JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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.

As I wrote initially:

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).

You start by raise a straw argument that has no substance (asking if I was denying what Jenkins claimed). Clearly that is not what I wrote. You must be desperate for an argument to raise this nonsensical a claim.

You then go on to do again exactly what I predicted you would do (well, you did use bold instead of a larger font, but the essence is the same). You ignored above entirely the parts of Jenkins' statement you don't like. Exactly as I said you would.

Thanks again for proving my point.

Hank

 

[Dcdrac]

Seems people have a real issue with just accepting that JFK was shot by a sad loser whose life amounted to nothing and the only thing he was good at was shooting.

 

[Belz...]

The commonly accepted theory is Conspiracy -- by 66% to 25%.

I wasn't aware that reality was decided by popularity vote.

 

[EventHorizon]

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

You mean Robert was fibbing when he called it a dictated drawing? Surely you jest! Robert would do no such thing after accusing others of lying so vehemently!

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Here's the link:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0137a.htm

Nobody is disputing what it says therein except you.

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's the link:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0137a.htm

Nobody is disputing what it says therein except you.

Silly me. And here I thought you had a point.

 

[Robert Prey]

I wasn't aware that reality was decided by popularity vote.

Absolutely not. But this was merely a response to one of the "critical thinkers" on this board who claimed that my views on the subject were a minority of one. Try to keep up with the dialogue here if you wish to make a coherent post.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Silly me. And here I thought you had a point.

He did. It has been contained in his posts.

You asked if he was claiming certain things were not said.
He showed they were, but in a context that conflicts with your interpretation.

So yes, I agree, to claim otherwise IS very silly of you.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Absolutely not. But this was merely a response to one of the "critical thinkers" on this board who claimed that my views on the subject were a minority of one. Try to keep up with the dialogue here if you wish to make a coherent post.

But your view is a minority one.

The majority of people think that there is a conspiracy.

That does not mean they agree with your particular theory of conspircay.

Or do you have any evidence that all those who believe in a conspiracy believe your particular views?

Try to be coherent if you wish to partake in the dialogue.

 

[BStrong]

Absolutely not. But this was merely a response to one of the "critical thinkers" on this board who claimed that my views on the subject were a minority of one. Try to keep up with the dialogue here if you wish to make a coherent post.

Few people wish to beat a dead horse and be beaten in return as you do RP.

 

[Robert Prey]

Seems people have a real issue with just accepting that JFK was shot by a sad loser whose life amounted to nothing and the only thing he was good at was shooting.

Marine Corps Vet
Assigned to Top Secret U2 Spy Plane base at Atsugi
Somehow, Learned to speak Russian fluently.
Ties to Naval Intell.
Army Intell.
CIA
FBI

Also tied to both pro and anti-Castro/Cuban organizations. Guy got around a lot.

Some loser


As for shooting, a documented Maggie's Drawers award winner.

 

[Crazytimes]

Marine Corps Vet
Assigned to Top Secret U2 Spy Plane base at Atsugi
Somehow, Learned to speak Russian fluently.
Ties to Naval Intell.
Army Intell.
CIA
FBI

Also tied to both pro and anti-Castro/Cuban organizations. Guy got around a lot.

Some loser


As for shooting, a documented Maggie's Drawers award winner.

He qualified as a sharpshooter.

 

[BStrong]

Marine Corps Vet

Non-combat pogue

Assigned to Top Secret U2 Spy Plane base at Atsugi

See above

Somehow, Learned to speak Russian fluently.

Myth.

Ties to Naval Intell.

Barely

Army Intell.

********

CIA

********

FBI

As a minor subject.

Also tied to both pro and anti-Castro/Cuban organizations. Guy got around a lot.

Some loser


As for shooting, a documented Maggie's Drawers award winner.

He qualified on the KD range, just like anybody else in that day and age - he wasn't Carlos Hathcock, and he wasn't a non-qual.

Your assertions in bold, my answers underlined.

 

[Robert Prey]

As I wrote initially:




You start by raise a straw argument that has no substance (asking if I was denying what Jenkins claimed). Clearly that is not what I wrote. You must be desperate for an argument to raise this nonsensical a claim.

You then go on to do again exactly what I predicted you would do (well, you did use bold instead of a larger font, but the essence is the same). You ignored above entirely the parts of Jenkins' statement you don't like. Exactly as I said you would.

Thanks again for proving my point.


Hank

But I have never claimed the wound was only located in the occiput.

 

[Robert Prey]

Don't like evidence, Robert?

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



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.

Only a gaping hole in the back of K's head.

 

[BStrong]

Only a gaping hole in the back of K's head.

A gaping entrance wound from the impact of a FMJ projectile with a high SD, at an angle that shattered the general area of the skull where the projectile penetrated.

 

[Straw Man]

Only a gaping hole in the back of K's head.

Dr Akin, who claims he never saw the back of JFK's head is a witness for a 'blow-out' in the back of the head?

From the 1981 interview with Ben Bradlee, Jr. (JFK Library, Boston - accession number MR-81-60)

Asked to describe the wound, Akin said it was a "hole as big as your
fist" in the "right parietal region."

 

[EventHorizon]

Absolutely not. But this was merely a response to one of the "critical thinkers" on this board who claimed that my views on the subject were a minority of one. Try to keep up with the dialogue here if you wish to make a coherent post.

Here's what I said:

I'm pretty sure Robert Prey is doing some sort of performance art here. He has to be. Or maybe it's some sort of social experiment. Nobody could possibly believe the nonsense he's posting and he knows that. I think he's just trying to see how riled up he can make people.

I've taken the liberty of putting the key word in bold. I said that nobody can believe the nonsense YOU'RE posting. I didn't say that nobody could possibly believe in a conspiracy. There are many people who have many theories and some of the conspiracy theories are actually somewhat logical until you delve deeper. I'm one who used to believe in some of them. So the fact that you found a poll that says 66% believe in a conspiracy is hardly surprising. Like I said, you have to delve deeper and I would wager that those 66% got most of their information from films like JFK and one-sided TV documentaries. I doubt they've gotten any deeper than that if they've even gone that far.


You using a poll that says 66% of the people polled believe in a conspiracy to kill JFK as proof that 66% of people believe in the specific theories that YOU have clumsily put forth and therefore I am wrong and you are right is dishonest at best and an outright lie at the worst. Tilt your head back for a second. Has your nose reached Jupiter yet?

But your view is a minority one.

The majority of people think that there is a conspiracy.

That does not mean they agree with your particular theory of conspircay.

Or do you have any evidence that all those who believe in a conspiracy believe your particular views?

Try to be coherent if you wish to partake in the dialogue.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[vtbub]

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."

Fully agree. He hasn't introduced anything new in ages.

 

[JayUtah]

You using a poll that says 66% of the people polled believe in a conspiracy to kill JFK as proof that 66% of people believe in the specific theories that YOU have clumsily put forth and therefore I am wrong and you are right is dishonest at best and an outright lie at the worst.

I tried to make that point earlier but Robert would have none of it. Even well-taken opinion polls reveal a large percentage of people who express a belief in some sort of conspiracy regarding JFK's assassination, whether it be that Oswald had accomplices or that he was innocently set up. However no poll asks the respondents why they believe as they do. So it's indeed highly dishonest for Robert to insinuate that the people in these polls believe as they do because his arguments are so convincing. I challenged Robert to the produce the name of even just one person who believes in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and who cites Robert Prey's arguments as the reason for that belief. Nothing yet -- not even an acknowledgement of the challenge.

Absent any direct evidence for why respondents believe in a conspiracy, we can come up with a number of plausible candidates that have nothing to do with the factual accuracy or logical tenability of any of the conspiracy theories. Most prevalent is simply the belief that something as momentous as the public assassination of a U.S. President cannot be the result of a lone man's act. This same attitude resurges when talking about 9/11. Psychologically speaking, people want a momentous consequence to be the result of a momentous antecedent. So they'll happily manufacture that antecedent as necessary. So until the various respondents are more vocal about what motivates their belief, there's no evidence to attribute belief to the credibility of some particular conspiracy theorist.

Spikes in polled belief in a conspiracy coincidence with Oliver Stone's feature JFK and with the release of the HSCA findings. However, demographically speaking, the more education one has, the less likely one is to believe in a JFK conspiracy.