JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey is still arguing the same points that have been answered for years as well as within the 190 pages of this thread, as if they never were; typical CT thought process.
 
Medical Witness No. 10: Nurse Diana Bowron

Nurse Diana Bowron

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Nurse Bowron was also questioned during the HSCA hearings:

BOWRON. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head.

Q. So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone?

BOWRON. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole.

Q. We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right?

BOWRON. Yeah. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there.

I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat,

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2349
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
But I have never claimed the wound was only located in the occiput.
Click to expand...


So you now finally admit this drawing is inaccurate?

picture.php


Does it look like Jenkins description?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8231005&postcount=6407


Does it look like Giesecke's description?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8231005&postcount=6405


Does it look like Akin's description?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8518998&postcount=7577
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Presuming you would classify yourself as one of the "more educated," eh?
Baseless Claptrap.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Most of these were rebutted by others, I see. Oswald was tied to a pro-Castro organization only because he created a fictitious chapter himself out of whole cloth. He sought approval to form a legal chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), he was denied by the FPCC president, he created it anyway, with himself as the President and Treasurer of the Chapter (and only known member).

His 'ties' to anti-Cuban groups are because he tried to befriend Carlos Bringuer, the leader of one such group, in an effort to infiltrate their group. He had little success as the men got into a scuffle and both were arrested. Oswald wrote the Russian Embassy that he "successfully infiltrated the group" anyway. Sounds like a loser to me.

Hank
 
Oh, Ye of Little Faith

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...

Yeah, well there seems to be some dispute about that -- including from Dr. McCelland:

Here is a copy of the drawing with a signed inscription by Dr. McCelland himself which reads:

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of
the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland".


picture.php


And from the same blog, somehow you failed to post this from Mr. David Lifton:

I used the "McClelland diagram" in my 1989 filmed interview with Dr. McClelland and he said that it accurately portrayed what he was describing in his Warren Commission testimony.
-- David Lifton

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16949&st=45&p=214702&#entry214702
 
Robert Prey said:
Nurse Diana Bowron

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Nurse Bowron was also questioned during the HSCA hearings:

BOWRON. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head.

Q. So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone?

BOWRON. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole.

Q. We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right?

BOWRON. Yeah. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there.

I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat,

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2349
Click to expand...

Still nothing that does not conflict with the WC findings any more than it conflicts with Roberts own hypothosis.

For a start, if she was indeed looking at the back of the head and saw a large exit wound, but could only see how large by turning the head, would that not be the WC drawing robert posts? Large on the back full extent on the side?

Second is the misidentification of the wound on the throat. An understandable mistake.

She did not see the entry wound on the back of the head? According to Robert she was looking at an inkblot test and it is ludicrous to expect to see such details. I note she also did not see the entry wound where Robert claimed it could be seen in his cropped Death stare photo, or where he claimed a frangible bullet struck in the Z film.
 
HSienzant said:
So you now finally admit this drawing is inaccurate?

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

Does it look like Jenkins description?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8231005&postcount=6407


Does it look like Giesecke's description?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8231005&postcount=6405


Does it look like Akin's description?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8518998&postcount=7577
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Still nothing that does not conflict with the WC findings any more than it conflicts with Roberts own hypothosis.

For a start, if she was indeed looking at the back of the head and saw a large exit wound, but could only see how large by turning the head, would that not be the WC drawing robert posts? Large on the back full extent on the side?

Second is the misidentification of the wound on the throat. An understandable mistake.

She did not see the entry wound on the back of the head? According to Robert she was looking at an inkblot test and it is ludicrous to expect to see such details. I note she also did not see the entry wound where Robert claimed it could be seen in his cropped Death stare photo, or where he claimed a frangible bullet struck in the Z film.
Click to expand...

Gibberish.
 
Rebel Yellow said:
Robert Prey is still arguing the same points that have been answered for years as well as within the 190 pages of this thread, as if they never were; typical CT thought process.
Click to expand...

The "Deep Thinkers" on this board keep asking the same dumb questions.
 
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, well there seems to be some dispute about that -- including from Dr. McCelland:

Here is a copy of the drawing with a signed inscription by Dr. McCelland himself which reads:

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of
the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland".


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6425[/qimg]

And from the same blog, somehow you failed to post this from Mr. David Lifton:

I used the "McClelland diagram" in my 1989 filmed interview with Dr. McClelland and he said that it accurately portrayed what he was describing in his Warren Commission testimony.
-- David Lifton

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

So your dispute over McClelland having not seen the image BEFORE the publication of the 1967 book... Is a note dated 1997?
 
Robert Prey said:
The "Deep Thinkers" on this board keep asking the same dumb questions.
Click to expand...

One day you may be able to answer some.

Try one now:
What areas of the head correspond to the wounds as seen in the WC illustration you keep posting?

There are many more of the questions we keep asking you wont answer.
 
Robert Prey said:
The "Deep Thinkers" on this board keep asking the same dumb questions.
Click to expand...

We will continue to ask questions until we get something more significant than lunch meat from you as answers.

Where is your evidence that Jack White's findings were favorably peer-reviewed, as you claim?

You posted Brian Mee's c.v. in an attempt to establish him as an expert photographic analyst. What part of that c.v. do you believe establishes that expertise?

No more distraction. No more bluster. No more silent evasion.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Second is the misidentification of the wound on the throat. An understandable mistake.

/QUOTE]

I don't deal with the controversy regarding the throat wound, nonetheless, all of the medical personnel who observed the wound before the tracheostomy described it as a wound of entrance. If true, that, of course, would be another proof of a shot from the front and conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
If true, that, of course, would be another proof of a shot from the front and conspiracy.
Click to expand...
But not from the grassy knoll, which has been your main argument on at least one occasion.
:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom