JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Where's your list of 40 Medical witnesses Robert? With citations.

And I will hold you to the claims you have failed to substantiate throughout the course of this thread!

Where are those peer reviews of Whites findings from a photo analytical journal?

Where are the photo artefacts indicative of the autopsy photos being forged or faked?

Where are the signs of cutting or compositing in the back yard photos?

Where is your evidence that the latent prints taken from the rifle were ink and not latent?

How exactly, if your claim about a frangible bullet in the Z film is true, can the ejecta have left the skull from the small entry wound you suggest JFK had on the front of his head?

Care to revist your evidence that LHO was a heroic spy?

Why was your model in the now infamous "doofus" photo holding the stick in a completely different pose to LHO holding the rifle?

What time is it in the RoboTimbo Shadow photo?

I hold you to those and many more Robert.

NO, I'm not going to let you off the hook We are still on the very first of the medical witnesses which you still have not been able to refute. Give up and we'll go on to the second.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You see, Robert quoted the question, he was happy to suggest I needed a refresher, yet he didn't actually answer it. How odd he didn't tell me which regions it DID stretch over?

Even if he apparently only refers to the brain, and not skull structure or other reference points for regions of the head. Odd indeed. Almost as though he was deliberately avoiding the question...

 

[Tomtomkent]

NO, I'm not going to let you off the hook We are still on the very first of the medical witnesses which you still have not been able to refute. Give up and we'll go on to the second.

Silly Robert. Why would I refute a great witness for the official story like Clark? Not sure you noticed but YOUR understanding and representation of his claims were refuted many times over... You don't get this burden of proof thing do you? You made a claim that Clarks statements support your conclusion of a blow out of the back of the head. This is not the case as has been shown here:

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?

And here:

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.

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.

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.

Now, assuming you are new to this critical thinking thing, but it is your job to make your claim stick, by overcoming the null, not for anybody else to refute it.

You have made a flawed claim about the first witness. He happens to disprove an earlier witness from one of your other posts.

Can you quanitfy the terms "large" and "gaping" in any way that is not consistent with the findings of the WC? How about in milimeters. What diameter of wound is required for a wound to be "large" or "gaping"? (And of course you will have show Clark was using the same scale in his comment)

 

[Tomtomkent]

Talking of holding people to answer questions Robert:

Where's your list of 40 Medical witnesses Robert? With citations.

And I will hold you to the claims you have failed to substantiate throughout the course of this thread!

Where are those peer reviews of Whites findings from a photo analytical journal?

Where are the photo artefacts indicative of the autopsy photos being forged or faked?

Where are the signs of cutting or compositing in the back yard photos?

Where is your evidence that the latent prints taken from the rifle were ink and not latent?

How exactly, if your claim about a frangible bullet in the Z film is true, can the ejecta have left the skull from the small entry wound you suggest JFK had on the front of his head?

Care to revist your evidence that LHO was a heroic spy?

Why was your model in the now infamous "doofus" photo holding the stick in a completely different pose to LHO holding the rifle?

What time is it in the RoboTimbo Shadow photo?

*tumble weeds drift past*

I'm holding you to these, still. And we have all been waiting so very long.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Or even keeping to the "subject at hand" I am not letting Robert Prey off the hook for the following:

How was Clark able to examine the back of JFKs head while he was not rolled over? Simple question, but one Robert has neither told us he can not answer, nor offered an answer.

What is it about the quotes Robert discussed that he does not think fits with the WC conclusions or the autopsy report? We know there was a wound, as Clark describes, that was the entry wound for a bullet.

What size does a wound have to be to before it is "large" and "gaping" (and why these subjective terms can not apply to the entry wound)?

Why was Clark unable to tell if the wound was an entry or exit wound given the apparent "blow out" nature Robert thinks he is describing?

 

[Robert Prey]

Silly Robert. Why would I refute a great witness for the official story like Clark? Not sure you noticed but YOUR understanding and representation of his claims were refuted many times over... You don't get this burden of proof thing do you? You made a claim that Cl

You have refuted nothing,

 

[Robert Prey]

Tom Tom wrote:

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent
"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."

PRESS CONFERENCE
PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
DALLAS, TEXAS
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
2:16 P.M. CST


DR. KEMP CLARK-
—to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound.
A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You have refuted nothing,

But again, that is back to front Robert. You are making the claim. It is your job to make it stick, not anybody elses job to refute it. This is called the burden of proof:

You claim Clarks testemony differs from the WC conclusion. It does not.
You claim the wound Clark discusses in the Press conference is a blow out to the back of the head. This has not been proven and the description fits the known exit wound.

Your claims are refuted to my satisfaction. Your claims have failed to convince me. Try harder or concede defeat.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. You were once again singing his praises less than a week ago. You made some assertions then that I've been trying to follow up on with you since then. You refuse to answer my questions, though -- expressly so. So that ranks you Numero Uno on the fingers-in-the-ears list.



No. You're not the Conversation Cop of this thread. I have questions on the table about statement you made recently, and I would like to have them answered. If you don't wish to answer them then say so, so that the readers can clearly see your evasion.



I stated above that I don't agree with your ad hoc severance of the various questions in your conspiracy theory. Now address my statements or admit that you cannot or will not.

Water under the bridge. Already done so.

 

[Robert Prey]

But again, that is back to front Robert. You are making the claim. It is your job to make it stick, not anybody elses job to refute it. This is called the burden of proof:

You claim Clarks testemony differs from the WC conclusion. It does not.
You claim the wound Clark discusses in the Press conference is a blow out to the back of the head. This has not been proven and the description fits the known exit wound.

Your claims are refuted to my satisfaction. Your claims have failed to convince me. Try harder or concede defeat.

The WC conclusion is consistent with the Ryberg Drawing. There is nothing about Dr. Clark's observations that is consistent with the WC conclusions nor the Ryberg drawing.

 

[Robert Prey]

But again, that is back to front Robert. You are making the claim. It is your job to make it stick, not anybody elses job to refute it. This is called the burden of proof:

You claim Clarks testemony differs from the WC conclusion. It does not.
You claim the wound Clark discusses in the Press conference is a blow out to the back of the head. This has not been proven and the description fits the known exit wound.

Your claims are refuted to my satisfaction. Your claims have failed to convince me. Try harder or concede defeat.

You have been thoroughly checkmated and you know it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tom Tom wrote:

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent
"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."

PRESS CONFERENCE
PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
DALLAS, TEXAS
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
2:16 P.M. CST


DR. KEMP CLARK-
—to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound.
A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue.

So there is an entrance wound that had possibly entered or exited from the back of the head.

The president has lost brain tissue.

I notice it does not state the brain tissue was lost out of that wound. But out of the extensive lacerations caused as a result.

You are really trying to make this fit your claim Robert, and you are trying to suggest the statement suggests more than it states.

But your claim is still not sticking.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The WC conclusion is consistent with the Ryberg Drawing. There is nothing about Dr. Clark's observations that is consistent with the WC conclusions nor the Ryberg drawing.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6346[/qimg]

Apart from the entry wound to the back of the head, as Clark describes.
The right location.
Matching his description.
Of a size that can be reasonably considered "Large" and "Gaping".

Or in other words: There is EVERYTHING that is consistent with Clarks testemony, just not with what you wish the testemony stated.

Any reason you do not think that entry matches Clarks description?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You have been thoroughly checkmated and you know it.

Odd then you have yet to answer the following isn't it:

Which part of Clarks testemony does not match the WC conclusions?
How large must a wound be to be classed as "Large and Gaping"?
Why can this description not be applied to the entry wound?
How was Clark able to examine the back of JFKs head while he was lain on his back?
Why was Clark unable to discern if the wound was an entry or exit in the press conference when you claim it was a wound that canonly be an exit wound?

 

[JayUtah]

Water under the bridge. Already done so.

Sorry I don't accept lunch meat as an answer.

Where are the references for White's peer reviews that you allege? What is your explanation for begging the question? What is your simple answer for whether you have once again asserted Jack White as an expert?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, why did Clark think the wound originated from the back of the head, making that the more likely entry:

QUESTION-
Doctor, can you describe the course of the wound through the head?
DR. KEMP CLARK-
We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head.

And how well were the wounds examined if one of the witnesses at the same press conference was not sure if there was more than one wound to the head?

. MALCOM PERRY-
The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.

The full press conference, for context that roberts relience on cherry picking does not allow for:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

 

[Garrison]

deleted

 

[Regnad Kcin]

But the medical witnesses that prove a shot from the front -- that's what I challenge naysayers to focus on -- proof that the assassination was indeed a conspiracy as proved by the testimony of 40 plus medical witnesses. .

Why it's that ol' debbil "blow-out" [sic] that you continue to refuse to define and describe, innit?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Baloney.

Lawd-a-mighty, you really suck at this critical thinking process, doncha?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I have 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head, indicating a shot from the front and conspiracy. You, on the other hand, have none -- zero.

Empasis mine, mine, mine.

Can you describe what the incorrectly spelled word above means? Thanks ever so.