JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Here is a quote from Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the forensic pathologists on the HSCA. Robert is fond of quoting him due to his conspiracy leanings. But let's see what he says....


From the Rockefeller Commission (Archives Document Record #180-10107-10237 Agency File #002422).

Mr. Olsen: Now, I’m going to ask you whether you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable medical certainty, as to whether any shots were fired at the President from the front or right front that struck him.

Dr. Wecht: No. With reasonable medical certainty, I could not say that a shot had been fired from the front.

"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]

For those who are interested, here are some quotes from the witnesses in Robert's list. They don't exactly say what Robert thinks they say.



Witnesses at Parkland

1. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

“Yes, sir.” –Reply to WC testimony question of the autopsy doctors’ opinion that the president’s skull indicated an entry wound at the back of the head and an exit wound at the center of the skull was consistent with his observations at Parkland.

All cherry picked out of context or merely false. For example, what did Dr. Kemp Clark really say?


Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20)

 

[Robert Prey]

Really, are you sure about that Robert?



And just a reminder how long this has been going on, I chose a page at random, and quoted one of roberts replies there:

The purpose of listing 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses <snip>QUOTE]

This has changed over the thread from 30+ medical staff, 20+ medical staff, ALL the staff at a hospital (yeah, I LOVE that one)...

I have often referred to medical witnesses and Parkland and/or Bethesda. And I have also referred to "on the scene witnesses" which comprises both. You chose a list of witnesses clearly titled "on the scene witnesses" and changed it to "medical." That was false and dishonest. An apology is due and owing.

 

[Robert Prey]

I have produced evidence that an investigator whose actual assignment involves firearms identification batted 0 for 3 in court, and you have not provided any evidence (other than hearsay) that a rifle other than Oswald's was involved.

You have not provided any evidence that any of the officers involved were trained firearms examiners, and you have not provided any evidence that the rifle in question even existed or was entered into evidence - only one rifle was taken into custody and entered into evidence and that's Oswald's Carcano.

You also can not explain the most simple question - namely, if a conspiracy existed with multiple shooters and Oswald was an intended "patsy," why were different rifles/calibers used? what possible purpose, (tactical, strategic or logistic) could be served by using different rifles/calibers?

What is a "trained firearms examiner"? One who perhaps looks first to the inscriptions on the weapon?

 

[Robert Prey]

Liar.

And ad hominem attack does not benefit your uninformed position. You're out of your league, Jay. You haven't done any homework on this subject and it shows.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And ad hominem attack does not benefit your uninformed position. You're out of your league, Jay. You haven't done any homework on this subject and it shows.

What homework was needed on Jays part?
You said "medical" was my interpretation. He quoted you STATING the 40+ Medical figure.

Making a valid observation is not an adhominim. You told a lie.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What is a "trained firearms examiner"? One who perhaps looks first to the inscriptions on the weapon?

So what qualifications do you have to dictate the methodology of firearms examiners? Any?

Please provide evidence there WAS an inscription. You have yet to provide a single photo of any rifle with the claimed stamp.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have often referred to medical witnesses and Parkland and/or Bethesda. And I have also referred to "on the scene witnesses" which comprises both. You chose a list of witnesses clearly titled "on the scene witnesses" and changed it to "medical." That was false and dishonest. An apology is due and owing.

No. I quoted you claiming 40 Medical wintnesses.

Please apologise for this lie.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The purpose of listing 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses <snip>

Still says "MEDICAL"...

 

[Tomtomkent]

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 to prove the shot came from the knoll, His testimony is that the shot did indeed come from the knoll, thus there is no need for him to have observed the back of the head.

From the mock trial:

Bill Newman: I was standing on the curb, in front of the grassy knoll....just as he was in front of me, about 15 feet away, boom the side of his ear fell off,

Spence: Where'd you think the shots were coming from?

BN: Sir, I thought the shots were coming from directly behind.

Spence: Where would that be on this exhibit?

BN: It would be somewhere back in this general area.
(Points to an area on the grassy knoll.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4NbiOihaCs

Here's the full post robert. Show me a single word I changed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

All cherry picked out of context or merely false. For example, what did Dr. Kemp Clark really say?


Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20)

All cherry picked and/or misunderstood by Robert.

Utter tripe that has been addressed and shot down over and over again.

 

[BStrong]

What is a "trained firearms examiner"? One who perhaps looks first to the inscriptions on the weapon?

An individual who has the training and experience to correctly identify firearms and toolmarks.

This is where my department sent me for certification:

http://www.nij.gov/training/firearms-training/module01/fir_m01.htm

I can assure you that "the rifle appeared to be..." is not the observation of a trained firearms examinerl wrt a firearm ID.

It also wouldn't pass muster in any court, even in 1963.

For your assertion (of a rifle other than Oswald's at the TSBD) to be valid, you're going to need a statement detailing the firearm in question and all markings - you're also going to need evidence that the firearm in question was taken into custody at the TSBD.

So far, you have -0-

Any comment on the DPB memo? It's one of your sources, and the memo has no information that would withstand challenge.

 

[JayUtah]

For example, what did Dr. Kemp Clark really say?

Something that I discussed at length and you assiduously ignored. Don't pretend this hasn't been talked about.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

When the student is ready the teacher appears. No, I'd rather some of the medical people answer the question in their own words. Take note:



I trust these representative observations will enlighten you. Otherwise, check with a dictionary.

Your quotes do not demonstrate what you so fervently want them to. The people quoted are speaking in a generalized, somewhat hyperbolic fashion. What's more, a description of such a wound does not necessarily coincide with how the wound occurred. A word may be a noun, it may be a verb, it may be both. The context revealed by your quotes demonstrates as much (so, thanks).

But let's say, for the sake of argument, each quote is a precise, literal description of the wound. My earlier question to you has not been answered. Here it is again:

Are you stating a shot into a globe of the Earth in the area of Texas can only produce a "blow-out" [sic] on the opposite side of the globe? A shot to Texas will not produce a "blow-out" [sic] anywhere in the area represented as the continental US?

 

[JayUtah]

And ad hominem attack does not benefit your uninformed position. You're out of your league, Jay. You haven't done any homework on this subject and it shows.

Not an ad hominem attack. You said the characterization of your list as "medical" witnesses was pasted on by your critics. I presented a direct quote from you claiming the 40+ witnesses were "medical" witnesses. No amount of sour-grapes name-calling on your part addresses the fact that you were caught in a lie.

Now are you going to explain the lie? Or are you just going to continue trying to call everyone dumb?

 

[BStrong]

And ad hominem attack does not benefit your uninformed position. You're out of your league, Jay. You I haven't done any homework on this subject and it shows.

fify.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not an ad hominem attack. You said the characterization of your list as "medical" witnesses was pasted on by your critics. I presented a direct quote from you claiming the 40+ witnesses were "medical" witnesses. No amount of sour-grapes name-calling on your part addresses the fact that you were caught in a lie.

Now are you going to explain the lie? Or are you just going to continue trying to call everyone dumb?

The lie is yours. The cited list was clearly headed as "On the scene witnesses". There are other lists of strictly medical witnesses but not the one TomTom and you cited. You are wrong and you know it. An apology is due and owing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The lie is yours. The cited list was clearly headed as "On the scene witnesses". There are other lists of strictly medical witnesses but not the one TomTom and you cited. You are wrong and you know it. An apology is due and owing.

So, have you EVER produced a list of 40 MEDICAL witnesses?

If not, retract your claims that 40 + MEDICAL witnesses support your claim.

You were caught in a lie Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have often referred to medical witnesses and Parkland and/or Bethesda. And I have also referred to "on the scene witnesses" which comprises both. You chose a list of witnesses clearly titled "on the scene witnesses" and changed it to "medical." That was false and dishonest. An apology is due and owing.

Going to apologise for this provablyfalse accusation? Your post was not altered.

 

[JayUtah]

The lie is yours. The cited list was clearly headed as "On the scene witnesses".

I quoted your exact, unaltered words from your post and asked you to reconcile them with your claim that your critics misapplied the qualifier. The qualifier appears verbatim in your post, and nothing you say makes that fact go away.

You are wrong and you know it.

No, I'm right and I know it, and it is also obvious to everyone else reading the thread. Your inability to address your unmistakable error with anything other than delusional denial and insults is very revealing. Heck, you didn't even try to defend your error when posting to me; you simply called me "uninformed on the subject" and walked away. Now you're frantically trying to do damage-control by scrambling for something you think makes your precise quote seem something other than what it is.

You used the word "medical" in your post to describe the list, therefore it is highly dishonest for you to accuse your critics of inventing that qualifier.

An apology is due and owing.

No.