JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

They studied copies -- just like you and Jay and every other critic.

Answered months ago. The type of photogrammetrical analysis that I'm talking about, and which you, White, and Mee are trying desperately to sweep under the carpet, can be performed effectively on copies. However, neither White nor Mee know how to do it correctly. They just count on you not knowing that they're clueless.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Blood and brain matter all over the back seat and Jackie seen trying to retrieve brains blasted onto the trunk.

But the question was about the brains found in the FRONT compartment.

Are you claiming blood and brains were ONLY found in the back?

Wouldn't that be because of your Jet Effect then? Making the shooter BEHIND JFK?

How about some consistency.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, I suggest that you spend some time with high velocity/high sectional density projectiles on like kind target media - water balloon/pin analogies have no place in this discussion.

Skulls aren't elastic like balloons, and water doesn't simulate brain matter.

The Z film is consistent with a rifle caliber headshot from the rear, period.

40 plus on the scene medical witnesses say headshot from the front, blow-out in the back. Period.

 

[JayUtah]

And how can you, yourself make any judgments at all about the photos or the conclusions of others if you have not been privy to have seen the originals?

Asked and answered months ago, and just again above.

Further, I don't need access to the photographs at all in order to determine that the methods White and Mee used are completely bogus. They are the standard layman's fumbling attempt at intuitive photogrammetric reconstruction. They couldn't have done anything more to reveal themselves as amateurs in photogrammetry.

Maj. Pickard, Malcomb Thompson and Brian Mee are all photo experts

No. We have given you the reasons why they cannot be accepted as experts, and you simply ignore those reasons. Continuing wishfully to propose that they are shows how frankly desperate you are.

...peers of Jack White

They are peers of Jack White only in that they clearly have exceeded their knowledge.

...and have essentially supported White's conclusions that the photos are fake, whether mentioning White's name or not.

Kindly do not attempt to spin your way past my objection. You promised favorable peer review of Jack White's findings. That does not include people who reached similar conclusions for reasons that have nothing to do with White and his findings. You have absolutely no clue what "peer review" means. So kindly don't say you have some.

...you have no answer.

No fringe reset for you, Robert.

 

[Robert Prey]

Answered months ago. The type of photogrammetrical analysis that I'm talking about, and which you, White, and Mee are trying desperately to sweep under the carpet, can be performed effectively on copies. However, neither White nor Mee know how to do it correctly. They just count on you not knowing that they're clueless.

Predictable response. But that leaves out Pickard and Thompson. They're clueless too??

 

[JayUtah]

40 plus on the scene medical witnesses say headshot from the front, blow-out in the back. Period.

Translation: don't ask my about details; I'm digging deeper into my trench and I'm never coming out.

 

[JayUtah]

Predictable response.

That's because the truth doesn't change.

But that leaves out Pickard and Thompson. They're clueless too??

The didn't discuss White's findings.

 

[Tomtomkent]

40 plus on the scene medical witnesses say headshot from the front, blow-out in the back. Period.

The ones who were looking at a "rorschach test"?
The ones who you haven't listed with citations?
The ones who don't agree on details?
Those ones?

Shame they are discredited by photographic evidence. Never mind.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Predictable response. But that leaves out Pickard and Thompson. They're clueless too??

Which peer review journal of photo analysis are their studies in?

 

[Tomtomkent]

By the way Robert, if you are trying to list your 40+ (why not 50 or 60 anymore?) medical witnesses one at a time the count is currently at zero. You have spent days failing to show that Clarks testemony means what you think it means. Including outright untruths being pointed out to you.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. We have given you the reasons why they cannot be accepted as experts, and you simply ignore those reasons. Continuing wishfully to propose that they are shows how frankly desperate you are.
.

No. You can't accept them as experts because they don't share your brainwash as anyone can plainly see. And Mee's methods are flawed though you haven't a clue as to what those "methods" are.

ROFL.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Blood and brain matter all over the back seat and Jackie seen trying to retrieve brains blasted onto the trunk.

Based on Mr. Prey's posts in this forum (at least those I've read), it seems he has taken ignorance to a near artform.

Remember folks...if there's debris anywhere to the president's rear, it can only mean a shot from the front.

L...O...L.

My word, is it no wonder there are harsh critics of the public educational system when such a product as our little friend is the result?

 

[Robert Prey]

By the way Robert, if you are trying to list your 40+ (why not 50 or 60 anymore?) medical witnesses one at a time the count is currently at zero. You have spent days failing to show that Clarks testemony means what you think it means. Including outright untruths being pointed out to you.

No. It is you who are the expert at untruths. Too many Pinocchios to count.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. You can't accept them as experts because they don't share your brainwash as anyone can plainly see. And Mee's methods are "flawed" though you haven't a clue as to what those "methods" are.

ROFL.

Which peer review journal of photo analysis published his methodology so I can check the validity of his expertise?

Where did he train in photo-geometry?

Which experiments were used to verify his results?

Irony: Robert demanding that others refuse to acknowledge expertise of witnesses (he only accepts because of their conclusions), because he thinks others disagree with their conclusions.

 

[Robert Prey]

The ones who were looking at a "rorschach test"?
The ones who you haven't listed with citations?
The ones who don't agree on details?
Those ones?

Shame they are discredited by photographic evidence. Never mind.

If you can't accept the statements of the lead doctor in this case, then 40 plus more witnesses will not help you. You are hopelessly in denial and beyond any hope of recovery.

"There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar tissues were extruding from the wound."

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. It is you who are the expert at untruths. Too many Pinocchios to count.

We certainly are experts in the untruths and "Pinocchios" you have foisted on us.

Clark didn't say stuff in the press conference that he did.
Clark didn't mention entry or exit wounds (except when YOU quoted him...)
Extruding meaning the same thing as blown out...


Hilarious.

 

[BStrong]

40 plus on the scene medical witnesses say headshot from the front, blow-out in the back. Period.

Right up there with your Mauser 7.65 "witnesses"

Man you should have paid attention to the late great Herb Caen's advice on "sources"

"Check 'em and lose 'em."

You should have lost your "sources" a ways back in this thread, but you hang onto them like a remora.

 

[JayUtah]

No. You can't accept them as experts because they don't share your brainwash as anyone can plainly see.

No, I gave you the reasons why I don't accept Mee. Please address them and don't make up new straw-man ones that you wish I had used instead.

And for future reference: calling your critics "brainwashed" instead of addressing their arguments is about as effective an argument as, "I know you are, but what am I?" Just sayin'...

And Mee's methods are flawed though you haven't a clue as to what those "methods" are.

Answered in the previous lengthy post that you balonied away. Please try to pay attention, Robert. I don't have all day to post today, and it's frustrating when I have to tell you the same thing over and over again.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you can't accept the statements of the lead doctor in this case, then 40 plus more witnesses will not help you. You are hopelessly in denial and beyond any hope of recovery.

"There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar tissues were extruding from the wound."

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5920[/qimg]

Can you varify he even said that? People have been asking a while.


But lets give it the benefit of the doubt and break that sentence down to see who has trouble "accepting" it:

How many milimeters must a wound be before it becomes "Large"?
How many milimeters apart are the nearestedges of the occiput and parietal regions? I will give you a hint. Those two bones articulate together.
How does one tell the difference between a blow out caused by an exiting bullet and that caused by a "Jet Effect"?
How did you eliminate Jet Effect, or JFK laying on his back in a room with gravity, as the reason for the extruding tissue?



So we have no measurement of size of the wound.
It is "large" enough to cover two bones that articulate, in the SAME LOCATION as the WC put them.
There are other reasons to explain the extruding tissues, including one Robert Prey himself has argued to be legitimate for entry wounds.

All this hinges on Robert not considering a bullet hole to be large and gaping and assuming it means the hole in his drawing. Medically trained proffessionals may disagree and consider a bullet entry wound "large".

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I gave you the reasons why I don't accept Mee. Please address them and don't make up new straw-man ones that you wish I had used instead.

And for future reference: calling your critics "brainwashed" instead of addressing their arguments is about as effective an argument as, "I know you are, but what am I?" Just sayin'...



Answered in the previous lengthy post that you balonied away. Please try to pay attention, Robert. I don't have all day to post today, and it's frustrating when I have to tell you the same thing over and over again.

A rule of thumb for any technical process is that it is NEVER a virtue to not know the methodolgy used to reach a conclusion, unless you like to be a mushroom.