JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[BStrong]

My 40 plus to your zero. Right. It's more like no contest.

40 opinions, not 40 facts.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds
Author: Jack Claridge - Updated: 20 July 2010

"Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound."

They are also USUALLY caused by handguns, not high-powered rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think "they" made JFK to do all the no-nos possible, such as wanting to change the monetary system, break up the CIA, make deals with the Soviet Union, mess with the oil industry and a whole basket of things that those having the real power did NOT want U.S. Presidents to do. And then they sacrificed JFK (or at least pretended to assassinate him). To scare the bejeezus out of the following Presidents to keep them in line.

And JFK was made by LBJ to order the moon program. And after the assassination scientists could no longer object to the incorrect science of that project, because JFK had promised the American people that they would go to the moon and he was now dead. So NASA and the Apollo program could then be used as a public front for the secret military NRO who's purpose was U.S. military preeminence in space instead of some flower power peaceful moon landing program.

Cool story, bro. Thanks for sharing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I do get the impression that some "Deep Thinkers" are actually coming to infer, that there just may have been a large blow-out hole in the back of K's head, albeit 40 plus witnesses and 218 pages after the fact. Oh, well. Better late than never.

Was Jean Hill one of your witnesses?

This, however, is one of those rare occasions in which dozens of reporters and photographers are present on the scene of an event and so there are countless statements on record from eyewitnesses and pictures from every angle. Thus, we can compare Jean Hill’s memory with actual facts.


She said that she was looking at the limousine.

In the film, you can see that when Kennedy is shot the first time, she is looking away from him.



She said that the couple was “looking at a little dog between them,” a “white fluffy dog.”

There was no dog between them, just a bunch of red flowers.



She said that she “jumped to the edge of the street” to yell, “Hey, we want to take your picture!” and JFK turned over to look at her.

The Zapruder film shows that Hill never moved or said a word—and the President did not turn to look over. In fact, he had just been shot when he passed in front of her.



She said that Jackie shouted, “My God, he has been shot!”

Jackie and the car’s four other witnesses deny that Jackie said anything.



She said that she saw “some men in plain clothes shooting back.”

But in an interview recorded just forty minutes after the assassination by a Dallas television station, she was asked: “Did you see the person who fired the—” And she answered: “No . . . I didn’t see any person fire the weapon . . . I only heard it.”




She said that she immediately started running after the “man with a hat,” thinking he was involved in the shooting. “When I ran across the street,” she specified, “the first motorcycle that was right behind the President’s car nearly hit me.”

But as can be seen in the many pictures taken during those fatal moments, she stands still at her place as the limousine and the motorbikes pass by. She even sits on the grass while all of the cars of the motorcade proceed behind the President’s limousine.
She also specified that after jumping into the middle of the road, she was the first person to run up the grassy knoll, and many followed her.

In photographs, you can see a lot of people running around the area and up to the grassy knoll, but Hill always stays in the same spot, probably shocked by the whole thing, like most of the people present.



She was convinced that the man she had followed was Jack Ruby.

At that precise moment, Ruby was witnessed by many to be at the offices of the Dallas Morning News.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/facts_and_fiction_in_the_kennedy_assassination/


Not that I or any one of us would necessarily be a better witness. This is typical of the distortions in eyewitness testimony, ESPECIALLY when witnessing something as traumatic as this.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How do it know?

The bolded above is pure nonsense.

A projectile loses enegry from the moment it exits the muzzle.

A projectile does not "push harder" at any point in it's flight even in open air, it does nothing but lose energy and velocity.

The little bullet that could.

 

[JayUtah]

A poster confident of his arguments, does not need a poll of low information skeptics to confirm it.

A poster who actually had an argument wouldn't need to call his critics names instead. You do realize you're the one who brought up the subject of my credibility? By all means keep mocking your own approach. Doesn't bother me.

 

[JayUtah]

My 40 plus to your zero. Right. It's more like no contest.

Asked and answered.

No one is playing that game but you, so by all means continue declaring yourself its winner. Won't bother us any. If you find the time, please address the rebuttal I actually provided, not the one you're desperately begging me to spoon-feed you instead.

And if you can spare some time in your busy schedule of chest-thumping, name-calling, and quote-manufacturing, you still owe me a non-disjoined definition of what a "medical witness" is. Remember? That key question about your "forty plus" witnesses that you've avoided answering three times now?

 

[Robert Prey]

You realise you are the one who questions the credibility of other posters.

Which model would you suggest for gauging credibility?

Oh, a very good question. I suggest that you and Jay should do a credibility poll in reference to your alleged views (I don't think either of you really believe what you claim) of the eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda. I don't think you would get the same result as polling the knee-jerk low information pooh-poohers who cling to the official unfounded dogma and their delusional advocates.

 

[Robert Prey]

An Eyewitness Speaks

Willaim Law interview of James C;. Jenkins
Asst. to Dr. Boswell at the JFK Autopsy:
Jenkins was a hands on autopsy participant.

"I would like history to really understand what was going on... inside that morgue. I am convinced that John F. Kenendy was shot at least two times by two separate people and possibly a third time....the entrance wound which I feel was at the right side of the head, just above the ear, a little bit forward and exited in the large expanse in the back....People need to understand that this was a cover-up ..the evidence presented by Humes to the public, from the Warren Commission to the public, was not the evidence that we found at the autopsy...I think the government covered it up for whatever reason."

From: In the Eye of History, page 106-107

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, a very good question. I suggest that you and Jay should do a credibility poll in reference to your alleged views (I don't think either of you really believe what you claim) of the eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda. I don't think you would get the same result as polling the knee-jerk low information pooh-poohers who cling to the official unfounded dogma and their advocates.

So having denied the need for and lambasted the use of credibility pollsyour alternative model is to suggest a credibility poll?

And why do you suggest I should carry it out? I do not believe I have questioned or made issue out of credibility?

You comment on Jays credibility, you provide evidence for or against that credibility.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think either of you really believe what you claim...

Desperate much?

I don't think you would get the same result as polling the knee-jerk low information pooh-poohers who cling to the official unfounded dogma and their delusional advocates.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Robert "I Never Insult" Prey.

When you're finishing foaming at your own mouth and putting words in other people's, you have some questions to answer.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Willaim Law interview of James C;. Jenkins
Asst. to Dr. Boswell at the JFK Autopsy:
Jenkins was a hands on autopsy participant.

"I would like history to really understand what was going on... inside that morgue. I am convinced that John F. Kenendy was shot at least two times by two separate people and possibly a third time....the entrance wound which I feel was at the right side of the head, just above the ear, a little bit forward and exited in the large expanse in the back....People need to understand that this was a cover-up ..the evidence presented by Humes to the public, from the Warren Commission to the public, was not the evidence that we found at the autopsy...I think the government covered it up for whatever reason."

From: In the Eye of History, page 106-107

All this tells us is how one eyewitness interpreted what he saw. It tells us what he believes, not what he witnessed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't think you would get the same result as polling the knee-jerk low information pooh-poohers who cling to the official unfounded dogma and their delusional advocates.

In other words, "facts".

The eyewitness account you presented above is a fact, of sorts: It is a fact that the eyewitness believes certain things.

 

[JayUtah]

So having denied the need for and lambasted the use of credibility pollsyour alternative model is to suggest a credibility poll?

Not exactly. This is the standard way for Robert to preface introducing the results of more general polls on a related subject, which he has done several times during this thread and which, given his predilection for repeating this debate indefinitely, I fully expect him to do again.

Based on the insults he's written, he considers his critics at JREF uninformed and brainwashed, so he writes off any opinion they alone would have on his credibility or mine. Instead he has cited before, and probably will cite again, public opinion polls showing a majority of those surveyed doubting the lone gunman conclusion for Kennedy's assassination. This, he argues, is a better measure of his credibility at JREF. And yes, the important differences have been outlined to him ad nauseam, but that will probably not stop him from trying it again. That bit of chest-thumping is always good for a page or two.

 

[JayUtah]

All this tells us is how one eyewitness interpreted what he saw. It tells us what he believes, not what he witnessed.

In fact Jenkin's factual description of the head wound's location is suitably consistent with that offered by other eyewitnesses to the autopsy: in the temporal region extending vertically from just above the ear to the midline, and horizontally from the front of the ear to the occipital suture.

His much later speculation, for the benefit of conspiracy theorists, on the location of the entrance wound (which differs from the findings of the qualified attending autopsists) is marginally relevant. And his political statements are pure bunk.

This is a good example of how "eyewitness" testimony is misused.

As an eyewitness Jenkins is qualified to tell us where he factually observed the wounds to be. Anyone with functioning eyeballs who got a good look at the body can provide that. While familiarity with cranial anatomy helps, along with the ability to use precise terminology to describe what one has witnessed, witnesses to facts are lay witnesses and do not need to have any medical training, knowledge, or expertise. As a lay witness Jenkins is acceptable.

As a pathology Jenkins is marginally qualified to render an opinion on what caused those wounds. That sort of statement requires expertise to be considered evidence. Jenkins was not the only pathologist there at the time, nor necessarily the most skilled or experienced of those who were. In fact he was working as a lab technician, not a pathologist, and in that capacity attended the autopsy. If he renders a minority opinion, what is the best explanation for that minority: Is it that he alone got the right answer, or is it that a different consensus was reached by other witnesses. I also note with some amusement that while Robert seems to maintain that his witnesses stand unopposed, his own witness mentions those who stand in opposition.

Jenkins' political speculations are not any kind of evidence. In fact, his allusions to allegations of coverups taint the value of his factual testimony and offer a reason why he got a different answer than most other people. That people give his political speculations some sort of weight because he was an eyewitness to something else is the clearest proof of mismanaging eyewitness testimony in the JFK case.

 

[Straw Man]

Willaim Law interview of James C;. Jenkins
Asst. to Dr. Boswell at the JFK Autopsy:
Jenkins was a hands on autopsy participant.

"I would like history to really understand what was going on... inside that morgue. I am convinced that John F. Kenendy was shot at least two times by two separate people and possibly a third time....the entrance wound which I feel was at the right side of the head, just above the ear, a little bit forward and exited in the large expanse in the back....People need to understand that this was a cover-up ..the evidence presented by Humes to the public, from the Warren Commission to the public, was not the evidence that we found at the autopsy...I think the government covered it up for whatever reason."

From: In the Eye of History, page 106-107

Here's a copy of Jenkins' drawing of the wound.

And his statement to the HSCA, Jenkins stated that the injury to the head was “middle temporal region back to the occipital.”

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's a copy of Jenkins' drawing of the wound.

[qimg]http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md65/pages/md65_0016a.gif[/qimg]

And his statement to the HSCA, Jenkins stated that the injury to the head was “middle temporal region back to the occipital.”

Exactly, just as he described it to William Law.

 

[Robert Prey]

In fact Jenkin's factual description of the head wound's location is suitably consistent with that offered by other eyewitnesses to the autopsy: in the temporal region extending vertically from just above the ear to the midline, and horizontally from the front of the ear to the occipital suture.

His much later speculation, for the benefit of conspiracy theorists, on the location of the entrance wound (which differs from the findings of the qualified attending autopsists) is marginally relevant. And his political statements are pure bunk.

This is a good example of how "eyewitness" testimony is misused.

As an eyewitness Jenkins is qualified to tell us where he factually observed the wounds to be. Anyone with functioning eyeballs who got a good look at the body can provide that. While familiarity with cranial anatomy helps, along with the ability to use precise terminology to describe what one has witnessed, witnesses to facts are lay witnesses and do not need to have any medical training, knowledge, or expertise. As a lay witness Jenkins is acceptable.

As a pathology Jenkins is marginally qualified to render an opinion on what caused those wounds. That sort of statement requires expertise to be considered evidence. Jenkins was not the only pathologist there at the time, nor necessarily the most skilled or experienced of those who were. In fact he was working as a lab technician, not a pathologist, and in that capacity attended the autopsy. If he renders a minority opinion, what is the best explanation for that minority: Is it that he alone got the right answer, or is it that a different consensus was reached by other witnesses. I also note with some amusement that while Robert seems to maintain that his witnesses stand unopposed, his own witness mentions those who stand in opposition.

Jenkins' political speculations are not any kind of evidence. In fact, his allusions to allegations of coverups taint the value of his factual testimony and offer a reason why he got a different answer than most other people. That people give his political speculations some sort of weight because he was an eyewitness to something else is the clearest proof of mismanaging eyewitness testimony in the JFK case.

This guy really has you tortured and twisted in argumentative knots. Yeah, well, he's only one of 40 plus who observed the same wounds. A man with knowledge of a cover-up does not betray political bias, just the fact that from what he witnessed, he knows it had to be a cover-up. Deal with it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

]Exactly[/HILITE], just as he described it to William Law.

Good.

So his drawing and description that matches the findings of the WC and autopsy are correct?

Glad to hear it.

 

[Robert Prey]

All this tells us is how one eyewitness interpreted what he saw. It tells us what he believes, not what he witnessed.

Just one out of 40 plus. You would know that if you had read the other 218 pages or done a little bit of original homework yourself.