JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regnad Kcin said:
Er, shouldn't you be busy providing supporting evidence for your claims about Jack White (and so, so many others) before you wander over to some other topic?
Click to expand...

He should, but naturally he won't. Months ago Robert finally conceded that White wasn't the expert he originally thought him to be, but urged to concentrate on White's claims instead of whether he was expert enough to make them.

Now, months later after his attempt at a "reset," Robert is back to waving the White flag. Not only is he trying to suppress as off-topic the previous examples of White's dishonesty and utter incompetence, he's added the claim that White's findings have been favorably peer-reviewed. But of course Robert can't name a single expert who has done this, effectively voiding his claim. The only name that even came close to sticking was a pretender shilling for Michael Griffith, and even he spent more time in his interview with Griffith trying to tear down "the official story" than reviewing White's work.

And where we stand now is that Robert has been asked repeatedly to address the response to the c.v. of his last remaining "expert," which contains absolutely no history of training or experience in photographic analysis. But in keeping with the general approach of JFK conspiracists, he has instead taken to irrelevant jabs at White's critics. So now that you and I have both reminded him of his obligation, I presume we'll get yet another feeble attempt from him to change the burden of proof.
 
Robert Prey said:
I see nothing in that article that would contradict the fact that entrance wounds are mainly small and exit wounds, large. For your own enlightenment I recommend the following:

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds

"The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound, which can sometimes be ragged with skin, tissue, and muscle and bone damage."


"Exit wounds...are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound. Exit wounds will often bleed profusely as they are larger but entrance wounds can sometimes look only like small holes - unless the weapon is fired at close proximity to the victim."

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
Click to expand...

You should have looked at GSW to the skull, not GSW in general:

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_44/iss_3/JFSCH17.pdf

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_44/iss_3/JFSCH17.pdf

WRT headshots with rifle caliber FMJ projectiles, the entrance wound can be larger than the ext, depending on the impact point on the skull, the orientation of the skull at moment of impact, and the flight trajectory of the projectile.

ETA:second link above should be this:

http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/wounds/firearms/gunshot-wounds-rifled-weapons/
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
Yes. Like the small exit woundin the back of JFKs head and the large exit wound in the autopsy reports and photographs.

Of course, a wound small in comparison compared to an exit wound can still be a large wound, and have a large defect. Notice that entrance wounds can only "sometimes" look like small holes?

We have autopssy photos of a smaller entry wound and large exit wound, that matches the descriptions you post.

We have film footage of the large exit wound exploding out as your source describes.

We have blood stains that match to that expected from the "official" wounds.

We have polaroids and on the scene photograpshs that fit the "official" wounds.

In short we have physical evidence, and this forensics page, that all confirm the shot came from behind and blew out at the front.


You have your subjective opinion of subjective words, and a failure to understand that a "tiny" hole in the back of a head leaving a wound track through brain tissue IS a "large" and "gaping" and "blasted" defect.
Click to expand...

I[ve got 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses. You ain't got zip.
 
Tomtomkent said:
And you don't think the trauma of an entry wound would be a large defect?

All you ever have is your interpretation of subjective words.

The only time you have produced a measurement from the WC it was 71cm, and even with the benefit of the doubt that it should have been 7cm, you still assume that is width not depth.

None of your witnesses have disagreed with the known wounds in the known autopsy photos.
Click to expand...


More 24 carat but very stale baloney.
 
BStrong said:
You should have looked at GSW to the skull, not GSW in general:

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_44/iss_3/JFSCH17.pdf

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_44/iss_3/JFSCH17.pdf

WRT headshots with rifle caliber FMJ projectiles, the entrance wound can be larger than the ext, depending on the impact point on the skull, the orientation of the skull at moment of impact, and the flight trajectory of the projectile.
Click to expand...

From your source:

"Exit wounds are more varied and nearly all are irregular." (I would agree.)

Like this:

picture.php


Not like this:

The Ryberg drawing:

picture.php
 
JayUtah said:
And where we stand now is that Robert has been asked repeatedly to address the response to the c.v. of his last remaining "expert," which contains absolutely no history of training or experience in photographic analysis..
Click to expand...

Just like all of your "experts" on the HSCA photo panel, but those lackeys hold credentials inferior to those of Brain Mee, Malcomb Thompson and Mg. J. Pickard.
 
Last edited:
Robert - read the comparison of entrance/exit wounds specifically related to GSW to the skull.

Corrected post above has the intended second link.
 
Robert Prey said:
Just like all of your "experts" on the HSCA photo panel.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. How many times are you going to try to shift the burden of proof? You styled Brian Mee as an expert photographic analyst, but the c.v. you yourself presented contains no relevant qualifications. You attempt this same distraction every time you are asked to account for it. It didn't work the first five times you tried it; why would you attempt a sixth?

Mee is not an expert in the field of photographic analysis. His defense of Jack White is therefore not a peer review as you claimed.

White's findings have not been favorably peer-reviewed, and you have been given plenty of additional time to come up with reviewers. Your assertion therefore fails.

Jack White is not an expert in the field of photographic analysis. White's many attempts to style himself as one have fallen flat, and you refuse to discuss the evidence of this.

The claim that the Oswald backyard photos are faked rests in large measure on White's (non-)expert analysis. But his analysis has evidentiary value only if it is an expert analysis, because it incorporates elements of expert judgment. Otherwise it's just White demonstrating his ignorance.

Hence you present no credible argument for fakery.
 
Robert Prey said:
Just like all of your "experts" on the HSCA photo panel, but those lackeys hold credentials inferior to those of Brain Mee, Malcomb Thompson and Mg. J. Pickard.
Click to expand...

Pickard's qualifications have been discussed elsewhere. He is irrelevant to your claim, however, because he did not review White's findings.

Thompson did not review White's findings either, and is similarly disqualified as a reviewer.

I have discussed Brian Mee's qualifications at length. I have further compared his qualifications to other professional photographic analysts. Your straw-man insistence that I must somehow involve the HSCA has become absurd.

Kindly stop trying to shift the burden of proof and show me where Mee has any training or experience in photographic analysis.
 
Robert Prey said:
From your source:

"Exit wounds are more varied and nearly all are irregular." (I would agree.)

Like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6378[/qimg]

Not like this:

The Ryberg drawing:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6377[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So are these exit wounds in your feet?

LOL
 
Robert Prey said:
From your source:

"Exit wounds are more varied and nearly all are irregular." (I would agree.)

Like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6378[/qimg]

Not like this:

The Ryberg drawing:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6377[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Then isnt it a shame the actual wounds look like the second drawing.

You still labour under false assumptions.

The witnesses describe the second image, including some of those you cite.
We have photographs of it.
We have film of it.

Physical evidence still trumps your flawed misrepresentation of witness testemony.

Who cares what you think people thought they saw. We have actual evidence to validate statements against.
 
JayUtah said:
Pickard's qualifications have been discussed elsewhere. He is irrelevant to your claim, however, because he did not review White's findings.

Thompson did not review White's findings either, and is similarly disqualified as a reviewer.

I have discussed Brian Mee's qualifications at length. I have further compared his qualifications to other professional photographic analysts. Your straw-man insistence that I must somehow involve the HSCA has become absurd.

Kindly stop trying to shift the burden of proof and show me where Mee has any training or experience in photographic analysis.
Click to expand...

Question: If Mr. X holds a Master's Degree in Photo Analysis from an accredited institution, does that make him an expert in photo analysis???
 
BStrong said:
Robert - read the comparison of entrance/exit wounds specifically related to GSW to the skull.

Corrected post above has the intended second link.
Click to expand...

NO. You must quote whatever you think is significant but first state your point. I'm not one to be hopping down somebody's bunny trail to read some multi-thousand worded tract and also supposed to figure out what the poster's point is. So, what is your point?
And what is your evidence?
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. You must quote whatever you think is significant but first state your point. I'm not one to be hopping down somebody's bunny trail to read some multi-thousand worded tract and also supposed to figure out what the poster's point is. So, what is your point?
And what is your evidence?
Click to expand...

My point is that you're regurgitating what you want others to believe, but you yourself don't understand or have firsthand experience in the subject you're trying to discuss.

Evidence in Table 1, you wouldn't even have to read too far Robert:

"In cases C9 and C12, and C15 the exit holes are smaller than the entrances"

Entrance wounds larger than exit wounds are in no way unusual in GSW to the skull, particularly when the projectile is an FMJ rifle caliber projectile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom