JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

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)

Yes now all you have to do is explain how he did that while the president lay on his back.
And show any part of that description is inconsistent with the photographic evidence.

Strange isn't Robert how cherry picked quotes from the same testemony conflict with each other. Perhaps now you can see why witness statements are the most basic, least reliable forms of evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?
Dr. Clark.
I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

AND

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue"

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Yes. The large exit wound in the region of his temple was an exit wound.

Even if this was the wound on the back of the head, it is a wound being described by a man who did not roll JFK over, is not a pathologist and is himself unsure and keeps using the words "could" and subjective descriptors. A bullet hole in the back of the head is "large" and "gaping".

Nothing here contradicts the autopsy.

Next.

 

[JayUtah]

That's all irrelevant to his findings which have been peer reviewed and mostly positively reviewed.

Nope. He had zero stature among professional photographic analysts. None at all.

 

[JayUtah]

Only one question at a time, please.

I checked with the Debate Police and you're only allowed to use this evasion once per 24-hour period. Since you've used that and "Baloney" each at least twice recently, you'll need to devise a new evasive tactic. Or you could answer the questions, but that's an unorthodox approach for conspiracy theorists.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The fun really starts once Clarks testemony is compared to other witnesses Robert used earlier:

So Dr Clark observed tissues from one part of the brain were exposed and had been displaced, but earlier you said this other guy went to look at the brain and it was gone, the blow out had emptied JFKs head of brains. In fact you said jackie was scooping them of the limo.

Were the brains there to be exposed and displaced or blown out? Which witness is providing the "best evidence" deascription of the wound?

 

[JayUtah]

Jay Utah brought up Jack White again.

Nope. Someone else did, and I'm following up. You started spewing the same lies and nonsense about him that you did six months ago, so I'm just here to remind you that because White has passed on since then, it would be prudent and respectul to change some of your regurgitated tripe to past tense. It's not like you have anything new to say.

Just his routine dodge from more important issues. But you define the word "legitimate to your own ends.

By "legitimate" I mean people who, you know, have actual training and experience in photographic analysis. What do you think it means?

And I see you're defining "important" to your advantage.

 

[Monza]

Yes. The large exit wound in the region of his temple was an exit wound.

Even if this was the wound on the back of the head, it is a wound being described by a man who did not roll JFK over, is not a pathologist and is himself unsure and keeps using the words "could" and subjective descriptors. A bullet hole in the back of the head is "large" and "gaping".

Nothing here contradicts the autopsy.

Next.

Correct. So we can now take Dr. Clark off the list. Who's next?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

C'mon, Mr. Prey..."blow-out" [sic]. You keep using the term; I want you to define it.

Will you? Can you?

 

[Robert Prey]

Correct. So we can now take Dr. Clark off the list. Who's next?

The large wound Dr. Clark refers to is located in the back of the head, TomTom's false interpolation notwithstanding.

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)

You can cross Dr.Clark off the list only if you wish to join the rest of the self-deceivers on this board.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes. The large exit wound in the region of his temple was an exit wound.

Even if this was the wound on the back of the head, it is a wound being described by a man who did not roll JFK over, is not a pathologist and is himself unsure and keeps using the words "could" and subjective descriptors. A bullet hole in the back of the head is "large" and "gaping".

Nothing here contradicts the autopsy.

Next.

In your will to believe that which is not true, you have invented the word "temple" from the quoted passage. But it does not exist. The Dr. referred to the large wound in the back of the head.

"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]

It's not a choice; it's a fact. You're trying to bait me into debates I'm not having

Do don't debate. Hide underneath your desk.

 

[Tomtomkent]

In your will to believe that which is not true, you have invented the word "temple" from the quoted passage. But it does not exist. The Dr. referred to the large wound in the back of the head.

"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)

You do realise the quotes about the back of the head, and those about the press conference may not be reporting the same wound?
Where in the quote i was responding to, not the one above, does it specify the back of the head? I noted the description matched the known wound on the temple.

Also, how did Clark examine the back of the head while JFK was on his back and not rolled over in Clarks presence?

I know he stated the back of the head. He also stated JFK was not moved from his back, so, please explain how he examined the back of the head in any detail.

 

[JayUtah]

Do don't debate. Hide underneath your desk.

Who's hiding? I'm pressing you on topics you obviously don't want to talk about. So you try to change the subject and make it seem like I'm ignoring the new subject. And this from the guy who insists on one topic at a time! Hide under my desk? This from the guy who ran away for several weeks?

You're too funny, Robert. But back to business. I'm talking about Jack White. Why aren't you?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?
Dr. Clark.
I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

AND

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue"

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

As I apparently inserted the word "temple" by noting these are accurate descriptions of the wound on the temple, could Robert please highlight where IN THIS QUOTE it is stated that this is the same wound Clark described elsewhere in his testemony.

Otherwise it would appear as though Robert is either mistakenly, or dishonestly, trying to claim two seperate quotes from the full transcript are on the same subject, and not on two distinct subjects (a wound on the back of the head and the press statement).

Surely Robert would not have such double standards as to state I added words to the statement, by dictating where on the head I thought the wound discussed with the press was, while making a simaler deduction himself?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Who's hiding? I'm pressing you on topics you obviously don't want to talk about. So you try to change the subject and make it seem like I'm ignoring the new subject. And this from the guy who insists on one topic at a time! Hide under my desk? This from the guy who ran away for several weeks?

You're too funny, Robert. But back to business. I'm talking about Jack White. Why aren't you?

Apparently Robert has yet to deduce that other people may have differing interests in the discussion. He apparently is unable to discuss different aspects with different people in the same way he is unable to read more than one question at a time.

 

[Tomtomkent]

"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)

Which part of this description is incompatible with an entry round for a rifle bullet?

You appear to be putting an emphasise on the words "large" and "gaping" with out quantifying why those would not be true of a hole large, and gaping, enough for a rifle bullet to pass through.You want us to think it can only mean the kind of wound described in those drawings you posted before which is untrue.

Not least because at least one of the drawings does not have the hole on the right side of the head, and the other has the right prosterior of the head missing, thus unable to have a hole in it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So do we believe Dr Clark:

"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)

Or this chap:

Paul O'Connor, the man whose job it was to extract the brain of the President at Bethesda prior to the autopsy: "My job was to remove the brain... there was no brain to remove. There was no brain."

Hilariously Robert quoted Paul O'Conner claiming there was no brain in the same post he quoted Crenshaw contradict him:

"Part of his brain, the cerebellum was dangling from the back of his head...The hundreds of trauma cases involving gunshots that I have seen and treated since 1963 further convince me that my conclusions about President Kennedy's wouinds [sic] were correct....The men on the Commission heard exactly what they wanted to hear, or what they were instructed to hear and then reported what they wanted to report or what they were instructed to report.... the Warren Report (is) a fable, a virtual insult to the intellilgence of the American People."

Crenshaw has of course been proven to be at best wrong, at worst a liar in his book ("remembering" adverts that did not exist in that mornings paper, stating his part in the ordeal was "creative license" at the hands of his co-writers, etc. But even so, assuming Robert actually believes the sources he cites, one must wonder how the brain could both be missing from JFKs skull, because it had been "blown out" and visible in the skull.

Care to reconcile your conflicting evidence Robert?

How did the wound expose wounds that were not there?
Why did Doctors try to save the life of a man whose brin was missing?

 

[Tomtomkent]

A pointless challenge. That fact is part of the Warren Report.

No. The statement was part of the Warren Commission report. Now, aside from your claim the report is a whitewash by liars, nobody has claimed that every single piece of testemony is a "fact" just because it was stated in the WC. It has been pointed out before that people can misremember, or be mistaken.

 

[JayUtah]

Apparently Robert has yet to deduce that other people may have differing interests in the discussion.

It is an article of faith among conspiracy theorists, especially Fetzer-inspired JFK conspiracists, that their critics act in concert and should therefore be held collectively responsible for statements made by any one critic. But trolls, on the other hand, simply try to make the discussion go round and round, wrapping up their victims in endless loops of meta-debate.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. The statement was part of the Warren Commission report. Now, aside from your claim the report is a whitewash by liars, nobody has claimed that every single piece of testemony is a "fact" just because it was stated in the WC. It has been pointed out before that people can misremember, or be mistaken.

And so, your point is???????