• 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.
Robert Prey said:
Still looking for that massive exit wound to the right temple????

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg
Click to expand...

No. Im looking for the post where you "answered" a key issue. Namely that you purport both a small entry wound at the front of the head, and that small entry wound appearing on the zfilm as a ejection of mass too large to be anything other than a fragmenting bullet exploding on impact.

Where did you reconcile two conflicting ideas? Why supply the answer to something I didnt ask?
 
TheRedWorm said:
So a highly cropped photo of a part of a devastating exit wound is supposed to show a what, exactly?
Click to expand...

Well, the obvious thing it would prove if it showed what Robert thinks, is that the mass ejected from JFKs head in the Z film is not compatible with the picture. There is no way that ejection came from the small hole Rob claims. (Mind you, there is no way a Frangible bullet doing that damage leaves such a small hole. All that mass has to escape the head somewhere).

Of course we all know in the uncropped version you can see an exit wound at the front of the head that does indeed match the exit wound profile. The irony of course being that if Rob had uncropped the image he would have to explain the lack of explosive exit wound at the back of the head.

His own Frangible Bullet explanation has no way of reconciling with his "best" witness evidence. The Parkland doctors cant be trusted if they saw a teeny tiny entry wound where there should have been a huge shotgun blast like wound that caused the "backwash" of jetisoned matter.

Of course, as the Z film shows an entry wound behind JFKs ear, and allows us to see further impacts down range from the TSBD, his entire evidence base is flawed, and relies upon annectdotes.

Oh, and it also strongly suggests that Rob has trouble telling "video" from "pictorial".
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
I dol not address questions that have already been repeatedly answered. If you are comforted by your fantasy, then good for you.
Click to expand...

LOL! You've never answered it but you'll feel much better once you do.

Why does the Zapruder film show a mass of ejecta out of the exit wound to the right front of JRK's head?

Don't you remember your self-inflicted gunshot wounds to your feet when you posted a website (which you apparently didn't read) about entry and exit wounds? Don't you remember the further devastating injury to your feet with the video you posted (which you apparently didn't watch) showing a mass of ejecta from exit wounds?

You post such funny things. You can always pretend we're laughing with you, I suppose.
 
From the video-film comparison..
What a large hole there is, on the exit side.
 

Attachments

  • ShootingMelon-Zframe-316.jpg
    ShootingMelon-Zframe-316.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 5
Tomtomkent said:
So call you statement nonsense. Then vindicate it by confirming it is hearsay and testemony, not material evidence. So I was speaking factually correct nonsense then?
Click to expand...

You mean like E. Howrd Hunt's death bed confession? Hearsay? not material? Or a quote from Tip O'neil'l's book by Tip O'Neill? I think you are confused. Again.
 
Robert Prey said:
Pick your poison. Cropped or uncropped.
Click to expand...

Robert, why does the Zapruder film show a massive exit wound in the right front of JFK's head, indicating a shot from the rear?

Did someone shoot him from the front after the end of the Zapruder film so that we don't see it? Did they switch heads on the way to Parkland?

Any chance you can answer honestly without shooting yourself in the foot or whacking your thumb with a hammer again?
 
Robert Prey said:
So is it an inney or an outtey? Oh, you can tell for sure, eh?
Click to expand...
.
Oh hell yes.
Based on -all- the information, starting with the Zapruder film, the autopsy, the damage to the limosine, the head wound bullet came from behind.
The response of all targets shot from one direction always shows the response seen in the Zapruder film, and every test shot ever made to dispute or confirm the direction of the head wound bullet.
There are no videos or sensible evidence that support a shot from the front.
As you're stuck on that idiot's lying about the autopsy photograph, you can't disprove dick about the head wound.
Nor anything else.
Pathetic.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Oh hell yes.
Based on -all- the information, starting with the Zapruder film, the autopsy, the damage to the limosine, the head wound bullet came from behind.
The response of all targets shot from one direction always shows the response seen in the Zapruder film, and every test shot ever made to dispute or confirm the direction of the head wound bullet.
There are no videos or sensible evidence that support a shot from the front.
As you're stuck on that idiot's lying about the autopsy photograph, you can't disprove dick about the head wound.
Nor anything else.
Pathetic.
Click to expand...


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Deal with it.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Cropped or un-cropped, it's still an exit wound. Bullets do not behave in the manner you seem to think they do. If you were even remotely honest when you indicated that you have fired a gun, you should know this.
Click to expand...

A combat-hardened ex-Marine and police sharpshooter Craig Roberts, author of "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza", asked,

"How in the world could anyone look at that {Zapruder} film and say that the fatal head strike had come from the rear? The so-called experts who stated that the rearward jerk of Kennedy's head was due to 'muscle reaction,' 'jet force from an erupting bullet' or some other violation of the laws of physics, had obviously never served in combat, where witnessing high-velocity bullet strikes was commonplace...

"Some of the supporters of the Warren Commission...stated that the bullet came from the rear because the eruption of brain matter and blood came out of the front of the president's skull. I saw something else. In a head shot, the exit wound, due to the buildup of hydrostatic pressure, explodes in a conical formation in the down-range direction of the bullet. Yet in the Zapruder film, I could plainly see that the eruption was not a conical shape to the front of the limo, but instead was an explosion that cast fragments both up and down in a vertical plane, and side to side in a horizontal plane. There was only one explanation for this: an exploding or 'frangible' bullet. Such a round explodes on impact--in exactly the manner depicted in the film."

http://www.jfklancer.com/sbt-1.html
 
RoboTimbo said:
Robert, why does the Zapruder film show a massive exit wound in the right front of JFK's head, indicating a shot from the rear?

Did someone shoot him from the front after the end of the Zapruder film so that we don't see it? Did they switch heads on the way to Parkland?

Any chance you can answer honestly without shooting yourself in the foot or whacking your thumb with a hammer again?
Click to expand...


A combat-hardened ex-Marine and police sharpshooter Craig Roberts, author of "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza", asked,

"How in the world could anyone look at that {Zapruder} film and say that the fatal head strike had come from the rear? The so-called experts who stated that the rearward jerk of Kennedy's head was due to 'muscle reaction,' 'jet force from an erupting bullet' or some other violation of the laws of physics, had obviously never served in combat, where witnessing high-velocity bullet strikes was commonplace...

"Some of the supporters of the Warren Commission...stated that the bullet came from the rear because the eruption of brain matter and blood came out of the front of the president's skull. I saw something else. In a head shot, the exit wound, due to the buildup of hydrostatic pressure, explodes in a conical formation in the down-range direction of the bullet. Yet in the Zapruder film, I could plainly see that the eruption was not a conical shape to the front of the limo, but instead was an explosion that cast fragments both up and down in a vertical plane, and side to side in a horizontal plane. There was only one explanation for this: an exploding or 'frangible' bullet. Such a round explodes on impact--in exactly the manner depicted in the film."






http://www.jfklancer.com/sbt-1.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom