JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

Is this another back of the head witness? Oh dear...

Especially since the occipital bone is largely underneath the skull. The region commonly considered the "back" of the head is formed by the two parietal bones. Of course I explained all this to Robert, but he's so much smarter than the rest of us.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. The Ryberg drawing shows no damage to the Occipit other than the tiny invented entry wound.

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

Want to try and name the bones the large exit wounds effect?

 

[HSienzant]

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

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

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".

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

McClelland made no drawing for Josiah Thompson in 1966 or otherwise, according to Josiah Thompson.

The book by Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, published in 1967, contains the above illustration, but the drawing is credited to a medical illustrator [Phillip Johnson], not Doctor McClelland.

McClelland is mis-stating the facts in the note you cite above. He did not make that drawing (according to the book), and he did not make any other drawing for Thompson (according to the author, Josiah Thompson). And you mis-stated the facts when you claimed that the drawing was a dictated drawing. It wasn't. Josiah Thompson is quite clear about the origin of the drawing, and it involves McClelland's testimony before the Warren Commission and a medical illustrator. McClelland wasn't involved at all during the creation of the drawing or even prior to the publication of the drawing, as Thompson did not seek to have McClelland approve the drawing in any way prior to the publication of Six Seconds in Dallas.

Quoting Josiah Thompson:

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.

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

McClelland, who says otherwise in his 1994 note, is wrong in that note. And can be proven wrong by information in the book itself from 1967. He can therefore be presumed to mis-state the facts in the 1989 interview with David Lifton (if he believes he made the drawing when the contemporary sources cited IN THE BOOK give the credit to another person entirely, why should we trust his memory in 1989 on the description of the wounds?)

Thanks for another opportunity to establish that 30-year-later recollections are not worth the paper they're not written on.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Especially since the occipital bone is largely underneath the skull. The region commonly considered the "back" of the head is formed by the two parietal bones. Of course I explained all this to Robert, but he's so much smarter than the rest of us.

I believe i too pointed out the flaw in his use of using a diagram of brain regions when his witnesses discussed regions of the head as a whole, not just the brain.

As have others.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Yes.

Robert, your response is less than worthless, as I asked four different questions, and you don't say which of those the 'Yes" is in response to.

Try again, specifically answering the four questions this time.

Here, I even numbered the answers for you:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Thanks!
Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Presuming you would classify yourself as one of the "more educated," eh?

No, it's not a presumption.

Baseless Claptrap.

Not according to Gallup. You may have heard of them. They've made something of a name for themselves in opinion polling.

You didn't answer my question. Can you name anyone who has come to believe in a conspiracy because of your arguments? If not, why do you maintain that this or any other national opinion poll is a measure of your argument's credibility?

 

[JayUtah]

I believe i too pointed out the flaw in his use of using a diagram of brain regions when his witnesses discussed regions of the head as a whole, not just the brain.

As have others.

Indeed. I originally thought that Robert had missed my discussion of cranial osteology. But then he referenced it derisively later, so I conclude that he deliberately ignored it. I gather he has no effective response for it.

In order for the occiptal bone to be excised or expelled, there would have to be extensive trauma to the tissues of the back of the neck -- something no photograph or drawing depicts, and something no other witness has testified to.

Robert claims he has "forty plus" medical witnesses who confirm his claim. But it seems he is unwilling to submit these witnesses to a meaningful test of their reliability or their support of his claim. Hence it appears as I originally predicted: list padding.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, it's not a presumption.



Not according to Gallup. You may have heard of them. They've made something of a name for themselves in opinion polling.

You didn't answer my question. Can you name anyone who has come to believe in a conspiracy because of your arguments? If not, why do you maintain that this or any other national opinion poll is a measure of your argument's credibility?

I only have two arguments. Actually, only one that I deliberate about (the Odio Incident implies conspiracy but needs no deliberation) -- That one being the fatal shot coming from the front. And there are thousands, no, millions who support that view. Even you and your Amen Chorus of Pooh-Poohers in your hearts, know very well that I am right. I have 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses as proof. You, on the other hand, have none. Now tell us more all about Jack White.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, your response is less than worthless, as I asked four different questions, and you don't say which of those the 'Yes" is in response to.

Try again, specifically answering the four questions this time.

Here, I even numbered the answers for you:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Thanks!
Hank

It's a 2-dimensional drawing from the back and shows the back -- what each witness claimed was a large hole that included the occiput.

 

[Robert Prey]

McClelland made no drawing for Josiah Thompson in 1966 or otherwise, according to Josiah Thompson.

The book by Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, published in 1967, contains the above illustration, but the drawing is credited to a medical illustrator [Phillip Johnson], not Doctor McClelland.

McClelland is mis-stating the facts in the note you cite above. He did not make that drawing (according to the book), and he did not make any other drawing for Thompson (according to the author, Josiah Thompson). And you mis-stated the facts when you claimed that the drawing was a dictated drawing. It wasn't. Josiah Thompson is quite clear about the origin of the drawing, and it involves McClelland's testimony before the Warren Commission and a medical illustrator. McClelland wasn't involved at all during the creation of the drawing or even prior to the publication of the drawing, as Thompson did not seek to have McClelland approve the drawing in any way prior to the publication of Six Seconds in Dallas.

Quoting Josiah Thompson:
Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16949&st=45#entry214702

McClelland, who says otherwise in his 1994 note, is wrong in that note. And can be proven wrong by information in the book itself from 1967. He can therefore be presumed to mis-state the facts in the 1989 interview with David Lifton (if he believes he made the drawing when the contemporary sources cited IN THE BOOK give the credit to another person entirely, why should we trust his memory in 1989 on the description of the wounds?)

Thanks for another opportunity to establish that 30-year-later recollections are not worth the paper they're not written on.

Hank

OK, so now you are calling Dr. McCelland a liar. So what else is new? Have you considered the possibility that both could be right???

 

[HSienzant]

It's a 2-dimensional drawing from the back and shows the back -- what each witness claimed was a large hole that included the occiput.

We covered all this in detail months ago.

Here's the drawing commissioned by Josiah Thompson that you falsely allege was dictated by Dr. McClelland.

You think this drawing adequately reflects Akin's recollection of the wound?

Dr. AKIN. The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.

You think this drawing adequately reflects Jenkins recollection of the wound? Note he describes a different location than Akin (temporal and occipital as opposed to parietal and occipital). Which of these men are correct? They both cannot be right.

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "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)

To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, ""Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48)

Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit: "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

You think this drawing adequately reflects Giesecke's recollection of the wound?

"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing."[/b] -- Dr. Giesecke

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8231140&postcount=6420

Hank

 

[Dcdrac]

Mr Prey please indicate the independent verification for your claims, this does not include youtube, or wikipedia.

 

[JayUtah]

OK, so now you are calling Dr. McCelland a liar.

No, he says McClelland's recollection is in error. Your straw-manning is obvious.

So what else is new?

Very little in this discussion, because you keep trying to cover ground that you were already refuted on. This is why many people think you're just trolling.

Have you considered the possibility that both could be right???

Have you considered that McClellan was simply mistaken later, as claimed?

 

[JayUtah]

It's a 2-dimensional drawing from the back and shows the back -- what each witness claimed was a large hole that included the occiput.

But you don't know what that means.

 

[JayUtah]

And there are thousands, no, millions who support that view.

That wasn't the question. How many of them support that view because of your skill at arguing it? That was the question. It was about your personal credibiltiy, not what some number of people believe who have never heard of you. You brought up the poll when your own personal credibility was questioned. I'm pointing out that your credibility cannot be measured by a national poll.

Further, you've made a specific claim: that the actual fatal shot came from in front of the President. How do you know the respondents in the poll believe your version of a conspiracy and not some other conspiracy? As I pointed out, there is considerable variance in conspiracy belief. A great number of conspiracy believers seem to believe the fatal shot came instead from the Grassy Knoll, which is to the President's right, not in front of him. How does your reference to an opinion poll handle that?

Even you and your Amen Chorus of Pooh-Poohers in your hearts, know very well that I am right.

No, kindly stop relying upon the delusion that your critics secretly believe you. You cannot make any headway, it seems, without putting words in their mouths. This habit of yours reinforces the notion that you are simply acting out a script in your mind rather than actually debating your beliefs on their alleged merits. We frustrate you because we don't play the part you've written for us. Well, welcome to the real world.

I have 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses as proof.

A claim you wield like a club at every opportunity, even while you ignore the refutation of your interpretation of the witness testimony.

Now tell us more all about Jack White.

Gladly, as soon as you oblige me by answering the questions I've put to you repeatedly about him and his claims for the past few weeks.

The debate regarding White presently stands at your claim that he has been favorably peer-reviewed. You have declined to name any such qualified reviewers. You posit that Brian Mee is an expert in photographic analysis, but we are still awaiting your statement for why you believe him to be such an expert.

Will you answer?

 

[HSienzant]

OK, so now you are calling Dr. McCelland a liar. So what else is new? Have you considered the possibility that both could be right???

No. I said he mis-stated the facts. You established that by posting his note from 1994, which conflicts with the information available in 1967.

I suggest you look up the definition of liar, and use it accurately in the future. I'll forgive your mis-use of the term this time, but any such mis-attributions in the future will be called what they are, straw arguments.

Hank

PS: You yourself said the drawing was *dictated* by McClelland, then you quoted McClelland as saying the drawing was *executed* by him. Your statement is in conflict with McClelland's own, so at least one of these statements is wrong. They are not interchangeable (although I'll admit they are close enough for conspiracy theorist work). ;D

They both can be wrong, of course (and we've established they are) but for now, please tell me which of the two different attributions you've made in the recent past of the drawing is wrong. If you say your original attribution is correct (that McClelland dictated the drawing), then you're likewise claiming that McClelland's statement in 1994 that he made the drawing for Thompson in 1966 is wrong (gee, just like I claimed).

 

[Tomtomkent]

OK, so now you are calling Dr. McCelland a liar. So what else is new? Have you considered the possibility that both could be right???

Please highlight where HS said anything of the kind.
He said that information had been mis stated.

When somebody says one thing and you claim they said another, what does that make YOU Robert? Wrong, or a liar?

 

[HSienzant]

So I just emailed my friend Tink Thompson and asked for the truth.

He says:

Craig,

What HSienzant says is correct in every detail. I took the Dr. McClelland's description of the head wound at 6H33 and gave it to a medical illustrator to draw. He drew it and that is what you get in the illustration on page 107. Note that the caption for the illustration is also dead accurate. It says, "A pictorial representation of President Kennedy's head wound as described by Dr.Robert N. McClelland of Parkland Hospital."

I have no recollection of ever talking with Dr. McClelland in 1966. So I'm scratching my head with respect to his comment.

The Drawing and validation with the signature of Dr. McClelland is pretty hard to refute. Perhaps Tink should try a little more head scratching.

"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"

Actually, it's pretty easy to refut. If Tink Thompson had discussed this at all with McClelland in 1966, or as McClelland says, if he made such a drawing and provided it to Thompson, then the book Six Seconds in Dallas as published in 1967 should offer such affirmation. It doesn't.

Ergo, McClelland's statement is wrong.

Note the caption of the illustration, directly from the book, says merely it is based on a description of the wound by McClelland, not that McClelland made the drawing or dictated the description. Thompson says the description came solely from McClelland's Warren Commission testimony, and McClelland had nothing to do with the creation of the drawing whatsoever, nor did he seek or obtain McClelland's approval of the drawing as accurate at any time.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Please highlight where HS said anything of the kind.
He said that information had been mis stated.

I see the same straw-man rhetoric among UFO believers. Eyewitness testimony is plopped on the table with the challenge to "deal with it." So when we take a reasonable approach at evaluating the credibility of the witness and the perceptual or memory issues that arise, the UFO proponent very soon responds only with emotional rhetoric, saying we're accusing the witness of lying, having "hallucinations," or of some other undesirable personal infirmity, delusion, or malicious intent. Apparently "dealing with" witness testimony cannot mean finding something wrong with it that would make it unreliable.

Similarly one cannot have a different interpretation of the witness's allegation of fact than the proponent or the witness did, without also raising the proponent's ire. Every witness testifies to certain facts, but also inevitably mixes that fact with recollection, interpretation, interpolation, and speculation. If you dispute the recollection, have a different interpretation, quibble with the interpolation, or don't agree with the speculation, then you're "going against the witness."

Fringe theorists have such a comically simplistic approach to eyewitness testimony. I'm amused to see such commonality among the various types of conspiracy theorist.

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually, it's pretty easy to refut. If Tink Thompson had discussed this at all with McClelland in 1966, or as McClelland says, if he made such a drawing and provided it to Thompson, then the book Six Seconds in Dallas as published in 1967 should offer such affirmation. It doesn't.

Ergo, McClelland's statement is wrong.

Note the caption of the illustration, directly from the book, says merely it is based on a description of the wound by McClelland, not that McClelland made the drawing or dictated the description. Thompson says the description came solely from McClelland's Warren Commission testimony, and McClelland had nothing to do with the creation of the drawing whatsoever, nor did he seek or obtain McClelland's approval of the drawing as accurate at any time.

Hank

A distinction without a difference.