JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends - Page 161

Robert Prey · 25th April 2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

And AIKEN admits he only *assumes* the wound in the back of the head was the exit. Emphasis added above. He further assumed the shot hit JFK from the left side of the head or tangentially. The autopsy, of course, determined AIKEN was incorrect on all his assumptions.

Here's the HSCA drawing of the damage to the head again. Note the damage extends to the back of the head in the official version.
The language of all the witnesses who described seeing damage to the back of the head must be parsed very carefully -- and without bias -- to determine if their description is in conflict with the below image.

Most are not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...head-7-125.jpg

Uh, uh. You left out an important part of Dr. Akin's testimony:

"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”; “I assume the
right occiptalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably
been hit on the other side of the head..."

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

Robert Prey · 25th April 2012, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

There was no hearsay quoted. The witness spoke of what he heard from Crenshaw's own lips.

Are you claiming that if Oswald confessed, the police could not testify to that because it would be hearsay?

Like most of your claims, that one makes no sense.

Here's the statement by Russo again:
It references conspiracy author Gus Russo directly, who relates:

Hank

It's still a hearsay Triple Play.

Robert Prey · 25th April 2012, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Liar.

Here's Gayle and Bill Newman's statements you never rebutted.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6008

You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one.

Already rebutted them.

RoboTimbo · 25th April 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Uh, uh. You left out an important part of Dr. Akin's testimony:

"The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”; “I assume the
right occiptalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably
been hit on the other side of the head..."

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

The other side from the exit wound?

LOL.

So there is no exit wound in the back of the head?

Robert Prey · 25th April 2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Liar.

Here's Giesecke's statement you never rebutted.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6018

You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one.

Hank

Already rebutted that too. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet???

"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." -- Dr. Giesecke

JayUtah · 25th April 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet???

I covered this at length. Address it or concede.

Robert Prey · 25th April 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

That's a bold faced lie, Robert. You've been challenged on a lot of these.

Here's Jenkins statement you never rebutted.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6003
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3257

You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one.
Hank

Already corrected you on this at least twice. Hank, this is getting boring. Please get up to speed on your challenges -- and restrict them to the ones not already demolished.

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head).

Robert Prey · 25th April 2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

I noticed you did not characterize them as 'Back-of-the-head' witnesses.
And they are not characterized as On the Scene Witnesses to a Blowout in the Back of the Head.

But merely as on the scene witnesses.

Fine with me for the most part. That's a list of witnesses. Most of whom support the damage to the right side of the head. Like Gayle and Bill Newman, as we've already seen. Like Phil Willis as we've already seen. Like Doctor Jenkins, as we've already seen.

So the list doesn't advance your argument one iota. And without in-context quotes from any of the witnesses, none of which you provide, it's just a list of names. A list that includes some names of people who haven't been established to be anywhere near the scene of the crime - and includes some bogus ones at that - like Beverly Oliver and Ed Hoffman.

For each of the witnesses you wish to classify as a back-of-the-head witness, please provide some contemporaneous quotes from the weekend of the assassination or from their testimony to the Warren Commission. That would eliminate some of the names you list immediately. It would definitely eliminate Dr. McClelland, who on the weekend of the assassination, noted only a massive blowout in the left temple (which you claim - and I agree - is a simple error of transposition). So McClelland's earliest notes put a massive wound in the right temple area, and mentions the back of the head not at all. Agreed?

PS: I thought #7 was spelled AIKIN. Or is that another doctor? If it's the same guy, we've already examined his claims therein and found you are exaggerating his confirmation of a back-of-the-head wound. True to form, you ignored it all:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6006

Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once. And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

RoboTimbo · 25th April 2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

Must.... resist.... gift....

JayUtah · 25th April 2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head).

Nor is it identically the rear of the head. The wound is described as extending "...to the occiput," (emphasis added) and the cerebellum is large enough to extrude from a wound to that portion of the cranium. I gave my qualifications for discussing cranial anatomy. What are yours, Robert? Put up or shut up.

Tomtomkent · 25th April 2012, 01:52 PM

The better question is if Robert understands where the occipital bones furthest extents are. Odd he exagerates this word, but has yet to address or discredit the numerous quotes that discuss the temple. Can you touch your temple? Now lets consider the statements that severley reduced the list of witnessess who might have supported robert. Or even Crenshaws varying descriptions...

JayUtah · 25th April 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:

And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

That might explain your inability to discuss practically any point I've raised. May we please have your full attention?

Tomtomkent · 25th April 2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once. And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.

Betting this is stundied already with out looking.

abaddon · 25th April 2012, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Already corrected you on this at least twice. Hank, this is getting boring.

Translation: you have no answers.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Please get up to speed on your challenges -- and restrict them to the ones not already demolished.

Just like you do. Or not.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

And? Did you have a point to make?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head).

Your error here is that a bullet will pass through both regardless if it is from the front or the back.

HSienzant · 25th April 2012, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Arrrrgh! McCelleand never said anything about a Large wound to the temple. But only that the shot entered the right temple causing a large wound to the head, including the parietal,, temporal and occipital lobes.

Here's what he said, Robert, with the substitution of right for his stated left, which we both agreed was simply an error on his part:

"Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT temple."

Where do you see him mention a wound anywhere but the right temple? Where do you see him mention anything but a massive wound?

That's precisely what the autopsy photo I cited shows - a massive wound to the right temple. This wound includes damage to the parietal, temporal, and occipital regions of the skull.

Hank

HSienzant · 25th April 2012, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Arrrrgh! McCelleand never said anything about a Large wound to the temple. But only that the shot entered the right temple causing a large wound to the head, including the parietal,, temporal and occipital lobes.

Remember that McClelland mentioned the back of the head not at all. And everything above is merely your interpretation of what McClelland meant.

It is susceptible of another interpretation, one that fits the physical evidence you discard - the autopsy photo I cited.

So we can go with your interpretation, which necessitates throwing out the hard evidence and going with a witness statement that is not confirmed by any physical evidence, or we can go with my interpretation, which is supported by the physical evidence and doesn't involve an army of people altering the z-film and the autopsy photos and the body.

Hmmm... which one is more reasonable? Which one will Robert choose?

Hank

HSienzant · 25th April 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Everybody knows that McCelleand did not draw the sketch, that it was merely dictated. So what?

Actually, you are wrong about that. Read what Josiah Thompson, the man who commissioned the sketch, actually said.

And you didn't know McClelland did not draw the sketch six months ago. We had to clear that up for you.

Hank

HSienzant · 25th April 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

For the sake of coherence, one at a time please. Which Willis???

Let's start with Phil.
I already gave his Warren Commission Testimony.

What do you got?

Hank

HSienzant · 25th April 2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The autopsy photo is fake. The drawing is only of the wound to the back of the head. So,what is your problem????

It is curious that the supposed faked photo fits the description of so many doctors, then.

Like Giesecke and Jenkins and McClelland. Amazing how the alterations could make that photo fit their statements so well.

Hank

HSienzant · 25th April 2012, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Already rebutted that too. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet???

"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

I laughed my ass off reading your response. Merely highlighting one word does not do the description justice.

He said the wound extended from the top of the head to the [right*] ear, and from the browline to the back of the head [*we previously agreed on the point that Giesecke said left, when he meant anatomical right].

Precisely what we see in the autopsy photo.

He didn't say the wound was located in the occiput, and only in the occiput, which is what you like to pretend it means.

Hank

Regnad Kcin · 25th April 2012, 03:32 PM

A question (not for our brain-tied friend):

Am I understanding correctly the contention that if there is a "blow out" to a region of the head it therefore follows that the point of entry was in some specific or largely general way opposite this region? So, if true, a "blow out" in the rear of JFK's head requires a shot from somewhere to his front, according to what is being suggested, yes?

Put another way, is a "blow out" of this nature (bullet to the body) always a blow out (opposite entry) and not possibly a blow back (same side as entry)?

infocusinc · 25th April 2012, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Everybody knows that McCelleand did not draw the sketch, that it was merely dictated. So what?

Did you actually READ Tink Thompsons words?

After all HE is the one who had the drawing made.

You sure do have a problem with reality....

vtbub · 25th April 2012, 06:06 PM

I just find it absolutely amazing that after 160 pages that there has yet to be any real conspiracy presented by Baloney-Man. No other shooter identified. No other weapon claimed. Just Oswald is innocent and we should do our homework to find the supposed real shooter/shooters.

As someone who was born a few years after the shooting, I grew up with my elders suspecting Oswald was helped. They did not know by who, or how, but things did not compute.

As a history buff, I find the Kennedy shooting fascinating and all the conjecture surrounding it fascinating as well. We all saw the Zapruder film and I had a 9th grade English teacher bring in her then twenty year old copies of Life magazine with the stills. We watched in school a highlight reel on laserdisc of all things of Cronkite and CBS coverage.

I always tended to think that Oswald acted alone. The fact that even twenty years out that nothing ever concrete came out to change the story. My uncle had the scratchy paper record in Gallery magazine that supposedly had the four shots that were presented to the HSCA and of course you could not make out ANY shots, let alone four of them.

The Nova special in 1988 introduced me to Badgeman and such and I thought it was really well done.

It really was not until about 1998 that I became truly satisfied that it was just Oswald. With the internet, I could fully run and see the other films shot at the same time. I checked conspiracy sites, read essays and such and never got the sense that there was anything about a sinister conspiracy to be had.

After asking Hank the other day on what changed his mind I sat down an read two sections of the WC Report, the Texas trip chapter and the walkthrough of the shooting.

It's clear that they did not nail everything down. They do not even reach a definitive conclusion on which shot missed or have the timeline correct on how far apart the total shooting sequence was. Nor do they really explain just why the Single Bullet Works. You can understand why there were doubters.

On the other hand, they nailed a lot of it and came to conclusions based on the same eyewitness testimony that is so misconstrued on this thread by certain posters. I had no idea that they had so many witnesses, including members of the press, that saw the rifle in the window for instance. It was honest about what people saw or did not see or hear and pieced together what they could.

If they had access to the same 3d modeling that we have now through Dale Meyers work, and able to sync all the films together to piece together the entire event, maybe it would seem easier for most to understand. Just having Connally's correct position in the car just puts everything into place.

It is truly amazing just how much primary source material exists on this case and if it was anyone else besides the President of the United States, there would be no question by most thinking people that it was Oswald and just Oswald.

Nearly fifty years on and there is no leading theory ever presented to debunk. Despite the logistical errors made by the Dallas Police, they had this case solved within 90 minutes of the shooting.

My parents were young adults through the Watergate era. I certainly understand why there is such mistrust in general and all about the Kennedy legend, which has done nothing but grow since his death.

As a society, we really do not want to acknowledge that the people or events that we hold so dear can be undone by something so incredibly simple. As Jackie said, it really was some silly little communist that changed everything.

(sorry for the ramble)

bynmdsue · 25th April 2012, 08:39 PM

Hey, who remembers what it was like in the good ol'days when there was no internet? When you had to make do with what the local library had and then the county. Scouring flea markets and garage sales looking for books that were long out of print but referenced in the ones you've read. Coming across a passage that conflicted with something you read elsewhere and having to start pulling other books out ending up with all these books open in front of you cross-checking statements. It was a lot more fun.

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:37 AM

vtbub wrote:

"I just find it absolutely amazing that after 160 pages that there has yet to be any real conspiracy presented by Baloney-Man. No other shooter identified. No other weapon claimed. Just Oswald is innocent and we should do our homework to find the supposed real shooter/shooters"

Comment:
And I find it equally amazing that anyone who claims to have read the 160 pages can reach such a off base conclusion. I suggest you search the Final Nail where the conspiracy and the actors is explained in detail.

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:40 AM

vtbib wrote:

As Jackie said, it really was some silly little communist that changed everything.

Comment: Which betrays both Jackie and you own lack of scholarship on the subject. Oswald was a serious man with ties to all Am. Intell agencies and absolutely no communist.

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

I laughed my ass off reading your response. Merely highlighting one word does not do the description justice.

He said the wound extended from the top of the head to the [right*] ear, and from the browline to the back of the head [*we previously agreed on the point that Giesecke said left, when he meant anatomical right].

Precisely what we see in the autopsy photo.

He didn't say the wound was located in the occiput, and only in the occiput, which is what you like to pretend it means.

Hank

NOnsense. I've never claimed the wound was only in the occiput.

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Let's start with Phil.
I already gave his Warren Commission Testimony.

What do you got?

Hank

"I am absolutely certain, that at least one shot -- the one that blew his head off -- came from the right front. And I will believe that till the day I die -- on my mother's grave." -- Phil Willis

-- Inteview from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Remember that McClelland mentioned the back of the head not at all. And everything above is merely your interpretation of what McClelland meant.

It is susceptible of another interpretation, one that fits the physical evidence you discard - the autopsy photo I cited.

So we can go with your interpretation, which necessitates throwing out the hard evidence and going with a witness statement that is not confirmed by any physical evidence, or we can go with my interpretation, which is supported by the physical evidence and doesn't involve an army of people altering the z-film and the autopsy photos and the body.

Hmmm... which one is more reasonable? Which one will Robert choose?

Hank

What "hard" evidence are you referring to? The fake autopsy photos or the worm food???

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Here's what he said, Robert, with the substitution of right for his stated left, which we both agreed was simply an error on his part:

"Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT temple."

Where do you see him mention a wound anywhere but the right temple? Where do you see him mention anything but a massive wound?

That's precisely what the autopsy photo I cited shows - a massive wound to the right temple. This wound includes damage to the parietal, temporal, and occipital regions of the skull.

Hank

Dr. Robt. McClelland:
"I think he was shot from the front...I think the rifle bullet hit him in the side of the head and blew out the back of the head...I certainly think that's what happened and that probably somewhere in the front part of the head, in the front part of the scalp, there probably was an entry wound which -- among all the blood and the laceration there, and everything, was not seen by us, or by anyone else perhaps... and it blew out the the back part of his head."

"The cause of death...[was] massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss."

"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 half, 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." (Robert N. McClelland, Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VI, page 33

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Shifting the burden of proof.

That might explain your inability to discuss practically any point I've raised. May we please have your full attention?

Just trying to make it fair.

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Nor is it identically the rear of the head. The wound is described as extending "...to the occiput," (emphasis added) and the cerebellum is large enough to extrude from a wound to that portion of the cranium. I gave my qualifications for discussing cranial anatomy. What are yours, Robert? Put up or shut up.

Tomtomkent · 26th April 2012, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

What "hard" evidence are you referring to? The fake autopsy photos or the worm food???

So when will you supply actual evidence the photos are fake? You keep saying it, and not agreeing with your cherry picked misunderstanding of witness statements still doesn't make it so.

Tomtomkent · 26th April 2012, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5908

Roberts qualifications are a drawing where he assumes lobes equate to regions of the head (though they do not equate directly to bones) and a drawing of a red arrow?

Hmmm.

My first thought is: Some qualification
My second thought: the extent of the wound described does not have to relate to the direction of travel as the arrow suggests. The description, as in the autopsy photo, suggests an exterior wound whose limits are at either end of the arrow, not a bullet path.

My third, considered point is that if that is where the bullet went, then how can Crenshaw have managed to put the entry wound on the throat? And how could that path possibly align to the grassy knoll?

JayUtah · 26th April 2012, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5908

Someone else's illustration of a brain establishes your expertise in skeletal anatomy? How does that work?

No, Robert. I covered this at length. Posting some irrelevant online GIF with no accompanying discussion doesn't refute that, or even materially address it. The wound is described as extending "...to the occiput." I gave a lengthy description of cranial anatomy including instructions for locating the occipital bones on your own cranium. Other people managed to read and follow those instructions.

You're clearly unqualified and incompetent to discuss cranial anatomy. Next argument please.

JayUtah · 26th April 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Just trying to make it fair.

How does systematically ignoring every question I ask you remotely constitute fairness?

Head in the sand. Others can see that I'm asking you questions, and they can see how you dodge them. Who do you think you're fooling?

Let's start by wrapping up White and Wilson. Care to take a crack and the list of questions I posted yesterday regarding them?

Then we'll move on to quiz you on cranial anatomy. Still think this is a fair fight? Think again.

vtbub · 26th April 2012, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

vtbub wrote:

"I just find it absolutely amazing that after 160 pages that there has yet to be any real conspiracy presented by Baloney-Man. No other shooter identified. No other weapon claimed. Just Oswald is innocent and we should do our homework to find the supposed real shooter/shooters"

Comment:
And I find it equally amazing that anyone who claims to have read the 160 pages can reach such a off base conclusion. I suggest you search the Final Nail where the conspiracy and the actors is explained in detail.

I went back just now and re-read all the assertions you made.

At best, you have the usual anybody but Oswald suspects in a mish-mash.

At worst, you slandered anyone and everyone one not named Oswald.

Seriously, Kenny O'Donnell and Tip O'Neill? JFK's best friend and top pupil? (It's a rhetorical question)

You have yet to actually argue for what you think the sequence of events were in the plaza. Never told us where on the knoll the shots came from. Never told us who fired them. Never said which, if any, shots missed. Just it was not Lee.

So, what exactly happened in Dealy Plaza?

jhunter1163 · 26th April 2012, 12:00 PM

Do not personalize your arguments and remain civil and polite. Consider this mod box notice that further bickering and incivility will result in this thread being placed on moderated status, as well as moderation action against individual posters (possibly including suspension and/or banning).

Posted By:jhunter1163

Robert Prey · 26th April 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by vtbub

I went back just now and re-read all the assertions you made.

At best, you have the usual anybody but Oswald suspects in a mish-mash.

At worst, you slandered anyone and everyone one not named Oswald.

Seriously, Kenny O'Donnell and Tip O'Neill? JFK's best friend and top pupil? (It's a rhetorical question)

You have yet to actually argue for what you think the sequence of events were in the plaza. Never told us where on the knoll the shots came from. Never told us who fired them. Never said which, if any, shots missed. Just it was not Lee.

So, what exactly happened in Dealy Plaza?

Conspiracy was proved in that the fatal shot came from the vicinity of the grassy Knoll. Some of the individuals involved were named. Who the actual shooters were from each location is a matter of hearsay and speculation. But the fact of conspiracy is well established and that is the main point of the thread.

vtbub · 26th April 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Conspiracy was proved in that the fatal shot came from the vicinity of the grassy Knoll.

Alright Mr. Prey.

Where?

25th April 2012, 01:33 PM	#6401
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant And AIKEN admits he only assumes the wound in the back of the head was the exit. Emphasis added above. He further assumed the shot hit JFK from the left side of the head or tangentially. The autopsy, of course, determined AIKEN was incorrect on all his assumptions. Here's the HSCA drawing of the damage to the head again. Note the damage extends to the back of the head in the official version. The language of all the witnesses who described seeing damage to the back of the head must be parsed very carefully -- and without bias -- to determine if their description is in conflict with the below image. Most are not. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...head-7-125.jpg Uh, uh. You left out an important part of Dr. Akin's testimony: "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”; “I assume the right occiptalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head..." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

25th April 2012, 01:35 PM	#6402
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant There was no hearsay quoted. The witness spoke of what he heard from Crenshaw's own lips. Are you claiming that if Oswald confessed, the police could not testify to that because it would be hearsay? Like most of your claims, that one makes no sense. Here's the statement by Russo again: It references conspiracy author Gus Russo directly, who relates: Hank It's still a hearsay Triple Play.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

25th April 2012, 01:37 PM	#6403
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant Liar. Here's Gayle and Bill Newman's statements you never rebutted. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6008 You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one. Already rebutted them.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

25th April 2012, 01:40 PM	#6405
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant Liar. Here's Giesecke's statement you never rebutted. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6018 You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one. Hank Already rebutted that too. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet??? "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." -- Dr. Giesecke
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

25th April 2012, 01:45 PM	#6406
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet??? I covered this at length. Address it or concede.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161

25th April 2012, 01:39 PM	#6404
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,871	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Uh, uh. You left out an important part of Dr. Akin's testimony: "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”; “I assume the right occiptalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head..." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf The other side from the exit wound? LOL. So there is no exit wound in the back of the head?

25th April 2012, 01:45 PM	#6407
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant That's a bold faced lie, Robert. You've been challenged on a lot of these. Here's Jenkins statement you never rebutted. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6003 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3257 You've been challenged on numerous people on the list. You ignored most every one. Hank Already corrected you on this at least twice. Hank, this is getting boring. Please get up to speed on your challenges -- and restrict them to the ones not already demolished. "There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530. Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head).
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

25th April 2012, 01:49 PM	#6408
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant I noticed you did not characterize them as 'Back-of-the-head' witnesses. And they are not characterized as On the Scene Witnesses to a Blowout in the Back of the Head. But merely as on the scene witnesses. Fine with me for the most part. That's a list of witnesses. Most of whom support the damage to the right side of the head. Like Gayle and Bill Newman, as we've already seen. Like Phil Willis as we've already seen. Like Doctor Jenkins, as we've already seen. So the list doesn't advance your argument one iota. And without in-context quotes from any of the witnesses, none of which you provide, it's just a list of names. A list that includes some names of people who haven't been established to be anywhere near the scene of the crime - and includes some bogus ones at that - like Beverly Oliver and Ed Hoffman. For each of the witnesses you wish to classify as a back-of-the-head witness, please provide some contemporaneous quotes from the weekend of the assassination or from their testimony to the Warren Commission. That would eliminate some of the names you list immediately. It would definitely eliminate Dr. McClelland, who on the weekend of the assassination, noted only a massive blowout in the left temple (which you claim - and I agree - is a simple error of transposition). So McClelland's earliest notes put a massive wound in the right temple area, and mentions the back of the head not at all. Agreed? PS: I thought #7 was spelled AIKIN. Or is that another doctor? If it's the same guy, we've already examined his claims therein and found you are exaggerating his confirmation of a back-of-the-head wound. True to form, you ignored it all: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=6006 Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once. And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

25th April 2012, 01:51 PM	#6409
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,871	Originally Posted by Robert Prey And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back. Must.... resist.... gift....

25th April 2012, 01:51 PM	#6410
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head). Nor is it identically the rear of the head. The wound is described as extending "...to the occiput," (emphasis added) and the cerebellum is large enough to extrude from a wound to that portion of the cranium. I gave my qualifications for discussing cranial anatomy. What are yours, Robert? Put up or shut up.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161	Last edited by JayUtah; 25th April 2012 at 02:32 PM. Reason: add puntuation

25th April 2012, 01:52 PM	#6411
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	The better question is if Robert understands where the occipital bones furthest extents are. Odd he exagerates this word, but has yet to address or discredit the numerous quotes that discuss the temple. Can you touch your temple? Now lets consider the statements that severley reduced the list of witnessess who might have supported robert. Or even Crenshaws varying descriptions...
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

25th April 2012, 01:53 PM	#6412
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once. Shifting the burden of proof. Quote: And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back. That might explain your inability to discuss practically any point I've raised. May we please have your full attention?
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161

25th April 2012, 01:55 PM	#6413
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Just trying to give you guys a chance to come up with something for once. And I've still got half my brain tied behind my back. Betting this is stundied already with out looking.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

25th April 2012, 02:00 PM	#6414
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,574	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Already corrected you on this at least twice. Hank, this is getting boring. Translation: you have no answers. Originally Posted by Robert Prey Please get up to speed on your challenges -- and restrict them to the ones not already demolished. Just like you do. Or not. Originally Posted by Robert Prey "There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530. And? Did you have a point to make? Originally Posted by Robert Prey Do you still not understand where the Occiput and the Cerebellum are located???? (Hint. it's not at the front of the head). Your error here is that a bullet will pass through both regardless if it is from the front or the back.
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,574	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

25th April 2012, 02:03 PM	#6415
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Arrrrgh! McCelleand never said anything about a Large wound to the temple. But only that the shot entered the right temple causing a large wound to the head, including the parietal,, temporal and occipital lobes. Here's what he said, Robert, with the substitution of right for his stated left, which we both agreed was simply an error on his part: "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT temple." Where do you see him mention a wound anywhere but the right temple? Where do you see him mention anything but a massive wound? That's precisely what the autopsy photo I cited shows - a massive wound to the right temple. This wound includes damage to the parietal, temporal, and occipital regions of the skull. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto." Last edited by HSienzant; 25th April 2012 at 02:28 PM.

25th April 2012, 02:07 PM	#6416
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Arrrrgh! McCelleand never said anything about a Large wound to the temple. But only that the shot entered the right temple causing a large wound to the head, including the parietal,, temporal and occipital lobes. Remember that McClelland mentioned the back of the head not at all. And everything above is merely your interpretation of what McClelland meant. It is susceptible of another interpretation, one that fits the physical evidence you discard - the autopsy photo I cited. So we can go with your interpretation, which necessitates throwing out the hard evidence and going with a witness statement that is not confirmed by any physical evidence, or we can go with my interpretation, which is supported by the physical evidence and doesn't involve an army of people altering the z-film and the autopsy photos and the body. Hmmm... which one is more reasonable? Which one will Robert choose? Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

25th April 2012, 02:09 PM	#6417
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Everybody knows that McCelleand did not draw the sketch, that it was merely dictated. So what? Actually, you are wrong about that. Read what Josiah Thompson, the man who commissioned the sketch, actually said. And you didn't know McClelland did not draw the sketch six months ago. We had to clear that up for you. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

25th April 2012, 02:20 PM	#6418
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey For the sake of coherence, one at a time please. Which Willis??? Let's start with Phil. I already gave his Warren Commission Testimony. What do you got? Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

25th April 2012, 02:22 PM	#6419
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey The autopsy photo is fake. The drawing is only of the wound to the back of the head. So,what is your problem???? It is curious that the supposed faked photo fits the description of so many doctors, then. Like Giesecke and Jenkins and McClelland. Amazing how the alterations could make that photo fit their statements so well. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto." Last edited by HSienzant; 25th April 2012 at 02:27 PM.

25th April 2012, 02:25 PM	#6420
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Already rebutted that too. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "occiput" yet??? "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 I laughed my ass off reading your response. Merely highlighting one word does not do the description justice. He said the wound extended from the top of the head to the [right] ear, and from the browline to the back of the head [we previously agreed on the point that Giesecke said left, when he meant anatomical right]. Precisely what we see in the autopsy photo. He didn't say the wound was located in the occiput, and only in the occiput, which is what you like to pretend it means. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto." Last edited by HSienzant; 25th April 2012 at 02:27 PM.

25th April 2012, 03:32 PM	#6421
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,216	A question (not for our brain-tied friend): Am I understanding correctly the contention that if there is a "blow out" to a region of the head it therefore follows that the point of entry was in some specific or largely general way opposite this region? So, if true, a "blow out" in the rear of JFK's head requires a shot from somewhere to his front, according to what is being suggested, yes? Put another way, is a "blow out" of this nature (bullet to the body) always a blow out (opposite entry) and not possibly a blow back (same side as entry)?
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 25th April 2012 at 03:33 PM.

25th April 2012, 03:50 PM	#6422
infocusinc Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 141	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Everybody knows that McCelleand did not draw the sketch, that it was merely dictated. So what? Did you actually READ Tink Thompsons words? After all HE is the one who had the drawing made. You sure do have a problem with reality....
infocusinc Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 141

25th April 2012, 06:06 PM	#6423
vtbub Thinker Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 150	I just find it absolutely amazing that after 160 pages that there has yet to be any real conspiracy presented by Baloney-Man. No other shooter identified. No other weapon claimed. Just Oswald is innocent and we should do our homework to find the supposed real shooter/shooters. As someone who was born a few years after the shooting, I grew up with my elders suspecting Oswald was helped. They did not know by who, or how, but things did not compute. As a history buff, I find the Kennedy shooting fascinating and all the conjecture surrounding it fascinating as well. We all saw the Zapruder film and I had a 9th grade English teacher bring in her then twenty year old copies of Life magazine with the stills. We watched in school a highlight reel on laserdisc of all things of Cronkite and CBS coverage. I always tended to think that Oswald acted alone. The fact that even twenty years out that nothing ever concrete came out to change the story. My uncle had the scratchy paper record in Gallery magazine that supposedly had the four shots that were presented to the HSCA and of course you could not make out ANY shots, let alone four of them. The Nova special in 1988 introduced me to Badgeman and such and I thought it was really well done. It really was not until about 1998 that I became truly satisfied that it was just Oswald. With the internet, I could fully run and see the other films shot at the same time. I checked conspiracy sites, read essays and such and never got the sense that there was anything about a sinister conspiracy to be had. After asking Hank the other day on what changed his mind I sat down an read two sections of the WC Report, the Texas trip chapter and the walkthrough of the shooting. It's clear that they did not nail everything down. They do not even reach a definitive conclusion on which shot missed or have the timeline correct on how far apart the total shooting sequence was. Nor do they really explain just why the Single Bullet Works. You can understand why there were doubters. On the other hand, they nailed a lot of it and came to conclusions based on the same eyewitness testimony that is so misconstrued on this thread by certain posters. I had no idea that they had so many witnesses, including members of the press, that saw the rifle in the window for instance. It was honest about what people saw or did not see or hear and pieced together what they could. If they had access to the same 3d modeling that we have now through Dale Meyers work, and able to sync all the films together to piece together the entire event, maybe it would seem easier for most to understand. Just having Connally's correct position in the car just puts everything into place. It is truly amazing just how much primary source material exists on this case and if it was anyone else besides the President of the United States, there would be no question by most thinking people that it was Oswald and just Oswald. Nearly fifty years on and there is no leading theory ever presented to debunk. Despite the logistical errors made by the Dallas Police, they had this case solved within 90 minutes of the shooting. My parents were young adults through the Watergate era. I certainly understand why there is such mistrust in general and all about the Kennedy legend, which has done nothing but grow since his death. As a society, we really do not want to acknowledge that the people or events that we hold so dear can be undone by something so incredibly simple. As Jackie said, it really was some silly little communist that changed everything. (sorry for the ramble)
vtbub Thinker Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 150

25th April 2012, 08:39 PM	#6424
bynmdsue Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,385	Hey, who remembers what it was like in the good ol'days when there was no internet? When you had to make do with what the local library had and then the county. Scouring flea markets and garage sales looking for books that were long out of print but referenced in the ones you've read. Coming across a passage that conflicted with something you read elsewhere and having to start pulling other books out ending up with all these books open in front of you cross-checking statements. It was a lot more fun.

26th April 2012, 03:37 AM	#6425
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	vtbub wrote: "I just find it absolutely amazing that after 160 pages that there has yet to be any real conspiracy presented by Baloney-Man. No other shooter identified. No other weapon claimed. Just Oswald is innocent and we should do our homework to find the supposed real shooter/shooters" Comment: And I find it equally amazing that anyone who claims to have read the 160 pages can reach such a off base conclusion. I suggest you search the Final Nail where the conspiracy and the actors is explained in detail.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 03:40 AM	#6426
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	vtbib wrote: As Jackie said, it really was some silly little communist that changed everything. Comment: Which betrays both Jackie and you own lack of scholarship on the subject. Oswald was a serious man with ties to all Am. Intell agencies and absolutely no communist.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 03:42 AM	#6427
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant I laughed my ass off reading your response. Merely highlighting one word does not do the description justice. He said the wound extended from the top of the head to the [right] ear, and from the browline to the back of the head [we previously agreed on the point that Giesecke said left, when he meant anatomical right]. Precisely what we see in the autopsy photo. He didn't say the wound was located in the occiput, and only in the occiput, which is what you like to pretend it means. Hank NOnsense. I've never claimed the wound was only in the occiput.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 03:45 AM	#6428
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant Let's start with Phil. I already gave his Warren Commission Testimony. What do you got? Hank "I am absolutely certain, that at least one shot -- the one that blew his head off -- came from the right front. And I will believe that till the day I die -- on my mother's grave." -- Phil Willis -- Inteview from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 03:48 AM	#6429
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant Remember that McClelland mentioned the back of the head not at all. And everything above is merely your interpretation of what McClelland meant. It is susceptible of another interpretation, one that fits the physical evidence you discard - the autopsy photo I cited. So we can go with your interpretation, which necessitates throwing out the hard evidence and going with a witness statement that is not confirmed by any physical evidence, or we can go with my interpretation, which is supported by the physical evidence and doesn't involve an army of people altering the z-film and the autopsy photos and the body. Hmmm... which one is more reasonable? Which one will Robert choose? Hank What "hard" evidence are you referring to? The fake autopsy photos or the worm food???
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 03:53 AM	#6430
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant Here's what he said, Robert, with the substitution of right for his stated left, which we both agreed was simply an error on his part: "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT temple." Where do you see him mention a wound anywhere but the right temple? Where do you see him mention anything but a massive wound? That's precisely what the autopsy photo I cited shows - a massive wound to the right temple. This wound includes damage to the parietal, temporal, and occipital regions of the skull. Hank Dr. Robt. McClelland: "I think he was shot from the front...I think the rifle bullet hit him in the side of the head and blew out the back of the head...I certainly think that's what happened and that probably somewhere in the front part of the head, in the front part of the scalp, there probably was an entry wound which -- among all the blood and the laceration there, and everything, was not seen by us, or by anyone else perhaps... and it blew out the the back part of his head." "The cause of death...[was] massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." "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 half, 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." (Robert N. McClelland, Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VI, page 33
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 03:54 AM	#6431
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by JayUtah Shifting the burden of proof. That might explain your inability to discuss practically any point I've raised. May we please have your full attention? Just trying to make it fair.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 03:57 AM	#6432
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by JayUtah Nor is it identically the rear of the head. The wound is described as extending "...to the occiput," (emphasis added) and the cerebellum is large enough to extrude from a wound to that portion of the cranium. I gave my qualifications for discussing cranial anatomy. What are yours, Robert? Put up or shut up.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

26th April 2012, 04:50 AM	#6433
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey What "hard" evidence are you referring to? The fake autopsy photos or the worm food??? So when will you supply actual evidence the photos are fake? You keep saying it, and not agreeing with your cherry picked misunderstanding of witness statements still doesn't make it so.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

26th April 2012, 04:56 AM	#6434
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5908 Roberts qualifications are a drawing where he assumes lobes equate to regions of the head (though they do not equate directly to bones) and a drawing of a red arrow? Hmmm. My first thought is: Some qualification My second thought: the extent of the wound described does not have to relate to the direction of travel as the arrow suggests. The description, as in the autopsy photo, suggests an exterior wound whose limits are at either end of the arrow, not a bullet path. My third, considered point is that if that is where the bullet went, then how can Crenshaw have managed to put the entry wound on the throat? And how could that path possibly align to the grassy knoll?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

26th April 2012, 07:09 AM	#6435
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by Robert Prey http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5908 Someone else's illustration of a brain establishes your expertise in skeletal anatomy? How does that work? No, Robert. I covered this at length. Posting some irrelevant online GIF with no accompanying discussion doesn't refute that, or even materially address it. The wound is described as extending "...to the occiput." I gave a lengthy description of cranial anatomy including instructions for locating the occipital bones on your own cranium. Other people managed to read and follow those instructions. You're clearly unqualified and incompetent to discuss cranial anatomy. Next argument please.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,161