JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
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?
Click to expand...

Exactly where Dr.McCellend placed it in his dictated drawing.

picture.php
 
Robert Prey said:
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 refering to...
Click to expand...

OK sweetie, uncle B will hold your hand all the way through the scarey facts, no, don't cry, it's OK

The Paper is titled:

Characteristics of Gunshot Wounds in the Skull, by Gérald Quatrehomme,1 M.D. and M. Yas¸ar I˙s¸can,2 Ph.D.

Here's a portion of the abtract:

ABSTRACT: The analysis of trauma to the skeleton is an important
aspect of forensic case work, but most pathology references devote
limited attention to this topic. This paper describes various aspects
of gunshot wounds, including entrance and exit patterns, angle
and path, range of fire and velocity, and caliber of the bullet, based
on observations of a series of known cases.

Description of material and Methods:

Materials and Methods

The skulls of 21 individuals with gunshot wounds (C1–C21)
were studied. Age, sex, and race were available for most cases, as
well as autopsy reports including cause and manner of death, photographs,
and crime scene and other investigation reports. Most of
the files did not have specific information about weapons and ammunition
responsible for the wounds. When the identity of the victim
was unknown, age, race, and sex, were assessed using standard
forensic anthropological methods (21). Of the 21 cases, 8 were
unidentified. Each wound was described in terms of its shape,
beveling, and location. Dimensions of both entrance and exit
wounds were measured to the nearest millimeter. Surface area was
calculated using the necessary formula for its geometric shape. An
exit/entry surface area index was computed from these surface areas.
The trajectory of the bullet was estimated when possible and
the caliber of the bullet was noted when available. The path of the
projectile was determined by noting its general direction (e.g., from
right or left). When there was no exit, direction was estimated from
the wound shape and autopsy report.

Now I'll direct your attentionn to the Results, as listed in Table 1:

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample. Of
the 21 individuals, majority were white males (N 5 16; 76%).
Overall age range was from 18 to 53 years. Manner of death was
homicide for 18 and suicide for 2 individuals (both males). The caliber
of the bullet was known in 5 cases and estimated from autopsy
findings in 4 others. Location, size (cm), and surface area (cm2) of
entrance and exit wounds and exit to entrance surface area ratio are
given in Table 1. Of the 21 cases 10 multiple gunshot wounds were
seen (C2-C4, C9, C10, C12, C14-C16, C18). In 10 cases there was
no exit wounds. Of these “no exit” cases, 8 had single gunshot entry
wounds. Of the 10 multiple gunshot cases, 3 cases (C2, C12,
C15) displayed 2 exits each; 3 cases (C4, C9, C16) one exit, and 4
cases (C3, C10, C14, C18) no exit. In cases C9 and C12, and C15
the exit holes are smaller than the entrances. The exit was also
small in C16 in which there were two entries and one exit. In both
suicide cases (C5, C21), the bullet entered from one side of the
head and exited exactly from the same bone of the other side.

Now I know this is the difficult part for you, but I direct your attention to the specific underlined section above in the Results, as listed in table 1. I'll break it out below just in case you can't follow along:

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

Now what this means with regard to your assertions, is that in over 10% of the sample studied, the entrance wound on the skull was larger than the exit wound.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

Now I know you prefer half-assed ID's and assertions from folks that after the fact become experts in their respective disciplines, but the fact is that there is no reason to assume that in every case of GSW to the skull that the larger wound is the exit wound.

ETA Geez, I almost forgot the link to the paper as directed:

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_44/iss_3/JFSCH17.pdf
 
Last edited:
BStrong Now what this means with regard to your assertions said:
Thus, the study confirms the fact that it can be expected that in 90 percent of gunshot wounds, the exit wound is larger than the entry wound. And you went through all that just for that? Confirms just what I previously posted.

"Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound..."

From: Explore Forensics
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html

Usually, like maybe 90 % of the time, but not 100% of the time. Thus, it is more likely that the large blow-out in the back of K's head was a wound of exit. But if a wound of entrance, then the Warren Commission got it wrong that way as well. The Ryberg drawing hardly depicts large wound in the back of the head. In your zeal for one-upmanship, you have only proved what I have been saying all along. Thanks, unkie.

picture.php
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
Thus, the study confirms the fact that it can be expected that in 90 percent of gunshot wounds, the exit wound is larger than the entry wound. And you went through all that just for that? Confirms just what I previously posted.

"Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound..."

From: Explore Forensics
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html

Usually, like maybe 90 % of the time, but not 100% of the time. Thus, it is more likely that the large blow-out in the back of K's head was a wound of exit. But if a wound of entrance, then the Warren Commission got it wrong that way as well. The Ryberg drawing hardly depicts large wound in the back of the head. In your zeal for one-upmanship, you have only proved what I have been saying all along. Thanks, unkie.

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

The pitter patter of little feet running away yet again.

I've had a much better view of your back than your front all through this discussion.

The only thing you've "proven" all through this thread is your reliance on poor sources and discredited assertions.

I'm beginning to believe you must be starved for attention somehow, and having folks paying attention to you here, even in the negative, is better for you than being ignored altogether.
 
Robert Prey said:
Exactly where Dr.McCellend placed it in his dictated drawing.

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

And what regions do the entry and exit wounds in the WC report cover?
(Or are you taking the fifth on that one? Surely you wouldn't complain about Jay taking the fifth when you have yet to answer questions yourself...)

Take for example the WC diagram you keep posting. That is of the back of the head is it not?

We can see both entry and exit wounds?

What regions do they cover?
 
Robert Prey said:
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.


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

What regions of the head do those wounds cover?

What state would the entry wound leave the bone? Do bullets make clean incisions or dothey "blast" their way in?
Which bones of the skull were damaged by the exit wound in that diagram?
 
Medical Witness No. 8, Dr.Ronald Coy Jones

Dr. Ronald Coy Jones, WC testimony


"...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) "...what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull".(WC-V6:56)
 
BStrong said:
The pitter patter of little feet running away yet again.

I've had a much better view of your back than your front all through this discussion.

The only thing you've "proven" all through this thread is your reliance on poor sources and discredited assertions.

I'm beginning to believe you must be starved for attention somehow, and having folks paying attention to you here, even in the negative, is better for you than being ignored altogether.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes.
 
Robert Prey said:
Dr. Ronald Coy Jones, WC testimony


"...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) "...what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull".(WC-V6:56)
Click to expand...

You have moved on to witness No 8 without addressing any of the challenges presented to the previous 7?

What, did you go to the "Bludgeon" school of discussion?
 
Robert Prey said:
Dr. Ronald Coy Jones, WC testimony


"...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) "...what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull".(WC-V6:56)
Click to expand...

RP's favorite phrase in the english language:

"What appeared to be..."
 
So I wonder why Robert still hasn't told me which areas of the head the wounds in the WC diagrams cover?


Surely if they do not match the testemony he describes he can tell me what areas they do cover and how they differ from the testemony he relies on.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So I wonder why Robert still hasn't told me which areas of the head the wounds in the WC diagrams cover?


Surely if they do not match the testemony he describes he can tell me what areas they do cover and how they differ from the testemony he relies on.
Click to expand...

And why, exactly, does he continue to put a sketch of Mick Jaggers mouth on a pencil outline of a head?
 
abaddon said:
You have moved on to witness No 8 without addressing any of the challenges presented to the previous 7?

What, did you go to the "Bludgeon" school of discussion?
Click to expand...

Since he's limiting himself to one a day, it's not so much a Gish Gallop as it is a Gish Saunter. But yes, ignoring the cross-examination of this witness testimony is a Prey hallmark. He has assiduously ignored my cross-examination of Brian Mee's c.v. for example.

He has also appointed himself scorekeeper for the discussion of medical testimony. Prey is prosecutor, judge, jury, umpire, and star player. And the defense counsel is barred from the courtroom. These are the conditions under which Prey pretends to prevail.

Most of conspiracism appears more concerned with controlling the terms and flow of debate than with the debate itself. It's an exercise in feigning a rigorous examination of findings without actually submitting to one.
 
He has also appointed himself scorekeeper for the discussion of medical testimony. Prey is prosecutor, judge, jury, umpire, and star player. And the defense counsel is barred from the courtroom. These are the conditions under which Prey pretends to prevail.

Most of conspiracism appears more concerned with controlling the terms and flow of debate than with the debate itself. It's an exercise in feigning a rigorous examination of findings without actually submitting to one.
Click to expand...
He does seem to be doing pretty well at it though Jay.
 
Robert Prey said:
Exactly where Dr.McCellend placed it in his dictated drawing.

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


Not a dictated drawing at all. The creation of the drawing didn't involve McClelland at all.

Josiah Thompson took McClelland's description of the wounds (from his Warren Commission testimony), gave them to a medical illustrator, and asked that person to draw the wound described. Thompson commissioned this drawing for his 1967 book Six Seconds In Dallas. That's where the drawing first appeared.

McClelland never saw the drawing prior to publication nor approved it in any way.

In short, it may or may not represent McClelland's best recollection of the state of the head wound at the time he saw it. It merely represents the medical illustrator's best guess as to the wound McClelland described.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Not a dictated drawing at all. The creation of the drawing didn't involve McClelland at all.

Josiah Thompson took McClelland's description of the wounds (from his Warren Commission testimony), gave them to a medical illustrator, and asked that person to draw the wound described. Thompson commissioned this drawing for his 1967 book Six Seconds In Dallas. That's where the drawing first appeared.

McClelland never saw the drawing prior to publication nor approved it in any way.

In short, it may or may not represent McClelland's best recollection of the state of the head wound at the time he saw it. It merely represents the medical illustrator's best guess as to the wound McClelland described.

Hank
Click to expand...
Ouch! Those holes in RP's feet just quadrupled in size.
 
HSienzant said:
Not a dictated drawing at all. The creation of the drawing didn't involve McClelland at all.

Josiah Thompson took McClelland's description of the wounds (from his Warren Commission testimony), gave them to a medical illustrator, and asked that person to draw the wound described. Thompson commissioned this drawing for his 1967 book Six Seconds In Dallas. That's where the drawing first appeared.

McClelland never saw the drawing prior to publication nor approved it in any way.

In short, it may or may not represent McClelland's best recollection of the state of the head wound at the time he saw it. It merely represents the medical illustrator's best guess as to the wound McClelland described.

Hank
Click to expand...


Here's my citation ---

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16949&st=45&p=214702&#entry214702

Josiah Thompson writes:

"It is one of the oldest mistakes in JFK research to ascribe the the sketch in Six Seconds to Dr. McClelland. I've been telling people for years that McClelland had nothing to do with the preparation of this sketch. I took a Polaroid photo of the right back of my head and sent it to a medical illustrator in Philadelphia. I included the actual text of McClelland's description of the Kennedy back of the head wound and paid the medical illustrator to draw it. Hence, it is just false that Dr. McClelland made the sketch. I never even asked him for his opinion on the sketch. The sketch then is the interpretation of a medical illustrator of what Dr. McClelland described."

What's your source, Robert?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom