JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
Uh oh! Robert lied again, or failed to understand his own witness!

Clark didn't say the wound orginated at the back of the head?
You dead read the quote I posted from the press conference where Clark described the path of the wound?

Prey tell what do the words "back of the head" mean?
Click to expand...

Another Pinocchio. Back of the head is where the large wound was. Dr.Kemp made no statement of inference of entry or exit.
 
Robert Prey said:
Baloney.
Click to expand...
Robert declares we can not discount the word out from Clarks testemony.
But your "blow out" theory discounts the word "in".

Why do you want us to only accept the words you cherry pick Robert?

Did Clark state the bullet could have gone "in" the back of the head. Yes he did. Ergo it is consistant with the WC findings.

A "blow out" is not consistant with a possible entry wound as Clark describes as a possibility.

I refer you back to the text you yourself posted on the nature of gunshot wounds. AN exitwound may be mistaken for an entry wound, but not of the blow out type. Ergo the wound was small enough to be either an In or an Out, so it can not have been the blow out from the drawings.

Ergo consistant with the known photographic record and the WC.
 
JayUtah said:
Why would you think I'd be so stupid as to agree with that? There are two kinds of photo experts in my book: those who know what they're talking about and those self-proclaimed photo "experts" who don't. Jack White is conclusively one of the latter, and I've presented copious evidence of it -- none of which you were able to answer.

In fact, your abject inability to explain or defend any of White's gaffes is what prompted you to disavow him as an expert (although you still maintained that his arguments were somehow still valid). And even now, as you insinuate that White is once again some sort of expert, you can't produce a shred of evidence for your new claim that White's findings were favorably peer-reviewed.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Pathetic nonsense. I've already supplied plenty of "shreds", none of which meet your approval because you prefer to be hung up on the word "expert." But you know very well, that as already has been cited, Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, examined the B/Y photos and declared them to be fakes. You also very well know that Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, analyzed the pictures came to the same conclusion:

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.

INTERROGATOR. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are genuine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm

And then there is Brian Mee.
"Mr. Mee is a Depart of Defense (DOD) photographer and photo lab
technician. He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has
been a DOD photographer and technician for 10 years. Mr. Mee
has studied and had on-the-job training in negative retouching,
print development, shadows, and negative analysis. In addition,
he has had technical courses in color print development and
color negative development at the Winona School of Photography,
Winona, Wisconsin, which is affiliated with the Professional
Photographers of America School. He has also had courses in
automatic printing and in using computer video analyzers at the
KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York."
* On the issue of Jack White's work, Mr. Mee said that overall
it was pretty good. He stated that in his opinion White had made
some errors, but that White was correct on a number of important
points."

" Mr. Mee maintained that the panel's own photogrammetical
measurements indicated fakery in the backyard photos. He noted
that the panel admitted that it found only "very small"
variations in photogrammetical measurements of distances between
objects in the backyard. Mr. Mee said that given the manner
in which the photos were reportedly taken, by an amateur at that,
it was highly unlikely that the camera would have remained almost
in the exact same position for each picture. He observed that
there should have been much more variation in the measured
distances if the pictures were taken the way Marina Oswald
said they were. Mr. Mee had more to say on this point, and
for those additional comments I would refer the reader to
the transcript of our meeting."

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/MEE.001

Further evidence of fakery is the fact that the backyard photos were seen to be in the possession of the FBI at a photo processing plant, the day before they were "found."
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Another Pinocchio. Back of the head is where the large wound was. Dr.Kemp made no statement of inference of entry or exit.
Click to expand...

Ok... So please explain the sentence I highlighted:

Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

By stating a missile had gone in or out of the back of the head, he was not suggesting the wound was either an entry or exit wound?

What exactly DID Dr Clark mean when he stated

Robert Prey said:
A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head,causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue.
Click to expand...
if he is not describing a projectile making an Entry or Exit wound.

The alternative is of course that your claim about me making another "Pinochio" is incorrect. That you have lied about me.
 
Robert Prey said:
In progress. Right now we're on number one: Dr. Kemp Clark.
Click to expand...

What is happening now is not what was asked for. You have not listed your forty witnesses with citations. If you intention is to discuss them one at a time, that is not a list with citations.

Can you provide a list or not?
 
Robert Prey said:
A tiny wound of entrance in the back of the head portrayed in the fictional Ryberg drawing does is not consistent wtih "a large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region." Obviously.

The Ryberg Drawing:

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

Which region of the skull is the wound located? Hint, it's on the right of the occiputo pariatel region.

Tiny is your subjective description. Other might find that "tiny" wound, exposing brain tissue, to be "large and gaping", and consider something as small as a skin deep pin prick to be "tiny".

Can you offer any statement where Clark quantifies "large and gaping" to mean "blow out"? How about a simple measurement of the size of the wound he describes.

The bullet hole in that drawing IS large and GAPING. It is the size of a bullet hole.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Ok... So please explain the sentence I highlighted:



By stating a missile had gone in or out of the back of the head, he was not suggesting the wound was either an entry or exit wound?

What exactly DID Dr Clark mean when he stated


if he is not describing a projectile making an Entry or Exit wound.

The alternative is of course that your claim about me making another "Pinochio" is incorrect. That you have lied about me.
Click to expand...

It means he declined to make a conclusion or a judgment as to entry or exit. Obviously. But the wound as described speaks for itself. Hardly a wound of entrance.
 
Robert Prey said:
Pathetic nonsense. I've already supplied plenty of "shreds", none of which meet your approval because you prefer to be hung up on the word "expert." But you know very well, that as already has been cited, Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, examined the B/Y photos and declared them to be fakes. You also very well know that Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, analyzed the pictures came to the same conclusion:

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.

INTERROGATOR. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are genuine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm

And then there is Brian Mee.
"Mr. Mee is a Depart of Defense (DOD) photographer and photo lab
technician. He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has
been a DOD photographer and technician for 10 years. Mr. Mee
has studied and had on-the-job training in negative retouching,
print development, shadows, and negative analysis. In addition,
he has had technical courses in color print development and
color negative development at the Winona School of Photography,
Winona, Wisconsin, which is affiliated with the Professional
Photographers of America School. He has also had courses in
automatic printing and in using computer video analyzers at the
KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York."
* On the issue of Jack White's work, Mr. Mee said that overall
it was pretty good. He stated that in his opinion White had made
some errors, but that White was correct on a number of important
points."

" Mr. Mee maintained that the panel's own photogrammetical
measurements indicated fakery in the backyard photos. He noted
that the panel admitted that it found only "very small"
variations in photogrammetical measurements of distances between
objects in the backyard. Mr. Mee said that given the manner
in which the photos were reportedly taken, by an amateur at that,
it was highly unlikely that the camera would have remained almost
in the exact same position for each picture. He observed that
there should have been much more variation in the measured
distances if the pictures were taken the way Marina Oswald
said they were. Mr. Mee had more to say on this point, and
for those additional comments I would refer the reader to
the transcript of our meeting."

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/MEE.001

Further evidence of fakery is the fact that the backyard photos were seen to be in the possession of the FBI at a photo processing plant, the day before they were "found."
Click to expand...

And where are the peer reviews of Whites findings in a peer review journal of photo analysis?

And can you find any earlier posts in which the quality of copies and findings that can be reasonably expected from those copies were discussed? Hmmm.
 
Robert Prey said:
It means he declined to make a conclusion or a judgment as to entry or exit. Obviously. But the wound as described speaks for itself. Hardly a wound of entrance.
Click to expand...

So you are better qualified to decide if the wound was one of entry or exit than your witness?

Unfortunately for you the wound as described does speak for itself. That description is of a wound through which a bullet either entered or exited the back of the head. You dearly wish that Clarks words "large and gaping" meant "blow out", but that is simply not quantified in his testemony.

What you actually meant was that your interpretation of the wound speaks for itself, which is far, far, from the same thing. It only goes to show why subjective human experience and descriptors are no substitute for physical, measurable evidence. Like the autopsy photographs.
 
I also note that it went from me telling a "pinochio" about Clark making a comment, to me not understanding the comment Clark did indeed make, that the wound WAS either an entry or an exit wound.

*Slow clap*
Bravo Robert. Nobody noticed that you lied about me making the comment up... LMAO... Like we wont notice Robert himself first entered it into evidence here.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
...A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue.
Click to expand...


Did you miss the point that Clark's statement that the bullet could have gone in the back of JFK's head is fully consistent with the Warren Commission conclusions?

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
An appeal to Authority is Fallacious reasoning (argumentum ad verecundiam) For example, Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. For example, an airline pilot, sees what he believes to be UFO, and since the pilot is a trained observer, therefore, the fallacious conclusion is that UFO's must be real, because he is an "expert" trained in observation.
Thus, such advocates choose to exempt anyone who does not meet the "expert" qualifications he has erected instead of examining the validity of the findings of that person.
Click to expand...


Straw argument. An airline pilot is no more "trained in observation" that any other human being on the face of the planet, and thus his observations should be given no more credence than anyone else's. A person with training in photographic analyst has specific expertise that is not in the normal person's area of expertise, and thus his conclusions should be given more weight than your's or mine.
 
HSienzant said:
Straw argument. An airline pilot is no more "trained in observation" that any other human being on the face of the planet, and thus his observations should be given no more credence than anyone else's. A person with training in photographic analyst has specific expertise that is not in the normal person's area of expertise, and thus his conclusions should be given more weight than your's or mine.
Click to expand...

One wonders why we bother getting the opinions of doctors, pathologists, or structual engineers, when these would be appeals to authority.
 
Robert Prey said:
Pathetic nonsense. I've already supplied plenty of "shreds", none of which meet your approval because you prefer to be hung up on the word "expert." But you know very well, that as already has been cited, Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, examined the B/Y photos and declared them to be fakes. You also very well know that Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, analyzed the pictures came to the same conclusion:

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.

INTERROGATOR. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are genuine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm

And then there is Brian Mee.
"Mr. Mee is a Depart of Defense (DOD) photographer and photo lab
technician. He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has
been a DOD photographer and technician for 10 years. Mr. Mee
has studied and had on-the-job training in negative retouching,
print development, shadows, and negative analysis. In addition,
he has had technical courses in color print development and
color negative development at the Winona School of Photography,
Winona, Wisconsin, which is affiliated with the Professional
Photographers of America School. He has also had courses in
automatic printing and in using computer video analyzers at the
KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York."
* On the issue of Jack White's work, Mr. Mee said that overall
it was pretty good. He stated that in his opinion White had made
some errors, but that White was correct on a number of important
points."

" Mr. Mee maintained that the panel's own photogrammetical
measurements indicated fakery in the backyard photos. He noted
that the panel admitted that it found only "very small"
variations in photogrammetical measurements of distances between
objects in the backyard. Mr. Mee said that given the manner
in which the photos were reportedly taken, by an amateur at that,
it was highly unlikely that the camera would have remained almost
in the exact same position for each picture. He observed that
there should have been much more variation in the measured
distances if the pictures were taken the way Marina Oswald
said they were. Mr. Mee had more to say on this point, and
for those additional comments I would refer the reader to
the transcript of our meeting."

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/MEE.001

Further evidence of fakery is the fact that the backyard photos were seen to be in the possession of the FBI at a photo processing plant, the day before they were "found."
Click to expand...


Did Mee or Thompson examine original materials or copies? Doesn't a true photographic analysis mandate studying the first-gen materials rather than copies of the originals (or copies of copies of the originals, or copies of copies of copies...etc.)

Isn't it true that Mee himself (the expert you cite) noted this issue when he said "...Just about the first thing Mr. Mee asked me when he came through the door was if I had access to the originals, and if I had my own copies from the National Archives. Mr. Mee stated that in some cases he would be unable to provide a firm judgment due to the nature of the copies we had available to examine."

Isn't it also true that Mee is quoted as saying this: "The concept [of vanishing point] is widely known and would have been known to a competent forger. Passing the vanishing point test only means that the test fails to reveal forgery. It really offers no reason for believing the photos are genuine." -[duh - except it revealed no evidence of forgery]

You're also aware that Marina Oswald has consistently attested to the fact that she did take backyard photos of Oswald dressed entirely in black, holding a rifle with a revolver strapped to his hip? What happened to those photos, if the ones in the historical record aren't those?

And pretend some more the problems with your arguments weren't pointed out to you months ago. Repeatedly. Below are just a few attempts for the teacher to appear, but the student wasn't ready. Still isn't, apparently, if your above post exposes your current thinking.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8492174&posted=1#post8492174

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8172824&highlight=Thompson#post8172824

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8181371&postcount=5560
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Did you miss the point that Clark's statement that the bullet could have gone in the back of JFK's head is fully consistent with the Warren Commission conclusions?

Hank
Click to expand...

No he saw it. He probably understood it. But he wont discuss the possibility as it disagrees with his conclusions.

Not that it matters, as all those doctors were looking at Rorschach tests and unable to discern any useful details. Robert can not even be sure it was a single or multiple wounds. Apparently that would be ridiculous.

So much for the best evidence.
 
Tomtomkent said:
One wonders why we bother getting the opinions of doctors, pathologists, or structual engineers, when these would be appeals to authority.
Click to expand...


Robert had Jack White treating him for his medical condition. "Hey, Jack White's an expert!" Robert was heard to exclaim as he went under anesthesia. ;D

Hank
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Robert will be able to quantify "large and gaping" in a way that excludes the hole caused by an entry wound any time now. I am sure all those who have ever had gunshot wounds that were NOT "blow outs" will be heartened to know they suffered only "tiny" wounds that were not "large" or "gaping".
 
Tomtomkent said:
Which part of Clarks testemony does not match the WC conclusions?
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
None of it.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that admission. We were all confident you would see the light someday. As you now admit, NONE of Clark's testimony DOES NOT MATCH the WC conclusions - ergo, removing the double-negative - all of Clark's testimony does match the WC conclusions.

Thanks again.

Hank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom