JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Dr Marion Jenkins from his signed statement, Warren Report, P. 530

"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.
Click to expand...


Here is a very good treatment of Jenkins' various statements. Robert, like Gary Aguilar, ignores everything he doesn't care for (such as the mention of the wound on the right side of the head in the very statement Robert quotes above).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg1.txt

Of course, the fact that Jenkins said the wound was on the right side of the head in plain English doesn't faze Robert one bit. Nor that the wound extended from the temporal to the occipital region of the head.

His dishonest treatment of Jenkins' statement has been pointed out to him numerous times in the past.

Robert's typical response in the past was the use a bigger font for the mention of "occipital" and "cerebellum" (he would love to make the mention of "temporal" and "right side of the head" disappear completely, but he's limited in that regard).

Let's see if he can actually rebut any of this or if he resorts to his rebuttal by font size methodology.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Here is a very good treatment of Jenkins' various statements. Robert, like Gary Aguilar, ignores everything he doesn't care for (such as the mention of the wound on the right side of the head in the very statement Robert quotes above).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg1.txt

Of course, the fact that Jenkins said the wound was on the right side of the head in plain English doesn't faze Robert one bit. Nor that the wound extended from the temporal to the occipital region of the head.

His dishonest treatment of Jenkins' statement has been pointed out to him numerous times in the past.

Robert's typical response in the past was the use a bigger font for the mention of "occipital" and "cerebellum" (he would love to make the mention of "temporal" and "right side of the head" disappear completely, but he's limited in that regard).

Let's see if he can actually rebut any of this or if he resorts to his rebuttal by font size methodology.

Hank
Click to expand...

Don't tell me RP doesn't really know the subject matter he's posting.

Shocking!
 
HSienzant said:
Here is a very good treatment of Jenkins' various statements. Robert, like Gary Aguilar, ignores everything he doesn't care for (such as the mention of the wound on the right side of the head in the very statement Robert quotes above).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg1.txt

Of course, the fact that Jenkins said the wound was on the right side of the head in plain English doesn't faze Robert one bit. Nor that the wound extended from the temporal to the occipital region of the head.

His dishonest treatment of Jenkins' statement has been pointed out to him numerous times in the past.

Robert's typical response in the past was the use a bigger font for the mention of "occipital" and "cerebellum" (he would love to make the mention of "temporal" and "right side of the head" disappear completely, but he's limited in that regard).

Let's see if he can actually rebut any of this or if he resorts to his rebuttal by font size methodology.

Hank
Click to expand...

Pretty much why I keep asking Robert to show me what regions he thinks the known wounds cover. I can see he wants the description to match his assumed wounds, but so far he has shown nothing that does not match the known wounds apart from his opinion of what "large" and "gaping" mean.

Lets look at the ballance:

Robert has his opinion of what people mean.

The WC have their opinion of what those same people mean. With film(s) of the wounds being caused. And photographs of the wounds. And photographs from the scene that fit the known wounds.

Robert has not identified any signs of tampering in the film. Or the photographs. His witnesses do not agree with each other on key details that were supposed to be observed in detail. So much so that he called it "ridiculous" to expect them to agree and compared the wounds to inkblot tests.

Now, given that the witnesses can not be trusted to give such detail, we fall back on physical evidence. Evidence that Robert thinks is discounted because of the unreliable witnesses. On this point he is exactly wrong. His unreliable witnesses who can not be expected to agree on the number of wounds or presence of a brain, are proven wrong or right by physical evidence.

Roberts problem is his witnesses can be proven to be right, but his understanding of their testemony is utterly wrong.
 
Roberts problem is his witnesses can be proven to be right, but his understanding of their testemony is utterly wrong.
Click to expand...
I cant believe there are still people in this thread not onto Robert yet.
What will it take to convince you he's winding you up?

Keep going Robert, its great fun.

Here Robert, I will help you with your next post.
"40+ medical witnesses proves Im right."
 
Last edited:
Medical Witness NO. 9

GENE AIKIN, MD:

"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.)
 
HSienzant said:
Here is a very good treatment of Jenkins' various statements. Robert, like Gary Aguilar, ignores everything he doesn't care for (such as the mention of the wound on the right side of the head in the very statement Robert quotes above).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg1.txt

Of course, the fact that Jenkins said the wound was on the right side of the head in plain English doesn't faze Robert one bit. Nor that the wound extended from the temporal to the occipital region of the head.

His dishonest treatment of Jenkins' statement has been pointed out to him numerous times in the past.

Robert's typical response in the past was the use a bigger font for the mention of "occipital" and "cerebellum" (he would love to make the mention of "temporal" and "right side of the head" disappear completely, but he's limited in that regard).

Let's see if he can actually rebut any of this or if he resorts to his rebuttal by font size methodology.

Hank
Click to expand...

And so, your point is???? Are you saying Dr. Jenkins did not really state what he stated and signed on P. 530 of the Warren Report:



Medical Witness NO. 7 -- Dr.Marian Jenkins
Dr Marion Jenkins from his signed statement, Warren Report, P. 530

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
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."
Click to expand...


A distinction without a difference.
 
A distinction with out a difference... apart from somebody drawing what they think a third party may have meant, with out any confirmation or validation by the third party of accuracy, is very different from a supervised and endorsed dictation.
 
Robert Prey said:
And so, your point is???? Are you saying Dr. Jenkins did not really state what he stated and signed on P. 530 of the Warren Report:



Medical Witness NO. 7 -- Dr.Marian Jenkins
Dr Marion Jenkins from his signed statement, Warren Report, P. 530

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what HS said. Obviously.

Which of your bolded words do you think does not describe the wounds in the WC illustration?
 
Robert Prey said:
GENE AIKIN, MD:

"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.)
Click to expand...

Rushing through these, aren't we?

Let's look at Dr Akin. Would help if you got his name correct for a start.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?

Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's
head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and
skull fragments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck. (6
H 66)
Click to expand...

So how did he see the back of the head, when he states he couldn't really see it.?
 
Straw Man said:
Rushing through these, aren't we?

Let's look at Dr Akin. Would help if you got his name correct for a start.



So how did he see the back of the head, when he states he couldn't really see it.?
Click to expand...

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?

The answer is to the question regarding any hole beneath the large gaping head wound. Back of the head is a very general term. If Dr. Akin says he saw a gaping head wound, then he saw a gaping wound. The alternative is to parse his words in such a way as to make Dr. Akin out to be a liar. -- like all of the other 40 plus medical witnesses in the Lone Nutter's contrived ideasphere. These 40 plus witnesses are virtually unanimous as to a large blow-out in the back of the head. Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
A distinction with out a difference... apart from somebody drawing what they think a third party may have meant, with out any confirmation or validation by the third party of accuracy, is very different from a supervised and endorsed dictation.
Click to expand...

When you find a repudiation of the drawing from Dr.McCelland, I'm sure you'll let us all know.
 
Robert Prey said:
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head?

The answer is to the question regarding any hole beneath the large gaping head wound. Back of the head is a very general term. If Dr. Akin says he saw a gaping head wound, then he saw a gaping wound. The alternative is to parse his words in such a way as to make Dr. Akin out to be a liar. -- like all of the other 40 plus medical witnesses in the Lone Nutter's contrived ideasphere. These 40 plus witnesses are virtually unanimous as to a large blow-out in the back of the head. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Don't like evidence, Robert?

Even in that great CT book, High Treason, Dr Akin said in the book on page 39:

Well in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it's more occipital.
Click to expand...

We're not arguing that there wasn't a hole in JFK's head, it's the location, and Dr Akin is not claiming to have seen the back of his head.
 
Robert Prey said:
When you find a repudiation of the drawing from Dr.McCelland, I'm sure you'll let us all know.
Click to expand...

Whoops. The burden of proof is for you to prove a possitive,not for the rest of us to provea negative.

When you have a validation of endorsement from the Dr you can offer it as evidence.

Actual validation this time Robert. Not something unrelated, like the WC testemony you will later admit is not validation.

Speaking of which, you still havent offered genuine validation for kemp Clark saying "blow out". Can you not validate the authenticity of that dubious interview?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom