JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Regnad Kcin]

...Note, that the list only claims 40 plus On the Scene witnesses without qualification. Most, however, happen to be medical witnesses. The exceptions like Newman only confirm the observations of those medical witnesses that the fatal shot to the President's head did indeed come from the Grassy Knoll -- 40 plus witnesses, the strongest possible evidence for conspiracy.

Bolding mine.

I'll say this for you, you brighten my day with laughter.

 

[Southwind17]

A good rule of thumb for viable analysis is that it's going toward something rather than away from it. Most conspiracy theories start by trying to discredit the "official story." They pick at it, kick holes in it, try to show that it's somehow suspiciously incomplete, and identify "inconsistencies" and "anomalies" in it that they say make it hard to believe. This is supposed to curry belief in some other theory, which usually has a whole lot less evidence in favor of it than the mainstream belief. There are an infinite number of ways you can run away from some conclusion, so that's why the typical conspiracy theory ends up being a gaggle of completely unrelated, often conflicting stories. If you take all the JFK assassination theories collectively, there were shooters all over the plaza. There would have been a hail of bullets. A plethora of incompatible "alternate" theories, all trying to explain the same evidence, are just a multiplication of loose ends.

Very nice Jay

 

[Southwind17]

Thus, all the cover-uppers have to do is fake the material evidence and that negates everything else. Excellent reasoning.

ALL they have to do?! Do you realize what that requires and how it couldn't possibly succeed? 'Excellent reasoning' indeed, Rude Robert!

 

[Southwind17]

40 plus witnesses, the strongest possible evidence for conspiracy.

THAT'S the strongest possible evidence?! Why didn't you state that at the start, Rude Robert, we could have saved 6,000-odd posts here. I suppose that just about wraps things up, then.

 

[LSSBB]

THAT'S the strongest possible evidence?! Why didn't you state that at the start, Rude Robert, we could have saved 6,000-odd posts here. I suppose that just about wraps things up, then.

Well, he also did round up.


A lot.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank simplistically wrote:

Here's McClelland's contemporaneous statement on the wound, which conflicts with his later recollection that Josiah Thompson had converted into the image above showing damage to the back of the head:

"...massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." He says on page two that JFK's "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Nothing in his contemporaneous notes about a massive gunshot wound in the back of the head.

Why is that, do you suppose? And why doesn't his drawing showing the massive wound in the left temple, or even the right temple? Instead, it's moved to the back of the head, where he didn't mention a wound on the weekend of the assassination.

Comment:

So in the biased mind of a dedicated Lone Nutter, a doctor is not exempt from making a simple right/left mistake??? Pathetic.

Interview with Dr. Robt. McCelleand by

V. Bugliosi "...before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McCelleand of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note... he had written that the president died 'from a gunshot wound of the left temple.' "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the President's left temple."

From: "Reclaiming History," P. 406

Edited by Locknar: 

When quoting member posts, please use the QUOTE function. If you need help wrt please contact me or any member of the Mod Team.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

And oh, yeah, with the medical witnesses giving such divergent statements about the head wound, how can you just blindly accept the ones that you think confirm a shot from the knoll and disregard the rest? I would think the divergent statements would tend to impeach each other, calling into question the credibility of these witnesses.

Hank

Comment:

The Medical statements are not diverse. Wound to the right temple; wound to the side of the head, large blow-out wound to the back of the head -- these are not divergent statements but cumulative descriptions, all of which are true.
_______

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

Like the 40 plus immediate, on the scene witnesses who confirm a shot from the grassy knoll.

No Robert. That's a lie. We've seen you admit it with Newman, putting him in a listing you originally classified as "40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of [JFK's] head". You admitted here he didn't belong in the listing as he was neither a medical witness, nor observed a blowout in the back of the head. Your listing was falsely inflated to make it appear stronger than it really was

Comment:
I would remind you again that the list of 40 plus was a list of 'witnesses" that would provide evidence of a shot from the knoll. The list was not entirely of medical witnesses, all who observed a large wound to the back of the head, but only of 'witnesses".

 

[Robert Prey]

Now if only you had some way to prove the material evidence is fake. Oh that's right, it "must" be fake because disputes your belief.

How close are we to your final disavowal of Jack White and Tom Wilson as would-be experts? Striking distance?

Hey! One note song -- White and Wilson did not take the original autopsy pics -- Stringer did and he says the ones in the public domain are fake. Deal with it.

 

[Robert Prey]

It's been pointed out to you numerous times now that many people on your list don't say what you think they say. Your list is nowhere near 40+.

Thus far, only two challenged -- Crenshaw and Newman and both challenges soundly refuted.

 

[Robert Prey]

You mean you think we might not have noticed you have NOW dropped the qualifier? Let's check what you said before...



Wait a second... Let me bold the relevant word:




SO why did you drop the word "Medical"?

Unlike so many of the Lone Nutters on this board, I prefer to be brief and concise. But here is a more comprehensive list of on the scene witnesses, including many more medical witnesses as complied

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

JFK: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE:
WHO'S WHO IN THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE---
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES FROM NOVEMBER 22,1963

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. PARKLAND HOSPITAL:

1) DR. KEMP CLARK
2) DR. MALCOLM PERRY

Edited by Locknar: 

<SNIP>, breach of rule 4.

Addendum:
326) Dr. Joseph Schorlemer

 

[Rich_C]

Comment:
I would remind you again that the list of 40 plus was a list of 'witnesses" that would provide evidence of a shot from the knoll. The list was not entirely of medical witnesses, all who observed a large wound to the back of the head, but only of 'witnesses".

So you admit you lied when you said 40 medical witnesses?

And 40 is still a lie. Others have shown you are incorrect on at least 20 of them.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Unlike so many of the Lone Nutters on this board, I prefer to be brief and concise. But here is a more comprehensive list of on the scene witnesses, including many more medical witnesses as complied

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

JFK: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE:
WHO'S WHO IN THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE---
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES FROM NOVEMBER 22,1963

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. PARKLAND HOSPITAL:

1) DR. KEMP CLARK
2) DR. MALCOLM PERRY

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Addendum:
326) Dr. Joseph Schorlemer

Copying and pasting a list of names is not the same as showing their testemony either disproves physical evidence, or supports your claims.

You listed 40 names before, more than half of which were shown to discredit your claim. Why should we consider these new names to be any more useful?

 

[infocusinc]

Hey! One note song -- White and Wilson did not take the original autopsy pics -- Stringer did and he says the ones in the public domain are fake. Deal with it.

No, YOU deal with it Robert, you are telling a whopper once again.

In his ARRB testimony Stringer said no such thing, in fact all he did say was the brain photos he was shown were not the ones he remembered taking.

True to CT form Robert just makes things ups.

Do YOU remember, in complete detail, the contents of photos you have taken decades ago?

PROVE the photos are fake Robert.

 

[LSSBB]

Copying and pasting a list of names is not the same as showing their testemony either disproves physical evidence, or supports your claims.

You listed 40 names before, more than half of which were shown to discredit your claim. Why should we consider these new names to be any more useful?

2 x Unverified = Unverified

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and listing more people doesn't answer why the double back on medical being a qualifier either, so nowe also need to ask why the double back was dropped. One suspects that Robert listed all involved hoping we forget the key qualifier: that he was asserting his narrative was supported by 40+ medical witnessess. That seems to have been dropped. Why?

 

[Southwind17]

Unlike so many of the Lone Nutters on this board, I prefer to be brief and concise.

A little honesty and courtesy wouldn't go amiss, if you can stretch to that too.

But here is a more comprehensive list of on the scene witnesses, including many more medical witnesses as complied ...

So, Rude Robert, as you rue the rapid wittling of your "40 plus medical witnesses" your revised strategy is to list every and any witness on the day without any context whatsoever as to what their status as a witness serves to demonstrate.

Well done Rude Robert - that's a rational approach!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Unlike so many of the Lone Nutters on this board, I prefer to be brief and concise. But here is a more comprehensive list of on the scene witnesses, including many more medical witnesses as complied

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

JFK: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE:
WHO'S WHO IN THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE---
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES FROM NOVEMBER 22,1963

BY VINCENT MICHAEL PALAMARA

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. PARKLAND HOSPITAL:

1) DR. KEMP CLARK
2) DR. MALCOLM PERRY

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Addendum:
326) Dr. Joseph Schorlemer

One at a time, please. LOL.

 

[JayUtah]

Hey! One note song

Name-calling noted. Are you a child? Your statements to me are beginning to sound more and more like playground insults.

I'm simply trying to keep you on-topic. You brought up each of these men in turn and told us that their considerable expertise was notable evidence that many of the photographs (not just the autopsy ones) associated with the Kennedy assassination were doctored or fake.

You may pride yourself on being concise (your favorite responses being one-word dismissals), but I pride myself on being complete and thorough, including actually learning and practicing the science that these men have dabbled in. I've given you the benefit of a factual, well-reasoned response to your wild claims that these men are somehow experts and that their findings are strong. We examined their claims to expertise. We examined their methods and findings.

To date I can't even get you to acknowledge those responses explicitly. Tacitly you do, obviously, because now you're backing away from White and Wilson like a preacher away from a prostitute. But you won't be honest with yourself and your critics and admit that your "experts" really aren't. I know why, of course. In three months you'll be trotting them out again for a whole new crop of critics. You don't want anyone to be able to say that you disavowed them.

But you have. You just won't admit it. A little honesty, please?

White and Wilson did not take the original autopsy pics...

Irrelevant. They both, by virtue of their self-proclaimed enormous and infallible expertise, proclaimed them to be phony photos. You sang their praises back when you thought they could save your argument. Fine if you want to disavow them now. But say that's what you're doing, so they don't come back like a bad penny.

Stringer...

You're changing the subject, Robert. May we have your final word please on White and Wilson before moving on to other witnesses?

 

[JayUtah]

But here is a more comprehensive list...

It has been shown that you're unfamiliar with the testimony of the smaller list of witnesses you provided. I reject this longer list on the grounds that it is very unlikely that you have studied these witnesses' testimony and have reconciled it with your beliefs. The underlying problem of the Gish Gallop is not improved by adding horses, Robert.