prosecution and District Attorney of Orleans Parish Jim Garrison.

As such, his reason for calling Willis was to try to establish that some of the shots came from a source other than the Depository, yes?

That is, to establish that Clay Shaw was part of a conspiracy, Garrison wanted to first establish that there were shots from multiple locations.

But after getting Willis on the stand, the prosecution failed to ask Willis when he had him on the stand the one question he supposed called him there for?

Sorry, he failed to ask that question because he had already pre-interviewed the witness and didn't like the answer. The source of the shots was the TSBD.

The defense had to ask the question the prosecution wanted to avoid.

You again presume what you must prove. The testimony is unambiguous, if you understand how trials work, and how lawyers work. The prosecution failed to ask the question for the simple reason that the answer disproved everything they were trying to prove.

ON the contrary, the testimony could not have been more ambiguous. Shots heard from the right? What "shots"? To the right of what and whom? Both the TSBD and the Knoll were to the "right". And of course, there were indeed shots from the back. But the one fatal shot -- that is the question.

 

[Robert Prey]

I remind you the witness under discussion - Forrest Sorrels - said there were only three shots and all came from the same location.

I remind you that the forensic panel determined the fatal shot came from the TSBD.

I remind you that the autopsy doctors determined the head shot came from the rear.

I remind you that even Cyril Wecht conceded to the HSCA that there was no evidence of a shot to the head from any other location.

I remind you that all you have for your beloved Grassy Knoll shot is some witness statements that - in many cases, as for Forrest Sorrels and Bill Newman - don't point to the Grassy Knoll at all, and are simply statements taken out of context to imply the knoll when the witness actually named somewhere else.

Hank

Hank

I remind you that the HSCA determined that there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll proving conspiracy.

 

[HSienzant]

ON the contrary, the testimony could not have been more ambiguous. Shots heard from the right? What "shots"? To the right of what and whom? Both the TSBD and the Knoll were to the "right". And of course, there were indeed shots from the back. But the one fatal shot -- that is the question.

Robert, you ignored my point entirely.

If Willis could have testified to a shot or shots from the knoll, why didn't the prosecution ask him that question?

Why did they avoid that question and leave it to the defense to ask it?

What were they afraid of, if not establishing there were no shots from the knoll?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I remind you that the HSCA determined that there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll proving conspiracy.

I remind you that those outside experts conclusions were shown to be false as they were based on studying a section of the dictabelt approximately a minute after the shooting.

You still haven't submitted one point of evidence pointing to a shooter on the knoll that can withstand scrutiny - seven months and still nothing.

Curious, isn't it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The tape recorded statements of the Willis family, away from the editors and censors of the WC, is ample evidence of WC chicanery.

You would like to think so, but no.

Otherwise, anybody could change their story later and claim the earlier written down statements [which you previously claimed could not be altered] were censored or altered. But of course, it doesn't work that way except for conspiracy theorists, who have little to no contemporaneous (look it up, Robert) evidence and have to resort to accepting statements made decades after the event and throwing out the better evidence, the earliest statements made by the same witnesses.

You do it repeatedly.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

What contemporaneous statements of the medical witnesses at Bethesda?

You have all of this as contemporaneous support:




You haven't cited any statements contemporaneous to the assassination from witnesses at Bethesda. Not ONE.

How about the Autopsy Report? Doesn't that count?

"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Sort of like this (Paul O'Connor's drawing)

Or This:

 

[RoboTimbo]

How about the Autopsy Report? Doesn't that count?

"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

OOPS, he did it again!



LOL. You are getting:



LOL again.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

How about the 40 plus on the scene witnesses at Parkland, Dealey Plaza and Bethesda stated contemporaneously observing a large blow-out in the back of the head and/or shots emanating from the Grassy Knoll?????

Mr. Prey:

Please give your definition of the term "blow-out."

I keep asking, you keep not answering. Curious.

 

[Robert Prey]

I remind you that those outside experts conclusions were shown to be false as they were based on studying a section of the dictabelt approximately a minute after the shooting.

/QUOTE]


I remind you that the outside "experts" conclusions were also shown to be false.

"An analysis published in the March 2001 issue of Science & Justice by Dr. Donald B. Thomas used a different radio transmission synchronization to put forth the claim that the National Academy of Sciences panel was in error. Thomas' conclusion, very similar to the HSCA conclusion, was that the gunshot impulses were real to a 96.3% certainty. Thomas presented additional details and support in the November 2001 and September and November 2002 issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

Personally, I don't put much cred in anything that the average person cannot discern, but only self appointed "expert's" conclusions. But the point is, if you are going to live by the "experts" then you must also fail with them.

 

[HSienzant]

You keep jumping from the photos being faked to the body being faked, but you never support either one with evidence.

There is no reason to fake the photos if the body was already altered to support a fictitious shooter from a fictitious location.

Ditto the other way - there is no reason to alter the body if the conspirators already planned to alter the photos. It's overkill and totally unnecessary.

You are offering up two mutually exclusive explanations as if they support each other. They don't. They are mutually exclusive.

So which is it? Pick one. Or don't you know? If you continue to flitter back and forth between these two arguments, you are admitting you don't have sufficient evidence for either.

Are you waiting for more evidence to decide? If so, you're saying the evidence is insufficient either way to convince you. If that's the case, why should it convince anyone?

Or are you saying that *something* must be faked, because you see, these 40+ medical witnesses... (we know that argument goes nowhere).

Hank

Hi Robert,

Intend to answer this any time soon?

 

[HSienzant]

I remind you that those outside experts conclusions were shown to be false as they were based on studying a section of the dictabelt approximately a minute after the shooting.

I remind you that the outside "experts" conclusions were also shown to be false.

"An analysis published in the March 2001 issue of Science & Justice by Dr. Donald B. Thomas used a different radio transmission synchronization to put forth the claim that the National Academy of Sciences panel was in error. Thomas' conclusion, very similar to the HSCA conclusion, was that the gunshot impulses were real to a 96.3% certainty. Thomas presented additional details and support in the November 2001 and September and November 2002 issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

Personally, I don't put much cred in anything that the average person cannot discern, but only self appointed "expert's" conclusions. But the point is, if you are going to live by the "experts" then you must also fail with them.

I have no problem discerning that the portion of the dictabelt studied and determined to contain impulses of gunshots contains words that were uttered about a minute after the shooting and not during the shooting ('Hold everything secure') and therefore cannot contain impulses of gunshots for that simple reason - unless you think the assassination occurred a minute after the assassination.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How about the Autopsy Report? Doesn't that count?

"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Sort of like this (Paul O'Connor's drawing)


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5861[/qimg]

Or This:

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

Note that I asked you to name a Bethesda witness from your vaunted 40+ list that gave a contemporaneous statement pointing to the back of the head as the area of the large wound.

Here's the statement the veracity of which I questioned:

How about the 40 plus on the scene witnesses at Parkland, Dealey Plaza and Bethesda stated contemporaneously observing a large blow-out in the back of the head and/or shots emanating from the Grassy Knoll?????

You named people like Floyd Riebe and John Stringer and Francis O'Neill and Saundra Spencer in your 40+ list.

Here's your list: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8207260&postcount=6002

The autopsists were Humes, Boswell, and Finck.

You couldn't name one witness that met my challenge of a Bethesda witness from your list who gave a contemporaneous statement of damage to the back of the head. You had to go outside your list to find anything (none of the autopsists are on your 40+ list, Robert). I'll take that as a concession by you that all your Bethesda quotes are twenty or thirty years or more years after the fact. Pretty much worthless then. Thank you for that admission. It will save me a lot of time in rebutting your claims about what those witnesses saw and how meaningful their claims are.

Note that what you quote says the wound is chiefly in the parietal region.
Do you know where that is? It appears not.

Note also that the two drawings you produce are not contemporaneous to the assassination. One (the Custer one) was made over 30 years after the assassination, the other wasn't commissioned by, sanctioned by, drawn by, nor approved by the doctor whose quote it supposedly renders in ink.

Here's the autopsy photo. Note that the description above fits the photo below very well.

Note it also fits Giesecke's description to a 'T' as shown in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8210210&highlight=Giesecke#post8210210

 

[HSienzant]

I remind you that those outside experts conclusions were shown to be false as they were based on studying a section of the dictabelt approximately a minute after the shooting.

I remind you that the outside "experts" conclusions were also shown to be false.

"An analysis published in the March 2001 issue of Science & Justice by Dr. Donald B. Thomas used a different radio transmission synchronization to put forth the claim that the National Academy of Sciences panel was in error. Thomas' conclusion, very similar to the HSCA conclusion, was that the gunshot impulses were real to a 96.3% certainty. Thomas presented additional details and support in the November 2001 and September and November 2002 issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

Personally, I don't put much cred in anything that the average person cannot discern, but only self appointed "expert's" conclusions. But the point is, if you are going to live by the "experts" then you must also fail with them.

You wish you had an expert to cite. Wilson's field is entomology.

ENTOMOLOGY : a branch of zoology that deals with insects

So how is he an expert on acoustics and analysis of impulses from the dictabelt, exactly?

Care to establish that? Does he have years of experience in this field? Has he testified in numerous trials where he was recognized as a expert? What, exactly?

Also, in checking the citation you listed above, I see you left out some pertinent information. Why did you exclude this? Perhaps for the same reason the prosecution didn't ask Phil Willis about the source of the shots he heard in the Clay Shaw trial - it destroys your entire point.

Further analysis

In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he showed that, due to a mathematical misunderstanding and the presence of a known impulse pattern in the background noise, there never was a 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.[24]

A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the gunshot sounds did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[25] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis.[26]

Digital restoration

In 2003, ABC News aired the results of its investigation on a program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, it concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza, and that Dallas Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

Hank

 

[LashL]

Bogus?? Nonsense. The fact is 40 witnesses is an understatement. I suggest you check out a far more comprehensive list and just count the doctors, nurses and medical technicians. Its' far in excess of 40.

Baloney.

 

[LashL]

But a reasonable theory to explain what might appear to be contradictions in testimony cannot be dismissed and the fact is, Phil Willis stated he was "dead sure" the fatal shot came from the Knoll,

Baloney.