JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Which not only makes it impossible to have seen the "dictated drawing" (which was not dictated but derived) it emphasises that the rear portion of the head visible is compatible with the WC interpretation.

One must also ask why doctors would make statements that JFK lay on his back and was not rolled over if that meant the gaping wound and open portion of the head as Robert implies, was on the bed. Was emptying the skull cavity onto the pillow a sign of the competence of these doctors, or is Robert wrong in his cherrypicked and misunderstood representation?

40 plus witnesses is hardly cherry picked.

 

[Robert Prey]

Let's remove Doc Carrico from the list. He stated in the 27th May 1992 Journal of the American Medical Association, "Nothing we observed contradicts the autopsy finding that the bullets were fired from above and behind by a high-powered rifle".

A conclusion that presumes facts in conflict with his original statements:

"I believe there was shredded and macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of skull."
"This [wound] was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area."
"[There was]...a fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

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

 

[Robert Prey]

The list Robert linked to, with those who have already failed to withstand scrutiny in the last 200 pages crossed out by myself.

1. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

2, ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD

5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine

15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern

16 PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse

17. Nurse DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON
18. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

19. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

20. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

21. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

22. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

23. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle (NOTE: NOT A MEDICAL WITNESS)

24. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

25. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

26. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

27. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

28. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

29, SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER (NOTE: Robert has been shown that the photographs Mrs Spencer claims she did not take are those produced before her "cleaned up" and "sanitised" versions from Mrs Spencers own testimony)

30. FLOYD RIEBE Despite Roberts misunderstanding the Occipital wound described coinforms with the WC conclusions.

31. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

32. Doris Nelson, a chief nurse at Parkland Hospital.

33. Surgeon David Stewart:

34. Dr. William H. Zedlitz,

35. Dr. Jackie Hansen Hunt, Anesthesiologist

36. Nurse Margaret M. Hinchliffe

37. Dr. Don Teel Curtis, Resident Oral Surgeon

38. Dr.Philip Williams

39. Billy Harper,Med Student.

40. WILLIAM PITZER, Navy x-ray technician

41. Joseph E.Hagan, Chief Asst. to Joseph H. Gawler, undertaker


So even allowing that Robert believes the testemony that has already been debunked, returned to context, shown to be consistant with the WC findings, etc. We still have a problem. Undertakers and political aids are not medical witnesses. So if we extend the benefit of the doubt to its very limit, and consider technical witnesses in a tangentlaly medical field (Photographers for example who are photographers and NOT qualified to diagnose the bodies they photograph) that allows a MAXIMUM of 39 "Medical" wintnesses under any reasonable use of the term.

39<40

A predictable cop-out. You fear discussing one witness so you hand wave at several. Your deletions are false and dishonest.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Parkland doctors never turned him over. They never saw his backside.

Dr. Crenshaw:
"I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

Charles Baxter, (Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room)
"The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table."

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.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/mcclella.htm

 

[Tomtomkent]

40 plus witnesses is hardly cherry picked.

The quotes you have supplied thus far have all been cherry picked.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dr. Crenshaw:
"I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

Charles Baxter, (Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room)
"The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table."

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.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/mcclella.htm

None of which describes the body being rolled from its back.

Once again note that Mecellend looks DOWN into the skull cavity, through a wound that is CONSISTANT with the WC findings as discussed above.

 

[Tomtomkent]

A predictable cop-out. You fear discussing one witness so you hand wave at several. Your deletions are false and dishonest.

Predictable because each has been discussed at length over the last 200 pages? Why wopuld you like to repeat discussion needlessly? Especially as you offer no new material but repeat the same cherry picked quotes?

Why is it dishonest to point out these have already failed to convince?

 

[Tomtomkent]

A conclusion that presumes facts in conflict with his original statements
"I believe there was shredded and macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of skull."
"This [wound] was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area."
"[There was]...a fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

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

So Carrico was correct to state there is no conflict between Carricos observations and the autopsy? Are you suggesting he presumed facts that disagree with his own observations? Or that he was wrong to make his later statement?


I think you just tried to discredit your own witness Robert.

 

[Robert Prey]

So Carrico was correct to state there is no conflict between Carricos observations and the autopsy? Are you suggesting he presumed facts that disagree with his own observations? Or that he was wrong to make his later statement?


I think you just tried to discredit your own witness Robert.

His conclusion parrots the official script, but is not supported by his own observations of the wounds.

 

[Robert Prey]

Predictable because each has been discussed at length over the last 200 pages? Why wopuld you like to repeat discussion needlessly? Especially as you offer no new material but repeat the same cherry picked quotes?

Why is it dishonest to point out these have already failed to convince?

Oh, I make no attempt to convince. That is impossible with those who refuse to be convinced. I only point out overwhelming evidence for conspiracy. Heads in sand will always remain there regardless.

 

[Robert Prey]

None of which describes the body being rolled from its back.

Once again note that Mecellend looks DOWN into the skull cavity, through a wound that is CONSISTANT with the WC findings as discussed above.

Blasted through and through so that he could see right though it to cerebellum. What is it about the words cerebellum and posterior that you don't understand?

Dr. Crenshaw described the head as a crater -- an empty cavity.

Funny, we don't see that in the Rydberg drawing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

His conclusion parrots the official script, but is not supported by his own observations of the wounds.

I think you mean it does not support your interpretation of his observations. It seems you are the one presuming facts. Do you think you are in a better position than carrico to know what observations he was describing and how accurately he described them?

Have you compared his description to the official to see where it tallies and where it differs? How would the official conclusions be described? How does that differ from those quoted?

I believe you started with the theory there was an exit wound on the back of the head and are looking for quotes to confirm this. You do not start without preconception to see what the quotes say, you do not compare them to differing models.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Blasted through and through so that he could see right though it to cerebellum. What is it about the words cerebellum and posterior that you don't understand?

Dr. Crenshaw described the head as a crater -- an empty cavity.

Funny, we don't see that in the Rydberg drawing.

Amazingly enough we do.

Prosterior means "rear" yes? And we want to see as far as the cerebellum? Note that he could see through the wound as far as, not that the wound exposes:

So there is a gaping cavity, on the prosterior of the head, through which we could suppose to see as far as the cerevellum.

How else would you describe the wound in medical terms?

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, I make no attempt to convince.

Yes you do. You just suck at it.

Three or for times now through the same slogging debate. You cannot abandon it, and you cannot prevail. You simply start the debate over at the same place every 2-3 months, hoping maybe this time it won't end in you being backed into a corner from which you can do nothing more than hurl lunch meat. Why do you think this foray will end differently than the last two or three?

That is impossible with those who refuse to be convinced. I only point out overwhelming evidence for conspiracy. Heads in sand will always remain there regardless.

No. The standard excuse given by conspiracy theorists for their inability to provide persuasive evidence is that their critics and audience must necessarily be too closed-minded (i.e., ideologically demotivated) to recognize the brilliance of the argument. Hype is not evidence, Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, I make no attempt to convince. That is impossible with those who refuse to be convinced.

We have noticed it is impossible to have a discussion with you precisely as you refuse to be convinced.

I only point out overwhelming evidence for conspiracy.

At which point will your flawed interpretation of quotes become overwhelming? Your repeated claims and reliance on cherry picked quotes that either do not withstand scrutiny, or support your claims in the way you expect us to believe are at the moment underwhelming.

Why do you point out this evidence you feel to be overwhelming if not to convince anybody? Surely you have some purpose in doing so.

Heads in sand will always remain there regardless.

Yes. Yours will it seems. It is strange you seem so desperate to tell me I have no wish to be convinced, in a conversation in which I take the time to look at your evidence and explain exactly why it does not support your claim.

Lets start at the baby steps, in the hope you will understand why your "overwhelming" evidence underwhelms. I do not read your "evidence" in search of confirmation of your story, the official story, or anybody elses. I read each piece as its own entity objectively to see what that person thinks they remember seeing. Only then do we compare it to the other known pieces of evidence.

You like to ask if I understand certain words. Sure. I wonder if perhaps I understand the extent of their meaning more than you at times, though I suspect we are both leypeople equal in our ignorance. Very few of the quotes you supply as evidence of an exit wound that matches the "alternate" view are mutually exclusive from the "official" view. Most are perfectly apt descriptions, from memory, with a reasonable margin of accuracy for the "official" view. Especially as you tend to ignore those parts of the messages you quote that do not match your "dictated drawing" and preconceptions. For example it does not matter how big you make the text, how much you apply bold or change the colour, the Occipital bone covers more of the skull than the occipital lobe of the brain. An Occipital Templar wound is an apt description of the WC illustrations and autopsy pictures. You can pretend only the word that suits you matters, but objectively the only evidence you have provided is for what you wish us to read into the quotes, not for a rear exit wound, and very specifically NOT for the rear exit wond in the drawing you strangely considered to be "best evidence".

I doubt you will even attempt to understand that. I can only assume that if you are not offering evidence to convince anybody else your motive is to give yourself an excuse to belittle and talk down to others. You declare with religious fever what it is you believe to be true and that others have their heads in the sand. Perhaps you should withdraw your own head to be objective, if not in terms of the evidence itself then at least far enough to wonder what possible reason you have for displaying "evidence" if you are not interested in discussion.

 

[Robert Prey]

Have you compared his description to the official to see where it tallies and where it differs? How would the official conclusions be described? How does that differ from those quoted?
.

The "official"?? And just what would that be?

 

[Robert Prey]

We have noticed it is impossible to have a discussion with you precisely as you refuse to be convinced.



At which point will your flawed interpretation of quotes become overwhelming? Your repeated claims and reliance on cherry picked quotes that either do not withstand scrutiny, or support your claims in the way you expect us to believe are at the moment underwhelming.

Why do you point out this evidence you feel to be overwhelming if not to convince anybody? Surely you have some purpose in doing so.



Yes. Yours will it seems. It is strange you seem so desperate to tell me I have no wish to be convinced, in a conversation in which I take the time to look at your evidence and explain exactly why it does not support your claim.

Lets start at the baby steps, in the hope you will understand why your "overwhelming" evidence underwhelms. I do not read your "evidence" in search of confirmation of your story, the official story, or anybody elses. I read each piece as its own entity objectively to see what that person thinks they remember seeing. Only then do we compare it to the other known pieces of evidence.

You like to ask if I understand certain words. Sure. I wonder if perhaps I understand the extent of their meaning more than you at times, though I suspect we are both leypeople equal in our ignorance. Very few of the quotes you supply as evidence of an exit wound that matches the "alternate" view are mutually exclusive from the "official" view. Most are perfectly apt descriptions, from memory, with a reasonable margin of accuracy for the "official" view. Especially as you tend to ignore those parts of the messages you quote that do not match your "dictated drawing" and preconceptions. For example it does not matter how big you make the text, how much you apply bold or change the colour, the Occipital bone covers more of the skull than the occipital lobe of the brain. An Occipital Templar wound is an apt description of the WC illustrations and autopsy pictures. You can pretend only the word that suits you matters, but objectively the only evidence you have provided is for what you wish us to read into the quotes, not for a rear exit wound, and very specifically NOT for the rear exit wond in the drawing you strangely considered to be "best evidence".

I doubt you will even attempt to understand that. I can only assume that if you are not offering evidence to convince anybody else your motive is to give yourself an excuse to belittle and talk down to others. You declare with religious fever what it is you believe to be true and that others have their heads in the sand. Perhaps you should withdraw your own head to be objective, if not in terms of the evidence itself then at least far enough to wonder what possible reason you have for displaying "evidence" if you are not interested in discussion.

Brainwash can only be countered with truth. That's the whole purpose.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes you do. You just suck at it.

Three or for times now through the same slogging debate. You cannot abandon it, and you cannot prevail. You simply start the debate over at the same place every 2-3 months, hoping maybe this time it won't end in you being backed into a corner from which you can do nothing more than hurl lunch meat. Why do you think this foray will end differently than the last two or three?

No. The debate is re-started by others. Check the past few pages of know-nothings who claimed to have read all 200 pages here, and claim that I've never listed the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses and challenge me to do so. So, I merely re-list them, and now the critics are mostly quiet, except for you and TomTom who continually feel the need to proclaim "victory". Very telling.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. The standard excuse given by conspiracy theorists for their inability to provide persuasive evidence is that their critics and audience must necessarily be too closed-minded (i.e., ideologically demotivated) to recognize the brilliance of the argument. Hype is not evidence, Robert.

No. I just present facts, and you call it hype.

 

[Robert Prey]

Amazingly enough we do.

Prosterior means "rear" yes? And we want to see as far as the cerebellum? Note that he could see through the wound as far as, not that the wound exposes:

[qimg]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32380230/WC2.jpg[/qimg]

So there is a gaping cavity, on the prosterior of the head, through which we could suppose to see as far as the cerevellum.

How else would you describe the wound in medical terms?

Uh, well, what seems to be missing here is a large blow-out in the back of the head, along with the cerebellum, the occiput and blasted brains lying about. This head looks very much in tact. Also missing is a single medical witness that affirms what Mr. Rydberg drew here - a dime sized "entry" wound in the back of the head.