JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
Ok, three points:

One, what you are doing is not what has been asked for.
When will you ever get around to giving a simple list with citations?


Second: What was that you said about people who declare a victory? LMAO

Third: Your count is wrong. You have yet to show that Kemp Clark was descibing a "blow out", you have yet to show us any reason to assume Crenshaws "evidence" is anything but poetic license (his own words to the NYT), and you are ignoring every post that has shown you to be insinterpreting the majority of your evidence.
Click to expand...


Baloney. The New York Times does not ID any interview, nor quote Crenshaw as stating that his observations were "poetic License'.

The term "Poetic License" referred to the claim that in that undocumented interview that Crenshaw's co-authors Hansen and Shaw took "poetic license" as to how central was his role. At least that's what the Times claims. But we have no way of knowing what Crenshaw actually said, nor if there even was an interview. But in no way did he nor the Times imply that his observations consisted of "Poetic License" Another great big Pinocchio for you, Mr.TomTom.

picture.php
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
So how do you know he was telling the truth there, and not to NOVA?

Once again we see why one should not, and can not rely on witness testemony: When the Witness is inconsistant, how do you decide which of their conflicting statements is true?
Click to expand...


When you have 40 plus witnesses stating essentially the same thing, each corroborating the others, the chances of mistake or fraud are virtually nil. Obviously.
 
Straw Man said:
Paul Peters had the chance to look at all of the evidence, courtesy of PBS's programme, NOVA. The photographs did not show any "Blow-out" of the back of the head. Paul Peters had the opportunity to look at these, and he said "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."



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

Is Paul Peters a liar?
Click to expand...


That episode of NOVA caused me to question, for the first time, my belief that there must have been some sort of conspiracy involving the assassination (though I had always believed that the conspiracy was to cover up Cuba's involvement in order to avoid a possible war with the Soviet Union).
 
Robert Prey said:
Baloney. The New York Times does not ID any interview, nor quote Crenshaw as stating that his observations were "poetic License'.

The term "Poetic License" referred to the claim that in that undocumented interview that Crenshaw's co-authors Hansen and Shaw took "poetic license" as to how central was his role. At least that's what the Times claims. But we have no way of knowing what Crenshaw actually said, nor if there even was an interview. But in no way did he nor the Times imply that his observations consisted of "Poetic License" Another great big Pinocchio for you, Mr.TomTom.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5814[/qimg]
Click to expand...


So wait a second. His role was peotic license, but not what he claimed to have seen?

Oh dear Robert. If his book is not a valid source because of poetic license it is not a valid source, and no part of his exagerated role, including his observations, are valid.

Or was examining the back of JFKs head and making observations part of the role he played in the hospital? Are people in hospitals in the habit of making observations in considerable detail that are not part of the role they fill?


LMAO.

He stated, in an interview, that his part in proceedings was exagerated and given over to poetic license. That means his role, as described in his book, can not be considered accurate. All of it, including the observations and descriptions, have been subject to exageration.
 
Robert Prey said:
When you have 40 plus witnesses stating essentially the same thing, each corroborating the others, the chances of mistake or fraud are virtually nil. Obviously.
Click to expand...

But 40 witnesses, or indeed 4,000 can be proven wrong by physical evidence. It doesn't matter what you think somebody means in their testemony. We have photographs of the danged body. You want to prove the photos are fake stump up the photo-artefacts in the autopsy photo record you have failed to do so far.

As for your SEVEN, not FORTY witnesses...

These are the same witnesses who it is "ridiculous" to expect to agree on anything? The ones you said would not notice such deatils as if there was a brain left in the skull? Or how many wounds there were?

How do you define "basically the same thing"? Because I have already shown you made a post where one witness claimed to look at a brain another said was not there and had to "correct" (or more correctly "change") his testemony when facts were presented to him.


Robert, you haven't presented 40 witnesses with citations, and you don't have the right to claim that number (or "closer to fifty or sixty") untill you post a list with citations. Not a number of different posts. A list. With citations. Of the 7 you have presented, you have yet to show the majority of quotes conflict with the WC testemony or match your conclusion.

Crenshaw is unreliable because he exagerated his role, including any observations he claimed to make as part of that role.

Kemp Clark described the findings of the WC. All you could do was argue that you have a different opinion of large and gaping.


Physical evidence proves if a faliable witness, or a group of witnesses have been misrepresented. It proves Robert wrong over and again.
 
Robert Prey said:
There are no certified authentic autopsy photographs in the public domain. The bootleg version of one does not show a large exit wound where you claim it to be. In his WC statement Jenkins signed denotes the words "Occipital" and "Cerebellum" .That's back of the head. End of story.

"a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
Click to expand...

Robert does temporal mean "Back of the head"? Look again at the photos, they have been posted in this thread often enough.

Where would YOU describe the lacerated skin of the obvious exit wound to to extend? You are aware of where the occipital bone hinges the temporal bone? Is that on the back of your head, or the rear of the side of the head?

You keep telling me I am wrong Robert, yet you can never show these are inconsistent with the known wounds. You will never describe where the wounds on the WC drawings or the photos extend between. Why is that?


Lets start with a simple one. The entry wound behind JFKs ear corresponds roughly with a seam between two bones of the skull. Want to name those?

Next: Should a bullet pass from the back of the head and out of the side, which brain tissue would you expect to have been displaced in the direction of trauma? Are you suggesting that Cerebellum tissue could not have been forced forward by the passage of the bullet and extruded from the exit wound? Given the herniation and laeration to great areas of brain tissue?
 
Wow, a new picture. Pinocchio. Awesome. Robert, if someone's nose really did grow every time they lied, you'd be able to sneeze on Mars by now.
 
But I do love the apparent "lie" in Roberts world:

Crenshaws role was exagerated and subject to "poetic license", but the things he actually claimed to have done, that poetic license was taken for, are an entirely different matter. LOL. Yeah... I'm the liar here.

Not the guy who claimed an interview where Kemp said the words "Blow out" was verified by the signing of the WC (that he admits does not verify it).
Not the guy who said I couldn't name one debunked claim of his, because I named...er...More.
Not the guy who keeps insisting there is a rule about how many questions can be posted at once.
Not the fellow who insists photos, film and polaroids are faked, but can show no evidence of the photos having been painted, composited, or edited.
Not the chap who said that the doofus holding the stick in an entirely different way to LHO holding his rifle is "exact enough"...

Sheesh.
 
Tomtomkent said:
But I do love the apparent "lie" in Roberts world:

Crenshaws role was exagerated and subject to "poetic license", but the things he actually claimed to have done, that poetic license was taken for, are an entirely different matter. LOL. Yeah... I'm the liar here.

Not the guy who claimed an interview where Kemp said the words "Blow out" was verified by the signing of the WC (that he admits does not verify it).
Not the guy who said I couldn't name one debunked claim of his, because I named...er...More.
Not the guy who keeps insisting there is a rule about how many questions can be posted at once.
Not the fellow who insists photos, film and polaroids are faked, but can show no evidence of the photos having been painted, composited, or edited.
Not the chap who said that the doofus holding the stick in an entirely different way to LHO holding his rifle is "exact enough"...

Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too.

In the little corner of the universe that I can claim knowledge of and professional expertise in, his assertions are as weak as water, and I believe that's why he's running away from me specifically.
 
BStrong said:
Yeah, me too.

In the little corner of the universe that I can claim knowledge of and professional expertise in, his assertions are as weak as water, and I believe that's why he's running away from me specifically.
Click to expand...

Inconsistancy is a problem it shouldn't take any expertise to spot.

If in some posts you compare the wounds to an inkblot test, and state that there was no way to discern details like the number of wounds or if the brain was actually in the skull, and calling the very idea they could discern such details "ludicrous", then it is somewhat silly to build your case on weight of numbers of witnesses.

If witnesses are so unreliable it is ludicrous to expect them to notice some pretty definate details, what use are they as witnesses? Sure, they can examine the back of the head in detail with out rolling him over, and recognise the brain tissues that have been displaced as described in the testemony Robert cites, but not if there was a brain at all, or a handfull, or enough brain tissue to attempt to save JFKs life. If there was one wound, or more.

It boils down to witnesses being the "best evidence" when Robert likes what he hears, and excuses when challenged.

Gee, if only we had photographs from the autopsy that recorded the injuries with out confusion... Oh wait. We do.
 
BStrong said:
Here you go -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8510427&postcount=7462

First and second links.

Will you discuss the information or will all I get is a view of your ******* and elbows as you run away from the facts?
Click to expand...

NO. You still don't get it. The procedure is to point out the specific link, and the word passage that upholds whatever point you are trying to make., Page, number, paragraph, quote the passage, etc. I still have no idea what you are referring to in this multi-thousand word article(s). If you are saying that exit wounds are generally small, and entrance wounds, large, you are a minority of one. If you are saying that anything is possible, including that the entrance wound in JFK's head was a large wound in the occiput, and the smaller exit wound came out somewhere in the side or front, then you are in opposition to the Warren Report as exemplified in the Ryberg Drawing upon which that Report is based.


picture.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom