• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
So let's pretend for a moment that the obvious pathological issues with the idea of the "jet effect" and the head being under enough pressure to "pop" like a balloon are real. Does what Rob describes us seeing in the Z-Film match his drawing? Or the descriptions given at Parkland?


The first issue is the way the matter is observed to eject from JFKs head. This is not a tight conical stream, it is an explosion. Which has implications on the size of the hole. When you pop a balloon, as Robert describes as being an accurate demonstration of the effect, it pops. It EXPLODES. If something comes out of a small hole under pressure it makes a confined stream that spreads out in a conical shape. If something comes out in a cloud of matter, the hole is big. We see an explosion out of the front of the head.

This does not match the description of gunshot wounds Rob himself posted. Nor does it match the descriptions and drawings of the Parkland staff. That amount of matter, exploding out, means a big hole.

Second problem: If that much comes out of the front, what is left to cause the vast exit wound at the back of the head?

So, wait, perhaps it is an optical illussion. Perhaps it just appears like the majority of brain matter is exploding from the front. Perhaps there was a massive exit wound at the back of the head? Which begs two questions:
1) Why can we not see it when JFK slumps forwards?
2) Why can we not see the matter being ejected through the exit wound? Remember the term is MASSIVE, not just large. It suggests mass, like skull, brains and blood, exited with the bullet. Or are we supposed to believe the larger wound on the back of the head happened just because?

So we have a quandry. The explosion from the back of the head, by daint of leaving the larger wound (graphically described as being devoid of brains etc) is apparently not visible, even though proporionately less matter is clearly visible at the front. Why? We see no brains exploding from the back of the head. No exit wound, no lumps of gore for Jackie to be scooping up. And all that pressure and mass at the front is ejected through a small hole with out exploding a big enough wound.

The film clearly supports the shot from behind with the massive exit wound at the front.
 
RoboTimbo said:
I don't think Tippitt had a massive exit wound at the right temple.

Why does the Zapruder film show the massive exit wound at Kennedy's right temple?
Click to expand...


If the image is cropped from the one I last posted, what RP is calling an entry wound is a notch by a flap of skin, the massive exit wound at the front of the head just out of frame. It is odd he doesn't uncrop the photo to prove it includes the apparrent exit wound at the rear. But the only photos I have seen with that, are the Tippit ones.

So it is either JFK heavily cropped to avoid showing what we know is there.
Or it is Tippit, who was not JFK.

Neither is convincing. Especially from a guy who claimed any photo of JFK was faked.
 
Walter Ego said:
I've never said there was an exit wound on JFK's right temple. I've said there was an exit wound in the front of JFK's head which is clearly visible in the Zapruter film, the film that contradicts your Parkland witnesses. Where does that picture you keep posting come from? I thought you said the JFK autopsy photos were under lock and key until 2017.
Click to expand...

Nothing is "clearly visible" in the Z film. Nothing contradicts the Parkland witnesses. An exit wound in the front? What the devil are you talking about? All you can see in the Z film is a blur of blood and tissue sprayed upward which is consistent with a shot from the front using a frangible bullet. The death stare pre-autopsy pic is taken from the HSCA collection by Charles Groden.
 
Robert Prey said:
Nothing is "clearly visible" in the Z film. Nothing contradicts the Parkland witnesses.
Click to expand...

Well, some things are clearly visible. The back of JFKs head still appears to be concave, not convex. The explosion of matter at the front of the head is clearly visible. An exit wound (which according to your sources should have been many times larger than the entry wound at the front) is not seen, despite the "jet effect", an expulsion an order of magnitude smaller being clear.

Why is the spray of the bullet entering so much clearer than the exit spray, which, to cause the wound you describe would HAVE to be many times larger?

Why can't we see any brain tissue leaving the back of the head for poor Jackie to go scooping up?

Why, on the stabilised and optimised version can we see such a small hole behind JFKs ear when he slumps forwards?

ALL of it contradicts the Parkland witnesses.
 
Robert Prey said:
Nothing is "clearly visible" in the Z film. Nothing contradicts the Parkland witnesses. An exit wound in the front? What the devil are you talking about? All you can see in the Z film is a blur of blood and tissue sprayed upward which is consistent with a shot from the front using a frangible bullet. The death stare pre-autopsy pic is taken from the HSCA collection by Charles Groden.
Click to expand...

Glaser Safety Slug, Inc. developed the first frangible bullet in 1974 to provide reduced ricochet and over-penetration danger with improved stopping power over conventional bullets.
Click to expand...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm

What year was the Kennedy Assassination again?
 
Event Horizon wrote:

Quote:
Glaser Safety Slug, Inc. developed the first frangible bullet in 1974 to provide reduced ricochet and over-penetration danger with improved stopping power over conventional bullets.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../frangible.htm

What year was the Kennedy Assassination again?

Comment:
1963

The first Frangible bullets date well prior to 1974. But they were generally called dumdum bullets.

"Expanding bullets were given the name Dum-dum, or dumdum, after an early British example produced in the Dum Dum Arsenal, near Calcutta, India by Captain Neville Bertie-Clay.[1][2] There were several expanding bullets produced by this arsenal for the .303 British cartridge, including soft point and hollow point designs. These were not the first expanding bullets, however; hollow point expanding bullets were commonly used for hunting thin skinned game in express rifles as early as the mid-1870s.[3] The use of the term "Dum-dum", applied to expanding bullets other than the early .303 designs, is considered slang by some.[4] Manufacturers have many terms to describe the particular construction of the various types of expanding bullets, though most fall into the category of soft point or hollow point designs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Nothing is "clearly visible" in the Z film. Nothing contradicts the Parkland witnesses. An exit wound in the front? What the devil are you talking about? All you can see in the Z film is a blur of blood and tissue sprayed upward which is consistent with a shot from the front using a frangible bullet. The death stare pre-autopsy pic is taken from the HSCA collection by Charles Groden.
Click to expand...

"Taken from the HSCA collection" is the only correct thing Robert said here. Groden employed the five-finger discount to obtain the photo from which he turned a nice little profit.

The color photos were obtained by JFK researcher and amateur photographer Robert Groden who served as an upaid consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Groden photographed the color autopsy photos without permission. Groden was paid by "The Globe" tabloid at their 1991 printing of those photos and has also published them in his books.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.htm
Click to expand...

The rest of Robert's post is either willfully obtuse or he is dissembling again. I have not been asking about the wound on the front of JFK's but if a large gaping exit wound is visable on the back of JFK's head in the Z film which, if Robert's theory of a frontal shot from the Grass Knoll is correct, must be visable. The Z film shows no such exit wound on the back of JFK's head. The Z film invalidates Robert's theory.

Robert is avoiding saying if he sees anything of the back of JFK's that even remotely resembles an exit wound as portrayed in that sketch "approved" by his beloved Dr. McCLellan that he himself posted. He can "see" Jackie Kennedy picking up an invisible piece of JFK's brain from the trunk of the limo but he can't tell us what he sees on the back of JFK's head.

My verdict: Robert is dissembling.
 
Robert, you didnt say it was a dum-dum hollow point. You said it was a frangible bullet. That specific kind. If you meant hollow point why say something else?
 
So now dum-dum bullets are the same as frangible rounds that break up into tiny fragments? Yeah, not thinking that's right. Mushrooming of a bullet is not the same as a round that shatters or explodes.
 
Robert: Why in your opinion did the conspirators go to all the trouble of framing a lone "patsy" who was supposed to be firing a certain kind of gun from a very specific location when there were other shooters at other locations, presumably with other kinds of guns? All it would take is a bullet strike in a place that Oswald couldn't possibly have hit, a photo or film taken of one of the other gunmen by any of a hundred witnesses and the lone gunman story falls apart almost immediately. Why not just rely on one sharpshooter in the TSBD?

Why kill Kennedy in such a public fashion where so much could have gone wrong? As others have pointed out, Kennedy was not in the best of health. Surely there was some more subtle way to kill him without involving so many eyewitnesses?

Why kill him at all? What exactly was at stake for your conspirators to consider such a treasonous and foolhardy scheme?

Are you sure you haven't attached yourself to your unwieldy and bizarre narrative (made even more unwieldy and bizarre by trying to bring Ruby, the Tippet murder and Oswald's actions in the theater into account) because you find it more sexy and satisfying than the dismal and depressing tale of a lone nobody who decided to shoot his way into the history books?


BTW: The name of the melon is "honeydew", not "honeydoo".
 
Last edited:
Another Foot Injury For Robert!

kookbreaker said:
So now dum-dum bullets are the same as frangible rounds that break up into tiny fragments? Yeah, not thinking that's right. Mushrooming of a bullet is not the same as a round that shatters or explodes.
Click to expand...

Looks like Robert has shot himself in the foot again though there is some difference of opinion on what type of bullet he used this time. :D
 
RP's chances of coming up with anything original or new are just about the same as Sheldon's getting a Nobel Prize.
Either one is just fiction.
And it's a low grade of masochism to maintain any hope at all for anything original or new.
Wake me up when that millenial event happens by.
 
Please Vote On My JFK Poll

I've started a JFK assassination conspiracy-related poll on the thread linked below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223881

This is the first poll I've ever posted and I screwed it up the first time I tried to post. :o

Please vote on the link and not the screwed-up post. I've requested that the moderators remove my boo-boo post. :o

The poll closes in one week on November 22, the 48th anniversary of the assassination.

PLEASE READ THE OP BEFORE YOU VOTE!

ETA: One of the mods removed the boo-boo thread. Vote on the poll at the above link.
 
Last edited:
Why kill Kennedy in such a public fashion where so much could have gone wrong? As others have pointed out, Kennedy was not in the best of health. Surely there was some more subtle way to kill him without involving so many eyewitnesses?
Click to expand...

Overdose of pain killers for his chronic back condition maybe?

Overdose..like they did when they killed Marilyn....wait no..wasnt that suicide?
And around we go again.
 
JohnG said:
Robert: Why in your opinion did the conspirators go to all the trouble of framing a lone "patsy" who was supposed to be firing a certain kind of gun from a very specific location when there were other shooters at other locations, presumably with other kinds of guns? All it would take is a bullet strike in a place that Oswald couldn't possibly have hit, a photo or film taken of one of the other gunmen by any of a hundred witnesses and the lone gunman story falls apart almost immediately. Why not just rely on one sharpshooter in the TSBD?

Why kill Kennedy in such a public fashion where so much could have gone wrong? As others have pointed out, Kennedy was not in the best of health. Surely there was some more subtle way to kill him without involving so many eyewitnesses?

Why kill him at all? What exactly was at stake for your conspirators to consider such a treasonous and foolhardy scheme?

Are you sure you haven't attached yourself to your unwieldy and bizarre narrative (made even more unwieldy and bizarre by trying to bring Ruby, the Tippet murder and Oswald's actions in the theater into account) because you find it more sexy and satisfying than the dismal and depressing tale of a lone nobody who decided to shoot his way into the history books?


BTW: The name of the melon is "honeydew", not "honeydoo".
Click to expand...

Just one question at at time, please.
 
kookbreaker said:
So now dum-dum bullets are the same as frangible rounds that break up into tiny fragments? Yeah, not thinking that's right. Mushrooming of a bullet is not the same as a round that shatters or explodes.
Click to expand...

Dr. Wecht from day one surmised it was a frangible bullet. There were some 40 small pieces of metal at the front of JFK"s head in the alleged x-ray but no bullet which some claim is evidence of such an exploding bullet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom