JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Read the past 200 pages.
Click to expand...
I have.

The only reasons I can plausibly think of I that might make me do so again would be to count how many times you have claimed (without evidence) 40+ medical witnesses, or possibly to see if you've broken the record for fringe resets in one JREF forum thread.
 
Robert Prey said:
Read the past 200 pages.
Click to expand...

They cotainconsiderably fewer than 39 medical witnesses from you. Those you have offered do not wihstand scrutiny, conflict with each other, and often support the WC verdict you deny.

Where is a post naming more than 40 MEDICAL witnesses?
Which MEDICAL terminology would be used to describe the location and path of the wound in WC report?
Where is your evidence of tampering in the photographic and filmed evidence that invalidates your interpretation of testimony?


And refusal to answer and demand for a reset in 5...4....3....2...1....
 
BazBear said:
I have.

The only reasons I can plausibly think of I that might make me do so again would be to count how many times you have claimed (without evidence) 40+ medical witnesses, or possibly to see if you've broken the record for fringe resets in one JREF forum thread.
Click to expand...

Exhaustively covered over the past 200 pages as you very well know. For your recollection, here is a representative sampling:


Dr. McCLELLAND. As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. (6 H 33)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/largewound.htm

* * *

Nurse Doris Nelson was the Emergency Room supervisor at the time of the shooting. She assisted in treating the President, and helped prepare his body for placement in the coffin. When asked about one of the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact, she replied,
"It's not true. . . . There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out"

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com...c=2323.30;wap2

* * *
Dr. Jenkins said, "[p]art of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (emphasis added) (6WCH 48). Dr. Jenkins also told Specter that the [Br]emporal and occipital defect was a wound of exit[/B]: "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (6WCH 51).

In an interview with the House Select Committee on Assassinations' Andy Purdy on November 10, 1977, Dr. Jenkins was said to have expressed that, as an anesthesiologist, he "...was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound...(and)...(believes he was '...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)...(and) [r]egarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out --- it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right-rear of the head" (emphasis added) (7HSCA 286-287).
In an interview with the American Medical News, published on November 24, 1978, Dr. Jenkins said that Kennedy "...had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out" (emphasis added) (American Medical News 14).

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp...cclelland.html

* * *

Diana Bowron, Parkland Hospital nurse. "There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone.
Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most
of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound
in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole
fist into it."

http://www.jfklancer.com/parkland_drs.html


I trust these representative observations will enlighten you and refresh you memory.. As to witnesses confirming the Rydberg drawing of a dime sized entrance wound in the back of the head, no response from anyone. Crickets still chirping.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Exhaustively covered over the past 200 pages as you very well know. For your recollection, here is a representative sampling:


Dr. McCLELLAND. As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. (6 H 33)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/largewound.htm

* * *

Nurse Doris Nelson was the Emergency Room supervisor at the time of the shooting. She assisted in treating the President, and helped prepare his body for placement in the coffin. When asked about one of the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact, she replied,
"It's not true. . . . There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out"

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com...c=2323.30;wap2

* * *
Dr. Jenkins said, "[p]art of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (emphasis added) (6WCH 48). Dr. Jenkins also told Specter that the [Br]emporal and occipital defect was a wound of exit[/B]: "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (6WCH 51).

In an interview with the House Select Committee on Assassinations' Andy Purdy on November 10, 1977, Dr. Jenkins was said to have expressed that, as an anesthesiologist, he "...was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound...(and)...(believes he was '...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)...(and) [r]egarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out --- it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right-rear of the head" (emphasis added) (7HSCA 286-287).
In an interview with the American Medical News, published on November 24, 1978, Dr. Jenkins said that Kennedy "...had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out" (emphasis added) (American Medical News 14).

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp...cclelland.html

* * *

Diana Bowron, Parkland Hospital nurse. "There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone.
Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most
of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound
in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole
fist into it."

http://www.jfklancer.com/parkland_drs.html


I trust these representative observations will enlighten you and refresh you memory.. As to witnesses confirming the Rydberg drawing of a dime sized entrance wound in the back of the head, no response from anyone. Crickets still chirping.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Still somewhat short of 40+ Medical witnesses. Name the rest you "exhaustively covered".
 
You will also note that far from crickets chirping that "representative sample" has been discussed and scrutinised, and proper context and interpretation given.

No fringe reset allowed.

I especially like how some of those witnesses study in detail the brain that one of Roberts less than 40 witnesses said was NOT present.

Robert. Why can you not validate your most basic, and most repeated claim and list 40 medical witnesses?
 
Because I am bored, lets do something astoundingly simple and compare McCellands description to the wound we can all see in photographs and film to see if it does conflict with the known evidence:

The right prosterior blasted: Indeed this fits. The diagram in the WC and autopsy photographs show that there is an entry wound on the lower right rear of the skull, and the exit trauma extends to the prosterier. Either could rightly be described as extreme damage and blasted.

The fractured bones visible in the scalp: consistent with the trauma path, and a reasonable recollection of wounds visible in physical media.

Note the occipital bone has sprung open and allows the doctor to look down into the skull. The patient is known to have been left laying on his back during the examination, apart fromthe head being rolled onto one side. In either of these possitions the only way Dr Mac can look down into the wound is if it is consistant with the WC. This description is not consistant with the "dictated drawing" Robert supplied with his best evidence.

Either Robert is wrong, or all descriptions of how JFK was examined was wrong to allow the president to lay on his front, or McCellend is wrong about looking down into the wound which calls into question his entire account. As already discussed at length this witness doesnot negate, and is consistant with the WC except in roberts somewhat biased interpretation.

Nurse Dorris suffers simaler issues. She does not define a precise area of the back of the head to have been blasted away. Probably the reason her quote has been cherry picked. We know, from the cropped and rotated autopsy images that Robert claimed to show an entry wound he has seen the original (posted previously in this thread) in which we can see the scalp and hair has indeed folded back away from the wound that stretches to the prosterior of the head. Robert is well aware that the WC illustration that he posts here himself features a portion of the exit wound visible from behind JFKs head (which would be the back) from which the hair and scalp is missing. This too is consistant.

Dr Jenkins describes a wound as being temporal and occipital. This is consistant with the WC findings, autopsy photos and Z film. In the past Robert has emphasised the Occipital part and ignores the temporal part. Touch your temple. Now move your finger back to the edge of the occipital. From the top right side of your head above your eye (on your temple) to the back of your skull. Exactly as the WC described it. Exactly as we can see it in a lot of sources. The displaced tissued are consistant with trauma passing from the entry wound on the lower right prosterior (which could easily be called occipital itself).

Given JFK was laying on his back Diana Brown must have been limited to which part of the back of the head we can reasonably expect her to have seen. As discussed above a portion of the head, bone scalp and all was gone. This reads to my eyes as a description of the known wound Robert wishes to fit to his preconception based on a nurses mistake (undersatndable as it is) in where the entry wound originates (itself conflicting with Roberts deduction).
 
Robert Prey said:
Exhaustively covered debunked many times over the past 200 pages as you very well know.
Click to expand...

FTFY

For your recollection, here is a representative sampling:
Click to expand...

I trust these representative observations will enlighten you and refresh you memory.
Click to expand...

Translation: I really don't have as many witnesses as I first claimed because I didn't read their testimonies before counting them.

Crickets still chirping.
Click to expand...

Yeah they tend to do that when you leave the thread to implement yet another fringe reset.
 
JayUtah said:
Yeah they tend to do that when you leave the thread to implement yet another fringe reset.
Click to expand...

I do believe crickets are chirping to fill the silence that appears when we ask Robert to prive his 40+ MEDICAL (his description not mine) wintenesses. His "extensive coverage" of the subject does not seem to extend as far as supplying the 40 names. Now he is repeating some of those already listed.

We have had crickets chirping, we have the word of god, but we have not had the chap make good on his claim.

Robert you do not have 40 medical witnesses.
 
Frishman said:
We have a hospital bed confession from E. Howard Hunt to his son St. John, that he was involved in "the Big Event" which involved a French gunman on the Grassy Knoll, and the operation was headed by JBJ.
Click to expand...

I had a hunch that this was untrue and a little googling confirmed my suspicions. His two sons took advantage of his lack of lucidity in his final days and managed to compell him to 'confess' to those claims. They did it, according to Hunt's widow and other two children, for financial gain.

The Los Angeles Times considered their evidence to be "inconclusive".


Frishman said:
What more do you need to be skepical of the official story?
Click to expand...

Verifiable evidence.

Frishman said:
No one should have to spoon feed you. Open your eyes and ears. You can start by listening to Hunt's confession and reading Barr's book. This forum is for skeptics and critical thinkers, and that takes work. Evidence is not going to get into your brain by osmosis.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand how burden of proof works, do you?

You are making the claims. You back them up. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Frishman said:
Don't be a lazy gullible Truster.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be casting any stones if I were you about others being lazy or gullible, especially since you seem to buy into conspiracy theory rot without doing a minimal amount of research into the claims of people promoting them.

But, out of curiosity, what the hell is a 'Truster'?
 
JayUtah said:
FTFY





Translation: I really don't have as many witnesses as I first claimed because I didn't read their testimonies before counting them.
Click to expand...

So how many witnesses do you or TomTom have for that dime sized bullet entrance wound in the back of the head as illustrated in the Rydberg Drawing????

Obviously, Zero You are out of ammo, but then I do repeat myself.
 
I have 76,411 medical witnesses that testify that LHO was the lone shooter. Prove me wrong, Rob.
 
I have 76,411 medical witnesses that testify that LHO was the lone shooter.
Click to expand...
I think you should post a list of them...in the very next post after Robert lists his 40+ medical witnesses. :)
 
Robert Prey said:
So how many witnesses do you or TomTom have for that dime sized bullet entrance wound in the back of the head as illustrated in the Rydberg Drawing????
Click to expand...

Who claimed to have any? We have other sources of evidence that disprove annectdotal evidence.



Robert Prey said:
Obviously, Zero
Click to expand...

Obvious because nobody else has claimed they have any annectdotal evidence to provide on the matter? Obvious because the need for annectdotal evidence is negated by other sources that are beyond the question of subjective interpretation?

Robert Prey said:
You are out of ammo, but then I do repeat myself.
Click to expand...

Yes. We noticed you repeat yourself.

It is a shame you concern yourself with repeating claims of having 40+ Medical Witnesses instead of supplying their names.

One can only assume you too are out of argumentative ammunition. Otherwise why waste times on such plattitudes instead of moving the conversation forwards?

Why would we need the vague memory of somebody who thought they may have seen a wound when we have the measurements of the wound recorded in the autopsy, photographs of the wound, film of the wound being recieved?

Why would we possibly need to rely on the most basic and least reliable form of evidence? Your own witnesses have been shown to contradict each other many times over the last two hundred pages precisely because they are the least reliable sources and yet you cling to them. Why?

Because you have nothing else. You can provide no tangible evidence. You can discredit no tangible evidence. You can not even provide the "Slam Dunk" you have leaned so heavily upon all this time.

40 names and medical professions Robert. At least show you can provide that much, lest your posts continue to be marred by using a blatant untruth as their keystone. You build your case upon a claim for a specific minimum number of witnesses yet they are nowhere to be seen.

Tell me Robert would it be such a legal slam dunk for you to stand before a judge and say "I have here nine or ten witnesses who represent a selction of the forty who saw something. I will not name, or even mention the other thirty. I will not tll you who they are. But they all agree with me!"

No. Because if you have only named ten people you have ten claims. You do not have forty witnesses, and it is decietful, dishonest, and disgusting to claim you have provided and covered at length, something you have not.
 
I also note that the "How many people can you name that saw THIS" is a lame rebuttal when it has been shown that the quotes Robert himself posted are entirely consistent with those same diagrams. One would hope that would be enough of an illustration of why annectdotes need to be supported by other forms of evidence. Yet it seems Robert thinks having zero convincing statements on his side offers an advantage.
 
Mudcat said:
But, out of curiosity, what the hell is a 'Truster'?
Click to expand...


I think it's their new antonym of Truther. I don't care for it, it lacks the shrillness of "shill" or "sheep", which may be the point. They may have finally realized you can't get anywhere by calling everone who disagrees with you a brainwashed drone.
 
I see that one of our deli-lover's source links came from our other resident hit-and-spammer bobtaftfan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom