JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
So do we believe Dr Clark:



Or this chap:


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



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?
Click to expand...

All of the above -- baloney.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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?
Click to expand...

You falsely inserted the word "temple" and now try to justify it. Hopeless.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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.
Click to expand...


So now, Dr. Clark is a liar? (40 plus liars to go, eh?). You have been checkmated on the very first of the 40 plus medical witnesses. McAdams cannot help you. And Jay has wisely declined to enter the fray.
 
Robert Prey said:
You have been checkmated on the very first of the 40 plus medical witnesses.
Click to expand...

You did it again.

And Jay has wisely declined to enter the fray.
Click to expand...

Geez, obsess much?

You keep trying to drag me into this topic just so you call me an ignorant coward when I refuse to have my subject changed out from under me. I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions regarding Jack White. Do you now consider him an expert again? Or are you respecting the outcome of the previous debate where you disavowed his expertise?

Got an ETA on the answer?
 
Robert Prey said:
So now, Dr. Clark is a liar? (40 plus liars to go, eh?). You have been checkmated on the very first of the 40 plus medical witnesses. McAdams cannot help you. And Jay has wisely declined to enter the fray.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Clark was a liar.

I asked how he inspected the back of JFKs head when nobody rolled JFK over.

Do you offer a productive answer?
 
Robert Prey said:
You falsely inserted the word "temple" and now try to justify it. Hopeless.
Click to expand...

Please show where in the press conference statement you cherry picked the back of the head is mentioned.

Or we will assume you too falsely inserted it. Like your foot is inserted in your mouth.
 
Robert Prey said:
All of the above -- baloney.
Click to expand...

So was O'Conner or Clark the accurate witness supplying your "best evidence"?

*sound of crickets chirping*

Was there a brain for Clark to see or not?

*sound of crickets chirping*

You have posted both their "evidence" Robert, which do you believe?
 
Careful, Tomtomkent. A flurry of pressing, pertinent questions is likely to get you the coveted "One question at a time, please" rebuke from Robert. Although for some reason he's trying to get me to weigh in on multiple questions. Seems a tad hypocritical on his part, but who am I to judge?

Stick one of these :) wherever it seems like I'm being serious.
 
If he fails to answer the questions, using any excuse, it will conclusively persuade me that he has no answers to offer but can not bare to admit any of the "evidence" he presents is contradictory.
 
Tomtomkent said:
If he fails to answer the questions, using any excuse, it will conclusively persuade me that he has no answers to offer but can not bare to admit any of the "evidence" he presents is contradictory.
Click to expand...

And Robert has no problem with that. I followed this thread for several weeks before entering it. It's abundantly clear to me that Robert knows his arguments are as vacuous as they appear. I did my duty many pages ago by presenting well-considered rebuttals to his claims. Naturally he ignored them, but future readers will probably not. But since my answers and challenges are on record, I have little more to do here but let Robert continue to amuse me.
 
JayUtah said:
And Robert has no problem with that. I followed this thread for several weeks before entering it. It's abundantly clear to me that Robert knows his arguments are as vacuous as they appear. I did my duty many pages ago by presenting well-considered rebuttals to his claims. Naturally he ignored them, but future readers will probably not. But since my answers and challenges are on record, I have little more to do here but let Robert continue to amuse me.
Click to expand...


And that is the true value of this thread. Certainly no one expects Robert to suddenly display critical thinking and reasses his conclusions. But it's the posts of Jay, Hank, and others that have the real value to lurkers and fence-sitters. I know I have learned a great deal from them and I belive others have as well. Many thanks!
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
So was O'Conner or Clark the accurate witness supplying your "best evidence"?

*sound of crickets chirping*

Was there a brain for Clark to see or not?

*sound of crickets chirping*

You have posted both their "evidence" Robert, which do you believe?
Click to expand...

Their witness is not contradictory but complimentary. Do some homework.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So was O'Conner or Clark the accurate witness supplying your "best evidence"?

*sound of crickets chirping*

Was there a brain for Clark to see or not?

*sound of crickets chirping*

You have posted both their "evidence" Robert, which do you believe?
Click to expand...

The first witness, Dr.Clark, observed a large blow-out in the back of the head with loss of brain tissue.

"A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue...."

"...it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

So, Dr. Clark is consistent with O'Connor as to a loss of brain tissue -- but he doesn't say how much.

Paul O'Connor said there was no brain, but clarified that to mean virtually no brain -- he admits to there being "about a handful of macerated brain matter still in the cranium. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKJWxQ3JPjo

Thus, there is no contradiction but instead agreement in the testimonies of Clark and O'Connor. K had his brains blown out the back of his head -- but there still was brain matter left in the cranium.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The first witness, Dr.Clark, observed a large blow-out in the back of the head with loss of brain tissue.

"A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue...."

"...it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

So, Dr. Clark is consistent with O'Connor as to a loss of brain tissue -- but he doesn't say how much.

Paul O'Connor said there was no brain, but clarified that to mean virtually no brain -- he admits to there being "about a handful of macerated brain matter still in the cranium. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKJWxQ3JPjo

Thus, there is no contradiction but instead agreement in the testimonies of Clark and O'Connor. K had his brains blown out the back of his head -- but there still was brain matter left in the cranium.
Click to expand...

So O'Conner is an unreliable witness who changes his story. And the quote you possited as evidence was innaccurate. Were you aware that your witness altered his story from there being no brain to some brain when you quoted him, and if so why rely on an untrue statement?

Thank you for clarifying that there is no conflict between the witness testemony only if you disregard one of the statements and substitute in an entirely different statement.

Also: Why do you think Clark was unable to determine if the wound was caused by the entry or exit of a projectile?

Care to supply any quote from the WC testemony where Clark quantified "large" in any way that invalidates the known entry wound?
 
Robert Prey said:
Their witness is not contradictory but complimentary. Do some homework.
Click to expand...

What homework could possibly be required?

You posted two statements in this thread. One says there was no brain, one says there was a brain to look at.

If one of the statements was incorrect and needs "homework" to be accurate, why on Earth would you post it and not the accurate statement? Did you not do your homework whenwriting your final nail? And if later research revealed the claim should not have been that there was "no brain" why did you fail to retract your earlier post?


Were your suspicions not raised by O'Conner being contradicted in the same post?



Lmao.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom