JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Sure. Explain which of those is material evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Deal with it.

It has been dealt with. Many times over. That is a highly cropped part ofa larger image. The image shows the exit wound and has been posted here several times. Some of them by me.

Deal with that.

Then explain why you think your "evidence" of a small entry wound fits with a frangible bullet YOU claimed exploded on impact. Were you wrong about that now you insist you have a cropped image of a small entry wound? Fine, just tell everybody you were wrong and retract the idea.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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."

Assume that is right; how can such an explosion key with your cropped image of a very small "entry wound"? Seriously can you not see why two pieces of your "evidence" can NOT be compatible?
Really?

Heres a hint: If the bullet exploded and ejected all that matter like a shotgun blast, it does not leave the same kind of hole a fmj bullet. It leaves a much bigger, more devastating impactcrater. Which is NOT in the cropped image.

Both can't be true. So which was?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The massive right temple exit wound -- that is missing.

Not from the uncropped version. Its been posted here before, in a pictorial ink not your video. The entry wound you point at is the exit notch bellow the exit wound.


But assume for a second you are right Rob. Where is the evidence in that picture a frangible bullet exploded?

 

[Robert Prey]

Assume that is right; how can such an explosion key with your cropped image of a very small "entry wound"? Seriously can you not see why two pieces of your "evidence" can NOT be compatible?
Really?

Heres a hint: If the bullet exploded and ejected all that matter like a shotgun blast, it does not leave the same kind of hole a fmj bullet. It leaves a much bigger, more devastating impactcrater. Which is NOT in the cropped image.

Both can't be true. So which was?

Nonsense. You don't know what kind of a hole it would leave.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not from the uncropped version. Its been posted here before, in a pictorial ink not your video. The entry wound you point at is the exit notch bellow the exit wound.


But assume for a second you are right Rob. Where is the evidence in that picture a frangible bullet exploded?

The "explosion" is the escaping blood and tissue. But there are 40 pieces of metal in the x-ray of the head. The explosion of the bullet is internal.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nonsense. You don't know what kind of a hole it would leave.

Really? So you don't think forensic science has reached a point where it can compare entry. Wounds made by different ammunition?

Or do you think the mass projected by the exploding bullet would not have come from a hole made by the bullet? You think the hole made by a solid projectile penetrating a medium is the same as a projectile fragmenting? Then why would the ejecta appear different Rob? We know it MUST appear different for your source to recognise it. Otherwise how would he be able to describe the bullet used?

Your ignorance here seems astounding.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The "explosion" is the escaping blood and tissue. But there are 40 pieces of metal in the x-ray of the head. The explosion of the bullet is internal.

So, the explosion was internal? Not on impact? So your source was wrong?

Ok, how did all that matter come out of the head, in different direction, when streamed through such a small hole? And how did it get pushed back uprange against the direction of trauma and force?

The bullet punches through the skull and fragments. A cloud of mass, brains, skull, blood and tissue is ejected. How? Through a teeny hole? Then it travels in one direction, like water out a hose. Was you describe is a multi lateral explosion. How does the mass explode from the head in different directions if it is funnelled through a perfect entry eound hole?

It cant. It would create a massive wound when ejecting.

 

[Robert Prey]

So, the explosion was internal? Not on impact? So your source was wrong?

Ok, how did all that matter come out of the head, in different direction, when streamed through such a small hole? And how did it get pushed back uprange against the direction of trauma and force?

The bullet punches through the skull and fragments. A cloud of mass, brains, skull, blood and tissue is ejected. How? Through a teeny hole? Then it travels in one direction, like water out a hose. Was you describe is a multi lateral explosion. How does the mass explode from the head in different directions if it is funnelled through a perfect entry eound hole?

It cant. It would create a massive wound when ejecting.

That's just a lot of convenient theorizing. But you don't really know. Fact is, the best evidence of t shot from the front is the back of the head blasted outward as described by all the Parkland personnel. And that is what you and McAdams and Posner and the Bug Man just can't deal with.

 

[Robert Prey]

Really? So you don't think forensic science has reached a point where it can compare entry. Wounds made by different ammunition?

Or do you think the mass projected by the exploding bullet would not have come from a hole made by the bullet? You think the hole made by a solid projectile penetrating a medium is the same as a projectile fragmenting? Then why would the ejecta appear different Rob? We know it MUST appear different for your source to recognise it. Otherwise how would he be able to describe the bullet used?

Your ignorance here seems astounding.

What is the color of the spray? Seems to me it's blood red. What does that tell you?


NSFW - Graphic Image

 

[Tomtomkent]

That's just a lot of convenient theorizing. But you don't really know. Fact is, the best evidence of t shot from the front is the back of the head blasted outward as described by all the Parkland personnel. And that is what you and McAdams and Posner and the Bug Man just can't deal with.

What is the color of the spray? Seems to me it's blood red. What does that tell you?

Well, it "seems to you" is hardly evidence. Calling the laws of physics "convenient theorizing" doesn't change them. But I'm game, let's pretend it is all just blood (and never mind the inconvenient facts like what else a head is made of, and what will actually be in the head to be pushed out of the hole). It doesn't change the reason why your source claims to be able to tell the billet was fragmenting. It doesn't alter the trajectory and behaviour of the ejecta. If it were blood, forced through a small hole, as your source rightly claims the trajectory would be in a small cone. Instead it it is a multi-lateral explosion, not consistent with the parkland description.

But here is an idea Rob. Why not look again at the frame you posted. Not for the colour of the ejecta. Why don't you point to me where on that frame, or any other frame, there is the massive exit wound that IS consistent with the Parkland statements.

You are insisting the Parkland statements were accurate right? You want to know how we "deal" with them? We point to the filmed evidence and state that there is no sign of the exit wound to the back of the head as they describe. So why not counter that argument by highlighting it to me.

Show me on the Z Film where the large exit wound can be seen on the back of JFKs head. He slumps forward during the film. The whole of the back of his head is visible. Show me the exit wound. Please.

Infact, better yet show it to me in the photograph you keep posting. Get a copy of the uncropped version and show me the exit wound to match your "entry wound". Show me the Parkland statements are consistent with your material evidence. You can do that right?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The "explosion" is the escaping blood and tissue. But there are 40 pieces of metal in the x-ray of the head. The explosion of the bullet is internal.

Woah! Hang on, Blood and tissue? Wait a second...

What is the color of the spray? Seems to me it's blood red. What does that tell you?

So it's only

a lot of convenient theorizing

when others do it? So how did that tissue get out of the body? Where is the tissue damage around the entry wound? Perhaps this is the flaw you

just can't deal with.

You are making a theory from all these pieces that don't fit together Robert.

 

[jargon buster]

attention Robert Prey
I wonder if this could explain your problems with the front and back of the head.

Was Kennedy actually kneeling down in the back of the car facing the wrong way?

 

[Robert Prey]

Woah! Hang on, Blood and tissue? Wait a second...



So it's only when others do it? So how did that tissue get out of the body? Where is the tissue damage around the entry wound? Perhaps this is the flaw you

You are making a theory from all these pieces that don't fit together Robert.

The entry wound is visible on the right temple as a round, symmetrical circle, just as ballistic forensics says it should be. On the other hand, the exit wound should be large and jagged and protuberant. You sure can't see that at the right temple in the death stare photograph. Are you suggesting that the death stare photograph may be a fraud?

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, it "seems to you" is hardly evidence. Calling the laws of physics "convenient theorizing" doesn't change them. But I'm game, let's pretend it is all just blood (and never mind the inconvenient facts like what else a head is made of, and what will actually be in the head to be pushed out of the hole). It doesn't change the reason why your source claims to be able to tell the billet was fragmenting. It doesn't alter the trajectory and behaviour of the ejecta. If it were blood, forced through a small hole, as your source rightly claims the trajectory would be in a small cone. Instead it it is a multi-lateral explosion, not consistent with the parkland description.

But here is an idea Rob. Why not look again at the frame you posted. Not for the colour of the ejecta. Why don't you point to me where on that frame, or any other frame, there is the massive exit wound that IS consistent with the Parkland statements.

You are insisting the Parkland statements were accurate right? You want to know how we "deal" with them? We point to the filmed evidence and state that there is no sign of the exit wound to the back of the head as they describe. So why not counter that argument by highlighting it to me.

Show me on the Z Film where the large exit wound can be seen on the back of JFKs head. He slumps forward during the film. The whole of the back of his head is visible. Show me the exit wound. Please.

Infact, better yet show it to me in the photograph you keep posting. Get a copy of the uncropped version and show me the exit wound to match your "entry wound". Show me the Parkland statements are consistent with your material evidence. You can do that right?

The massive exit wound in the back is not seen, until examined by the Parkland docs. But there certainly is plenty of blood on the seat of the limo and on the back of JFK's shirt, and the brains or skull that Jackie retrieved from the trunk. When you wake up in the morning, and the sky is clear, but there is water everywhere, you can logically conclude that during the night, it rained.

 

[jargon buster]

and the brains or skull that Jackie retrieved from the trunk.

Evidence please?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The massive exit wound in the back is not seen, until examined by the Parkland docs. But there certainly is plenty of blood on the seat of the limo and on the back of JFK's shirt, and the brains or skull that Jackie retrieved from the trunk.

Hmm. Perhaps you didn't understand the question. I asked where on the Z film I might be able to see the massive exit wound on the back of JFKs head?

You seem to have listed other things instead. Never mind. Let's assume you can't see it, and can't explain the discrepency with your own theory. Instead lets address what you have just said:

Regardless of who first noticed it, an exit wound to the back of his must have been there as soon as he was shot from the frint. You claim the ejecta was from the entry wound, it stands to reason a fraction of a second later a bullet would have exited from the rear of the head, and you describe the exit wound as being far larger and massive than the entry wound. From your own statement you are claiming that Jackie is retrieving brains from the back of the trunk. So where is the exit wound? Why can't we see it on the Z film? Why do we not see blood brains and skull being blown out the back of his head as Parkland Doctors described? Or are you suggesting this happened some time AFTER he was shot? Or, if the bullet fragments were in the head still, are your Parkland sources wrong about there being an exit wound AT ALL?

Why is the back of the seat clean of blood? There in the phot you posted of the limo the blood has pooled at the BOTTOM of the seat. There is no blood or brains on the back, or at the top of the seat. There is no blood or brains visible on the trunk of the car. How is this consistent with your theory? How did the blood and brains get from the back of JFKs head, to the bottom of the seat, with out being sprayed over the back of the seat or back of the car?

Why are the bloodstains on the back of JFKs shirt consistant with him being shot in the back. From behind. BEFORE he was shot in the head at all? (Even if you ascribe the fatal head shot to a shooter from the front, which you persistantly fail to do, you have yet to explain the wound to his back).

Why do we not see any ejecta from the back of the head? Why can we not see anything for Jackie to be scooping up?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and out of interest if I stay awake at night, and don't see any rain, or somebody films my garden over night and there is no rain, I reasonably assume the water is dew. You know why? Because if it rained, I would have seen it. Or it would be on the film.

Of course, you have yet to prove that Jackie WAS retrieving invisible brains from and invisible exitwound.

 

[Walter Ego]

Evidence please?

Asked and not answered. This thread has become so long that the same items are being rediscussed over and over. It might help newcomers if they read back a few pages. Robert has presented no evidence that Jackie Kennedy crawled across the trunk to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull or brain matter. That is just one of his many assertions.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The massive exit wound in the back is not seen, until examined by the Parkland docs.

I'm sorry, but I really do have to wonder how this stops it being visible on the Z film.

Lets assume I went and mugged an old lady and left her dead. I may well be caught on CCTV, but because nobody saw me until later I can't be seen on the recording? Really? Is that how the world works?

In the Z film JFK slumps forwards and exposes the back of his head to us. There is not a massive exit wound in sight. His head remains convex and is not concave. Yet Rob would have us believe the bullet wound has blasted a massive exit wound and spread brains over the back of the car for Jackie to retrieve.

Now either the laws of Causality are in jeopardy and Jackie is retrieving brains yet to be blasted or Rob is wrong.

So at what point will the massive head wound be created on the back of JFKs head? When the Doctor sees it? In the ambulance? What was the bullet doing in poor Jacks head all that time?