JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
How about the Autopsy Report? Doesn't that count?
Click to expand...

Which one?

"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.
Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated to my satisfaction that you know what these regions are, how they are identified, and by what anatomical structures they are demarcated. I've presented two lengthy discussions of this point, both of which have gone entirely unaddressed by you. At this point I must conclude that you have no answer for them and are likely trying to avoid exposing your ignorance of it.

Sort of like this (Paul O'Connor's drawing)
Click to expand...

This is an interesting drawing because while the rendition of the head is crude and cartoonish, the artist has seen fit to identify the occipital protuberance and to carefully position his rendition of the posterior boundary of the wound in relation to it. The occipital protuberance roughly coincides with the apex of the lambdoid suture, which joins the occipital bone to the parietal and temporal bones.

As previously mentioned, the suture extends from this apex laterally, anteriorly and inferiorly toward the mastoid process, the bony mass behind the ear to which several large neck muscles attach. If with your left index finger you identify the occipital protuberance and your right index finger you locate your right mastoid, the great circle connecting your two index fingers will roughly coincide with the lambdoid suture and the boundary between the occiput and the temporal (closer to the ear) and parietal (closer to the crown) regions.

O'Connor clearly places the practical entirety of the wound above and to the right of the occiput, in the temporal and parietal regions as testified by numerous verbal accounts. Only the smallest portion of the inferior extremity of the wound affects the occiput. None of the wound is depicted as crossing the midplane.

If you're going to ask us to consider drawings, then this drawing clearly identifies a wound to the parietal and temporal portions of the skull and fairly precludes any extent into the occiput. If you consider this drawing evidence of an occipital injury, then I have no choice to conclude that you don't know what anatomists precisely mean by "occiput."

Or This:
Click to expand...

Useless as an anatomical reference.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, duh.

What shots? All three that Willis heard.

To the right of what and whom? To the right of Phil Willis. Who else would they be asking Phil Willis about? I thought that was made clear in the testimony of Willis from the witness stand in the Shaw Trial. Didn't you read it? I cited it more than once.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Willis, you say that to the best of your recollection, in considering the circumstances of excitement, that you heard three shots, is that right, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now as I understand it, Mr. Willis, you were standing here at the point indicated by the flag with your name on it on State Exhibit-35, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, by that tree.
Q: And you say you were looking down here, and by down here do you mean down Stemmons Freeway?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you say the shots came from your right, is that correct?
A: They sounded as if they did.
Q: Is it not a fact that the Texas Book Depository was to your right?
A: Sir?
Q: Was the Texas Book Depository to your right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: That is all, sir.
Click to expand...


You can find Willis' complete testimony at the Clay Shaw trial here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_pshaw.htm

Please look at the slides Phil Willis took and and let me know which slides show the knoll to the right of Willis.

There is a series of 12 slides. I am particularly interested in seeing any slides with the knoll to the right of the image taken during the shooting (while the limo was on Elm Street).

You of course won't be able to cite any, as during the shooting sequence, the knoll was to the left of Willis or ahead of Willis as he turned to follow and photograph the limo during the motorcade.

Thanks much,

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Well, duh.

What shots? All three that Willis heard.

To the right of what and whom? To the right of Phil Willis. Who else would they be asking Phil Willis about? I thought that was made clear in the testimony of Willis from the witness stand in the Shaw Trial. Didn't you read it? I cited it more than once.




You can find Willis' complete testimony at the Clay Shaw trial here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_pshaw.htm

Please look at the slides Phil Willis took and and let me know which slides show the knoll to the right of Willis.

There is a series of 12 slides. I am particularly interested in seeing any slides with the knoll to the right of the image taken during the shooting (while the limo was on Elm Street).

You of course won't be able to cite any, as during the shooting sequence, the knoll was to the left of Willis or ahead of Willis as he turned to follow and photograph the limo during the motorcade.

Thanks much,

Hank
Click to expand...

Slide No. 5 shows the knoll to the right as he shoots the pic with his head turned toward the limo. If he turns to face the knoll, then the TSBD is to his right. Thus, both the Knoll and the TSBD could be construed as to the right. But the leading question only included the TSBD.

You're welcome.
 
JayUtah said:
Which one?



You haven't demonstrated to my satisfaction that you know what these regions are, how they are identified, and by what anatomical structures they are demarcated. I've presented two lengthy discussions of this point, both of which have gone entirely unaddressed by you. At this point I must conclude that you have no answer for them and are likely trying to avoid exposing your ignorance of it.



This is an interesting drawing because while the rendition of the head is crude and cartoonish, the artist has seen fit to identify the occipital protuberance and to carefully position his rendition of the posterior boundary of the wound in relation to it. The occipital protuberance roughly coincides with the apex of the lambdoid suture, which joins the occipital bone to the parietal and temporal bones.

As previously mentioned, the suture extends from this apex laterally, anteriorly and inferiorly toward the mastoid process, the bony mass behind the ear to which several large neck muscles attach. If with your left index finger you identify the occipital protuberance and your right index finger you locate your right mastoid, the great circle connecting your two index fingers will roughly coincide with the lambdoid suture and the boundary between the occiput and the temporal (closer to the ear) and parietal (closer to the crown) regions.

O'Connor clearly places the practical entirety of the wound above and to the right of the occiput, in the temporal and parietal regions as testified by numerous verbal accounts. Only the smallest portion of the inferior extremity of the wound affects the occiput. None of the wound is depicted as crossing the midplane.

If you're going to ask us to consider drawings, then this drawing clearly identifies a wound to the parietal and temporal portions of the skull and fairly precludes any extent into the occiput. If you consider this drawing evidence of an occipital injury, then I have no choice to conclude that you don't know what anatomists precisely mean by "occiput."

Useless as an anatomical reference.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Dr. Humes.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Expert versus Expert equals stalemate. Zzzzzzzz.
 
HSienzant said:
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:




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

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The pic is spurious as is your objection to the actual autopsy report. You choose to exclude the autopsy report as evidence of on the scene witnesses?? Yeah, well I can see why. The report is very much like what the Parkland docs observed as well. Too bad.
 
Robert Prey said:
Expert versus Expert equals stalemate. Zzzzzzzz.
Click to expand...


Your cited "expert" has no credentials in the field you are citing him in.
As I pointed out and you ignored, the man's field of expertise is entomology - the study of insects.
He might be an expert if JFK was stung to death by a swarm of bees, but in terms of the dictabelt study - no.

Expert vs non-expert equals no contest.

I win.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Slide No. 5 shows the knoll to the right as he shoots the pic with his head turned toward the limo. If he turns to face the knoll, then the TSBD is to his right. Thus, both the Knoll and the TSBD could be construed as to the right. But the leading question only included the TSBD.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...


No, that's wrong -- here's why.

Willis #5 (not shown by you, but reproduced below) shows the knoll directly opposite Kennedy from Willis' position. The arrow in the photo points to JFK. The red circle in the image shows the area typically named as the location of the purported grassy knoll shooter. It is left of center of the image, and left of JFK.

It is forward of Willis, not to his right. He has already turned to face the knoll.

You write: "If he turns to face the knoll, then the TSBD is to his right."

Well, yes, but that's exactly what his testimony says. Your challenge was to establish the knoll was to his right, not the TSBD. You did after all claim that to be true. Now you are claiming that he is facing the knoll. So that puts the knoll in front of him, not to his right.

The knoll is in front of Willis in the photo you cite - It is directly in the view of view of the camera lens and clearly that's the way Willis was looking at the time of the shooting. You won't be able to establish the knoll was to Willis' right anytime during the shooting. And you ignore entirely my point from earlier, that if the prosecution wanted to get Willis' opinion about whether a shot or shots emanated from the knoll during the Clay Shaw trial, they merely had to ask him that question. The fact that they avoided asking it tells you (or it should tell you) all you need to know: They didn't ask because they didn't want the jury to hear what Willis would say, as it undermined their point.


willis7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Fake photos could mean a faked corpse.Obviously. And that is just what Don Horne concluded.
Click to expand...


Meaningless appeal to authority on the Horne statement.

And your claim that fake photos could mean a fake corpse makes no sense. Go back and re-read my previous post if you fail to understand what "mutually exclusive" means.

You need to pick one, Robert. We know why you don't. You want to flit between the two because you know you have no evidence for either, and by refusing to take a stand on which of the two is legitimate, you avoid being pinned down.

But by refusing to take a stand on which if either is correct, you also undermine your own position -- after all, if you don't know and aren't certain what happened, how can you expect to convince anybody else of what did?

Note you talk in maybes and could have's above -- not exactly the most convincing line of argument.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Slide No. 5 shows the knoll to the right as he shoots the pic with his head turned toward the limo. If he turns to face the knoll, then the TSBD is to his right. Thus, both the Knoll and the TSBD could be construed as to the right. But the leading question only included the TSBD.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...


Thanks so much for once again showing us your total lack of photo analysis skills.

No wonder you worship at the alter of the failed ct "photo gods"...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom