JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.
Yes... they do.
You've just lied about what I stated.
YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.
You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.
I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.
This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.
How about this?
Ben Holmes wrote:
You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...
Kindly publish the photo you're using.
Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.
Interestingly, you refuse to point out that I'm referring to the ACCURACY of pixel counts... here's my very first quote on the topic:
It would probably be meaningless to explain to you why jpegs are not something useful to derive precise pixel measurements. You'd only squirm some more...
And it would be senseless of me to quote the many times I've stated that you can COUNT the pixels, that they simply don't mean anything.
In a lossy compression format such as JPEG - the original total of pixels simply aren't there anymore
(And yes, I'm well aware that you could mistake the meaning of that statement too if you wanted...)
You're intentionally lying about what I've said, and you know that you are.
That makes you a very dishonest person, doesn't it?
But arguing a strawman is better than addressing the real questions that WCR Supporters run from... as listed in the original post in this thread.
Patrick does the same thing...
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.
Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!
And yet, it was quite clear that it took you more than a post to catch up... you clearly didn't bother reading my first cite on the topic.
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?
You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!
No such statement was ever made by me.
This shows that you realize you've lost...
No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.
Still no quotes from me saying what you claim...
Do you really think that such dishonesty will convince anyone, Mark? Why can't you point out anyplace where I "complained" about people compressing their images?
The vast majority of the images I upload are very tightly compressed. But then, I'm not dumb enough to try to count pixels on compressed lossy photos, and make an argument based on it.
You've been schooled.
Now, care to pick out another question to answer? Or are you, like Patrick; too "busy" to give credible explanations for the evidence?
Or perhaps you could help Patrick out, and tell us what would differentiate the Grassy Knoll from the Railroad yard as a location for a shot heard from the entrance to the TSBD.
Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:17 pm
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=909#p909
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:How can I "admit" what is not true? You can certainly count pixels... but the hidden presumption is that they actually reflect the view as seen on 11/22/63. IT DOES NOT - AS YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED.
So you beg me to "admit" that what you're measuring had an actual physical existence on 11/22 - but even YOU know that this isn't true - YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT JPEGS ARE A LOSSY FORMAT.
You didn't know this... and you clearly got schooled on the topic.
That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.
Yes... they do.
You've just lied about what I stated.
YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.
You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.
I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.
This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.
How about this?
Ben Holmes wrote:
You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...
Kindly publish the photo you're using.
Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.
Ben Holmes wrote:
You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.
Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?
You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!
No such statement was ever made by me.
This shows that you realize you've lost...
No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.
Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:30 pm
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=908#p908
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Silly. I haven't "avoided" anything. I responded to your claim that it's impossible to count pixels in a JPEG image, which is blatantly false (although you'll never admit it).
How can I "admit" what is not true? You can certainly count pixels... but the hidden presumption is that they actually reflect the view as seen on 11/22/63. IT DOES NOT - AS YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED.
So you beg me to "admit" that what you're measuring had an actual physical existence on 11/22 - but even YOU know that this isn't true - YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT JPEGS ARE A LOSSY FORMAT.
You didn't know this... and you clearly got schooled on the topic.
That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.
Yes... they do.
You've just lied about what I stated.
YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.
You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.
I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.
This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.
You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?
You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!
No such statement was ever made by me.
This shows that you realize you've lost...
Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:16 pm
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=907#p907
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: The Backyard Photos
Patrick C wrote:
Ray Mitcham wrote:A bit like the Parkland doctors who saw a wound in the back of the head and an entrance wound in the throat.
Absolute nonsense. The doctors perceived the wound to be further back than it actually was. A simple mistake.
The same mistake made by the Autopsy Report, when it put the wound IN THE SAME LOCATION using the same terms... 'Occipital Parietal'.
So the 'absolute nonsense' is only coming from people such as you, Patrick.
Patrick C wrote:
The actual true back of the head was not visible to them because it was cushioned.
A common factoid often told by believers... but an absolute LIE.
Richard Dulaney wrote:
...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side
Patrick knows this, yet doesn't mind repeating the factoid...
Patrick C wrote:
It was EXACTLY where is appears to be in the Z film and exactly as it is described in the autopsy.
Tell us Patrick, what's the difference between "Occipital Parietal" and "Occipital Parietal"?
Patrick C wrote:
And they were NOT threatened, that is ridiculous and wayward conspiracy minded nonsense fuelled by sensationalist authors of the likes of crackpots Jim Marrs and Harrison Livingstone.
The prosectors provably were.
Patrick C wrote:
They did not make any kind of reliable medical ballistics (forensic) analysis of the anterior neck wound either in Trauma room 1 so your comment about that being a frontal entry (presumably based on Perry's comment that it could have been entry) is just plain silly - as is the ridiculous theory that a bullet was fired from the front and struck Kennedy in the neck and was one of TWO that did not exit. It is a fairy tale.
Of course, this non-examination of the throat wound conducted at Parkland IS THE ONLY MEDICAL EXAMINATION THAT WAS EVER MADE.
Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:08 pm
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=906#p906
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Who Was On The Grassy Knoll???
Patrick C wrote:
You make me laugh...What do you mean "cite" for meeting some one...? Do you record your meetings with people and take photos Holmes.....!
This was 30 years ago nearly and it was probably in a coffee shop with Larry Harris. It was not part of a book nor an academic exercise it was "in passing".....
An NO I am NOT a liar. If you don't believe me - tough, I don't give a jot.
You apparently have a hard time remembering the topic.
Here it is again:
Patrick C wrote:
Unless you count the three people at the base of the steps one of which is Gordon Arnold.
Now, I've challenged you to cite for it, several citations have been posted showing why Gordon Arnold was NOT one of the three people at the base of the steps.
You're a liar, Patrick.
It's a silly lie, since where Gordon Arnold was located makes absolutely no difference in this case whatsoever... but it's still a lie on your part... already cited for, and you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite anything that supports your silly assertion.
It's not a matter of "belief" as you claim... I don't "believe" you to be lying, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE LYING - there's a difference.
You keep making a claim that you refuse to cite for, and refuse to retract when several people provide citations that state otherwise.
Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:So if someone reported a shot coming from that area, how would you differentiate it from the Grassy Knoll?
Could you translate that into English please..?
It's not a difficult question, nor was it worded in any manner that should cause confusion to the average reader. So clearly, you must simply be afraid to answer the question.
You stated that the Railroad yards were in the direction of roughly 8-10.
You know, even if you've not publicly stated it, that the Grassy Knoll is ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT DIRECTION.
So if a witness standing at the entry of the TSBD stated that they believed the shots came from the Railroad yards, how do YOU eliminate the Grassy Knoll - since it's ALSO in the same direction?
Fail to answer the question this time, and the charge of cowardice will be directly applied to you, Patrick - fair warning.
Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:58 pm
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=905#p905
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:Ah!!! It's so good you finally admit that JPG's are lossy... now all you have to do is admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE to be pixel accurate in a format that doesn't even have all the data.
As, of course, I've been saying all along - and you've been avoiding.
Silly. I haven't "avoided" anything. I responded to your claim that it's impossible to count pixels in a JPEG image, which is blatantly false (although you'll never admit it).
How can I "admit" what is not true? You can certainly count pixels... but the hidden presumption is that they actually reflect the view as seen on 11/22/63. IT DOES NOT - AS YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED.
So you beg me to "admit" that what you're measuring had an actual physical existence on 11/22 - but even YOU know that this isn't true - YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT JPEGS ARE A LOSSY FORMAT.
You didn't know this... and you clearly got schooled on the topic.
That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.
Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?
Ben Holmes wrote:
Now you're still desperately trying to reclaim some small shred of honor - but anyone who measures pixels and thinks that they illustrate the accuracy implied by the term "pixels" is ignorant of the facts of JPEG compression techniques.
This is why I only refer to larger or smaller... and indicate the difference by comparing it to a drawn in line... I'm well aware of what you're now learning.
Stop right here! Pixels are simply a convenient measurement unit when we're dealing with raster images. No particular degree of accuracy is assumed or implied. If I measured the distances on a printout, using a ruler, the difference would still be 25%. (Or close; I rounded it down from 25.56 to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
Here is, in case you wondered, what a reading of 280 pixels looks like in Paint.NET:
dots_jpeg80.jpg (213.18 KiB) Viewed 2 times
Notice that I'm measuring from centre of circle to centre of circle (not from fuzzy edge to fuzzy edge) to avoid being accused of lack of accuracy.
I find it amusing, btw, to be "schooled" on accuracy by someone who posted this diagram:
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
The math, of course, is in my favor. Chaney is closer, indeed; he's right where he said he was, and where everyone can SEE him in the photo... people with absolutely no stake in the issue.
The math indicates that he's very slightly closer, not in the order of 25% closer. Did he say that he was right alongside JFK? That he was so close that he almost collided with the limo? Did any of the witnesses to the shooting say anything like that?"
Until you can produce the distance between Altgens & Hargis... and the distance from Hargis to Chaney - you simply don't have the data needed to make percentage claims.
So be smart, and drop the silly "25%" claim.
It's actually your claim, since you're the one who placed him there. What's silly is your insistence on atomic clock accuracy. Would it make you happier if we said (for example) 25% +/- 2%? Or 25% +/- x% (your choice of x)?
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:You have no objective basis for placing him alongside JFK. None. In your imagination, you see him looking at JFK, but in reality, he's looking across the road, in the direction of his fellow officers. After polling your friends, have you ever asked them to consider that possibility?
"no objective basis"???
You've admitted (as has Patrick) that Chaney is shown larger, and thus is MATHEMATICALLY closer to Altgens. You quite desperately wish to save the authenticity of the extant Z-film, since only the government had the power to alter it. And that fact scares you to death.
And why would I try to influence what people see in the photo? That would be quite dishonest, wouldn't it? It would also be a blatant lie on your part, since Chaney made it crystal clear that he was looking at JFK when he turned to his right, not his fellow motorcycle cops.
So why would I tell a lie to try to get completely un-informed people to come to an opinion that isn't based on the evidence?
Could it be that you actually performed this experiment - and discovered to your horror that your friends put Chaney right next to the limo?
Speak up, Mark ... did you try this?
Chaney is closer (than Hargis) to Altgens, but how much closer? 5% still places him behind the limo.
There's nothing about the Z film that scares me. I sometimes even chuckle when I think of your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.
Chaney told reporters that he "looked back over to [his] left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder" after the first shot. You really have no right to conclude that he was still looking at JFK when Altgens snapped the shutter. When you study the image, does JFK seem to be looking "back over his left shoulder?"
Don't take it personally, but I don't share your faith in subjective interpretations (however popular).
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity
I said after you had polled them. What possible harm could that do? Would your carefully constructed conspiracy universe implode if they responded, "Yeah, he could also be looking across the road, in the direction of his fellow officers."
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:And 'can you' do pixel counts? Of course you can.
Will they be reproduceable?
Certainly... AS LONG AS YOU USE PRECISELY THE SAME EXACT PHOTO.
Will they match the count given by other presumably identical photos?
Not at all.
My guess is that you've never even paid any attention to the compression settings of a JPG. Since I run a number of websites, and deal with graphics quite often - I'm quite familiar with the topic.
So on this, you've been schooled.
Keep telling yourself that. And keep pretending that using better quality images would drastically change the estimates I've posted. I challenge you to post your own HQ images and math, but we both know you'll never do that. According to the CT playbook, you should never be specific yourself, but always wait for your opponent to post specifics, and then attack, attack, attack.
Strawmen are fun, aren't they?
I've stated that pixel accurate measurements are not possible on JPEG's... you've admitted that it's a lossy compression format, but you apparently still don't understand that.
So answer the question: Will you get the same pixel count on different versions of the SAME PHOTO when measuring the same area?
I predict that you won't answer... because if you answer no, you'll be agreeing with what I've been saying all along... and if you say yes, you'd be blatantly ... and more importantly, PROVABLY lying.
So what's your answer, Mark?
How can you, with a straight face, demand hyper precision from me, while you post stuff like this?
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:I know it frightens you that you cannot ask others what they see in the Altgens photo ... because they'll simply validate what I've already told you... and what Chaney said...
And since you cannot give a credible explanation that will absolve the extant Z-film - we're back to the beginning question I first raised: why doesn't the extant Z-film show Chaney where Altgens puts him?
Why have you refused to have anyone look at the photo and give you their un-guided opinion?
I didn't realize this was a popularity contest. I prefer to do my own analysis, thank you. Perhaps you should try the same. It can be quite liberating.
I'm merely demonstrating that you aren't honest enough to admit that the Altgens' photo shows Chaney where I say he is. Maybe you could argue that it's some sort of photographic illusion, but you cannot deny that Chaney appears to be next to the limo, not behind it.
But clearly, you either performed the experiment and were shocked by the results, so you're keeping quiet, or you already know what you'd find, so prefer not to prove it.
Now, answer the question Mark: Does Chaney APPEAR in the Altgens' print to be alongside the limo?
Let's cut to the chase. Photographs can be deceptive. Depth (and other) information tends to get lost when you project a 3D scene onto a 2D plane:
Apart from the windshield, Chaney's motorcycle is obscured by the limo, so in a sense it's like he's floating in air, and you can imagine him to be almost anywhere you want (along the same line of sight from Altgens, of course). One of the few things we can be absolutely certain of, just by looking at the photo, is that he isn't in front of the limo.
It's easy to imagine him being right alongside JFK:
1) Size: You might think that he appears somewhat large for someone who is supposed to be behind the limo. His windshield does appear (by my estimate 4-5%) wider that that of Hargis. However, as my diagram shows, it is quite possible for him to be (what amounts to) a few feet closer to the camera and still be behind the limo. Clint Hill on the running board of the follow-up car also appears larger than you might expect, and he's definitely behind the limo. I hope you agree with me on that one.
altgens_jpeg95.jpg (153.01 KiB) Viewed 2 times
2) Head turn: It would be a natural reaction under the circumstances to be looking at the President, and it's easy to imagine that he was, but it would also be natural to look across the road to gauge the reactions of his fellow officers.
3) Shadow on road: Chaney's shadow appears next to the limo's right front fender, so that must mean he's pretty far advanced, right? No. It's easy to underestimate the distances involved. For example, the distance from the tip of the shadow to the curb in the background roughly equals the width of the road. If you asked your friends to estimate the distance, you might get interesting results.
altgens_6_trask.jpg (106.6 KiB) Viewed 2 times
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:Why haven't you explained YOUR OWN IMAGE demonstrating that the fairing would be half hidden behind the limo's windshield?
Thank you for reminding me that, next time, I should represent the motorcycles in a more realistic way.
There is some overlapping, though.
No Mark, there's no "overlap"... there's no part of Chaney's fairing that is BEHIND the limo's windshield. Now, why haven't you explained that your own image demonstrated that Chaney's fairing would be half hidden?
Or redo your image so that it works?
You don't seem to grasp the concept of an overhead view. It can be used to demonstrate horizontal overlap, not vertical.
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:Why did it take you so long to admit that JPG's are a lossy compression format?
I was responding to your claim that JPEG wasn't a raster image format.
YOU'RE A LIAR, MARK ULRIK - I've never made any such statement, and you will never be able to quote any such statement.
Either quote me saying that, OR RETRACT YOUR BLATANT LIE!!
Saying that you can't count pixels in a JPEG is the same as saying that JPEG isn't a raster image format. I gave you a chance to explain what you meant, but you responded with an arrogant "Google it!"
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:Why are you pretending that I've been "busted" when every statement I've made has been cited for, and you've been unable to document almost nothing of your claims?
I'm not pretending. You have no argument other than "well, that's what it looks like to me."
Why are you pretending that I've been "busted" when every statement I've made has been cited for, and you've been unable to document almost nothing of your claims? Why are you now lying about the arguments I've been making?
Yeah, busted is a pretty strong word, but I think it applies here. You haven't been able to support your "Chaney alongside JFK" theory in any substantial way. Your hand waving might convince David Healy, but doesn't quite cut it with me.
Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:26 pm
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=904#p904
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...
perspective corrected.
Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:12 pm
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=903#p903
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: The Backyard Photos
Back of the head witnesses.
Dr William Kemp Clark.
DR. WILLIAM KEMP CLARK -- "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound.
A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail."
Dr McClellan
Dr McClellan: I had always assumed it was [being done] because I knew what the –that the hole was there.
Dr Peters: Right.
Dr McClelland: So it wasn't a-- maybe I'm wrong.I mean not unless I have taken leave of my senses entirely. There was a hole there and so my explanation of what was happening is here's this hand up in the wound and they sort of pulled it up for some reason. I don't know why, but that was sort of an interesting sequence of events separated by several years..
Mr Gun: Dr Peters, you have been nodding your head.
Dr Peters: Well I would certainly agree with what Bob said. It was my thought exactly that they just pulled that flap back into place and took a picture so they could show how it looked with things restored as much as possible and it just – a flap just kind of—had been torn back and now they were just putting it back and snapping a picture. For what reason I don't know.
But I'm ceertain there was a hole there too. I walked around right and looked in his head. You could see directly into the carnial vault and see cerebral injury to the cerebral cortex, and I thought at the time to the cerebellum. So I know the hole was big enough top look into. I estimated it at seven centimeters at that time, and I don't know what the actual measurements werew ehn they took the radiographs, but I thought exactly what Bob did. They were probably making a series of pictures and pulled that flap back up there to cover it up and took a picture of that to show the head in the restored, so to speak, for whatever reason.
Clint Hill (the nearest to the President after the shooting.)
"The right rear of his head was missing. It was lying on the rear seat of the car... there was so much blood you could not tell if there had been another wound or not, except for the one gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
Greer "His head was all shot, this whole part (pointing) was a matter of blood like he had been hit."
Spector : " Indicating the top right rear of the head?
Greer "Yes sir, it loose like that was all blown off."
Kellerman. "He had a large wound this size"
Specter "Indicating with your finger the diameter of 5 inches: would that be approximately correct?"
Kellerman " Indicating the rear portion of the head"
Kellerman " Yes"
Specter "More to the right of the head?"
Kellerman "Right. This was removed... the skull part was removed."
to the ARRB.described a “blow out “ which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President’s head, which he believed two be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull.
He described ` large open head wound in the back of the Presidents head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp.
He described ` large open head wound in the back of the Presidents head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp.
JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that "he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off." ( Best Evidence , p. 620) The extant X-rays show no such thing. In May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the
current X-rays are forgeries.
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=902#p902
Dr William Kemp Clark.
DR. WILLIAM KEMP CLARK -- "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound.
A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail."
Dr McClellan
Dr McClellan: I had always assumed it was [being done] because I knew what the –that the hole was there.
Dr Peters: Right.
Dr McClelland: So it wasn't a-- maybe I'm wrong.I mean not unless I have taken leave of my senses entirely. There was a hole there and so my explanation of what was happening is here's this hand up in the wound and they sort of pulled it up for some reason. I don't know why, but that was sort of an interesting sequence of events separated by several years..
Mr Gun: Dr Peters, you have been nodding your head.
Dr Peters: Well I would certainly agree with what Bob said. It was my thought exactly that they just pulled that flap back into place and took a picture so they could show how it looked with things restored as much as possible and it just – a flap just kind of—had been torn back and now they were just putting it back and snapping a picture. For what reason I don't know.
But I'm ceertain there was a hole there too. I walked around right and looked in his head. You could see directly into the carnial vault and see cerebral injury to the cerebral cortex, and I thought at the time to the cerebellum. So I know the hole was big enough top look into. I estimated it at seven centimeters at that time, and I don't know what the actual measurements werew ehn they took the radiographs, but I thought exactly what Bob did. They were probably making a series of pictures and pulled that flap back up there to cover it up and took a picture of that to show the head in the restored, so to speak, for whatever reason.
Clint Hill (the nearest to the President after the shooting.)
"The right rear of his head was missing. It was lying on the rear seat of the car... there was so much blood you could not tell if there had been another wound or not, except for the one gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
Greer "His head was all shot, this whole part (pointing) was a matter of blood like he had been hit."
Spector : " Indicating the top right rear of the head?
Greer "Yes sir, it loose like that was all blown off."
Kellerman. "He had a large wound this size"
Specter "Indicating with your finger the diameter of 5 inches: would that be approximately correct?"
Kellerman " Indicating the rear portion of the head"
Kellerman " Yes"
Specter "More to the right of the head?"
Kellerman "Right. This was removed... the skull part was removed."
to the ARRB.described a “blow out “ which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President’s head, which he believed two be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull.
He described ` large open head wound in the back of the Presidents head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp.
He described ` large open head wound in the back of the Presidents head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp.
JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that "he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off." ( Best Evidence , p. 620) The extant X-rays show no such thing. In May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the
current X-rays are forgeries.
Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:59 am
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=902#p902
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Who Was On The Grassy Knoll???
You make me laugh...What do you mean "cite" for meeting some one...? Do you record your meetings with people and take photos Holmes.....!
This was 30 years ago nearly and it was probably in a coffee shops with Larry Harris. It was not part of a book nor an academic exercise it was "in passing".....
An NO I am NOT a liar. If you don't believe me - tough, I don't give a jot.
"So if someone reported a shot coming from that area, how would you differentiate it from the Grassy Knoll?"
Could you translate that into English please..?
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=901#p901
This was 30 years ago nearly and it was probably in a coffee shops with Larry Harris. It was not part of a book nor an academic exercise it was "in passing".....
An NO I am NOT a liar. If you don't believe me - tough, I don't give a jot.
"So if someone reported a shot coming from that area, how would you differentiate it from the Grassy Knoll?"
Could you translate that into English please..?
Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:31 am
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=901#p901
Posted on July 22nd, 2016
JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: The Backyard Photos
"A bit like the Parkland doctors who saw a wound in the back of the head and an entrance wound in the throat."
Absolute nonsense. The doctors perceived the wound to be further back than it actually was. A simple mistake.
The actual true back of the head was not visible to them because it was cushioned. Scalp and blood would however fall and drip out of the head given the position of the body - a concept we all know as gravity. Enough said.
It was EXACTLY where is appears to be in the Z film and exactly as it is described in the autopsy. And they were NOT threatened, that is ridiculous and wayward conspiracy minded nonsense fuelled by sensationalist authors of the likes of crackpots Jim Marrs and Harrison Livingstone.
I actually met two of the attending Dallas doctors at conventions in the 80s and this was a question asked of them - frankly they laughed.
They were almost certainly reminded not to speculate, but to remain guarded and professional around the media, but that was all.
They did not make any kind of reliable medical ballistics (forensic) analysis of the anterior neck wound either in Trauma room 1 so your comment about that being a frontal entry (presumably based on Perry's comment that it could have been entry) is just plain silly - as is the ridiculous theory that a bullet was fired from the front and struck Kennedy in the neck and was one of TWO that did not exit. It is a fairy tale.
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=900#p900
Absolute nonsense. The doctors perceived the wound to be further back than it actually was. A simple mistake.
The actual true back of the head was not visible to them because it was cushioned. Scalp and blood would however fall and drip out of the head given the position of the body - a concept we all know as gravity. Enough said.
It was EXACTLY where is appears to be in the Z film and exactly as it is described in the autopsy. And they were NOT threatened, that is ridiculous and wayward conspiracy minded nonsense fuelled by sensationalist authors of the likes of crackpots Jim Marrs and Harrison Livingstone.
I actually met two of the attending Dallas doctors at conventions in the 80s and this was a question asked of them - frankly they laughed.
They were almost certainly reminded not to speculate, but to remain guarded and professional around the media, but that was all.
They did not make any kind of reliable medical ballistics (forensic) analysis of the anterior neck wound either in Trauma room 1 so your comment about that being a frontal entry (presumably based on Perry's comment that it could have been entry) is just plain silly - as is the ridiculous theory that a bullet was fired from the front and struck Kennedy in the neck and was one of TWO that did not exit. It is a fairy tale.
Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:24 am
via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=900#p900
Posted on July 22nd, 2016