JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Evidence please?

Larry KIng Live nterview With Nellie Connally

Aired November 22, 2003 - 21:00 ET


CONNALLY: Well, I couldn't see it because I had the weight -- I had pulled John over in my lap to get him out of the line of fire. And I couldn't move. But I heard the third shot and then, bloody matter, like buck shot, little pieces were all over the interior of the car, all over our clothes.

KING: Was that Kennedy's brain?

CONNALLY: That was his head and I guess, his brain. And she said, "They've killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/22/lkl.00.html

 

[Walter Ego]

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?

Robert understands the question perfectly, he has just been avoiding answering it. The Z film invalidates Robert's theory of a head shot from the Grassy Knoll and he knows it.

I'm not sure what he hasn't just taken the easy way out of his dilemma by just claiming the Z film has been altered by the conspirators to conform with the official story. Several of his beloved assassination "researchers" like James Fetzer and David Lifton have taken this leap but Robert is hanging back. Maybe he realizes just how nutty those claims are.

 

[jargon buster]

Robert, you are just taking the urine.
What on earth has your last post got to do with your argument?

I had pulled John over in my lap to get him out of the line of fire.

What line of fire, was it from the rear or from the front?

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

They never found a bullet in Jack's head -- only tiny metal fragments, as one might expect from a frangible bullet. Nor did they ever find any intact bullet in the front of the limo. If it blasted through his head in the front, why shouldn't they be able to find it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

They never found a bullet in Jack's head -- only tiny metal fragments, as one might expect from a frangible bullet. Nor did they ever find any intact bullet in the front of the limo. If it blasted through his head in the front, why shouldn't they be able to find it?

Sorry, are you now suggesting those metal fragments are not the bullet? Because if they were the fragments that formed the bullet that does mean the bullet was in the head (all those little bits equal one whole bullet right?), which again would bring the Parkland testemony into dispute?

But if the Parkland testemony is correct why can we not see the exit wound on the Z film?

You can't have it both ways Rob. You offer something as "evidence" for your theory it has to fit with your theory. At the moment your "evidence" contradict each other.

 

[jargon buster]

If it blasted through his head in the front, why shouldn't they be able to find it?

If it blasted through his head in the back, why shouldn't they be able to find it?

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert understands the question perfectly, he has just been avoiding answering it. The Z film invalidates Robert's theory of a head shot from the Grassy Knoll and he knows it.

I'm not sure what he hasn't just taken the easy way out of his dilemma by just claiming the Z film has been altered by the conspirators to conform with the official story. Several of his beloved assassination "researchers" like James Fetzer and David Lifton have taken this leap but Robert is hanging back. Maybe he realizes just how nutty those claims are.

Well, I"ve proven beyond any doubt that the backyard photos were forged. There is no reason to think the same could not have been done with the Z film, but that is not necessary. Fact is, if you are honest, you will admit that the Z film is a blur, and nothing regarding the back of the head can be discerned from it. But the wounds --- that tells the story.

 

[Robert Prey]

If it blasted through his head in the back, why shouldn't they be able to find it?

Because it probably was a frangible bullet, the fragments of which remained in his head, which some claim are seen on the x-rays.

 

[jargon buster]

Well, I"ve proven beyond any doubt that the backyard photos were forged. There is no reason to think the same could not have been done with the Z film, but that is not necessary. Fact is, if you are honest, you will admit that the Z film is a blur, and nothing regarding the back of the head can be discerned from it. But the wounds --- that tells the story.

 

[Walter Ego]

Larry KIng Live nterview With Nellie Connally

Aired November 22, 2003 - 21:00 ET


CONNALLY: Well, I couldn't see it because I had the weight -- I had pulled John over in my lap to get him out of the line of fire. And I couldn't move. But I heard the third shot and then, bloody matter, like buck shot, little pieces were all over the interior of the car, all over our clothes.

KING: Was that Kennedy's brain?

CONNALLY: That was his head and I guess, his brain. And she said, "They've killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/22/lkl.00.html

Robert, you said Jackie Kennedy crawled across the trunk of the presidential limousine to retrieve a piece of JFK's brain. This quote is not evidence of your claim. Nellie Connally said the blood and tissue was on the interior of the car. This is a very bizarre way of trying to back up your claim of a head wound on the back of JFK's head.

Is is not disputed that Jackie was clutching a piece of JFK's skull or brain in Parkland Hospital that she tried to give to one of the doctors. We are asking you (again) how you know the intentions of a woman who is now dead in crawling out of the limo.

 

[jargon buster]

Because it probably was a frangible bullet, the fragments of which remained in his head, which some claim are seen on the x-rays.

I thought we were discussing the exit /entry wounds as opposed to the type of bullet?
Who cares what type of bullet it was?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, I"ve proven beyond any doubt that the backyard photos were forged. There is no reason to think the same could not have been done with the Z film, but that is not necessary. Fact is, if you are honest, you will admit that the Z film is a blur, and nothing regarding the back of the head can be discerned from it. But the wounds --- that tells the story.

Really, so why would a concave exit wound look like a convex in tact back of the head in the film?

Why do we not see an blood or body matter splatter over the trunk or top of the seats in the photograph?

Why would the entry ejecta be visible but not the exit ejecta?

How can you tell Jackie is grabbing at brains and skull in the Z film?

How can your source have been so sure the film was consistent with a franagible bullet if he can't have seen anything?

Why does the late show interview not fit the timing of the film? Why does it suggest Jackie said she had brains in her hand BEFORE retrieving them?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I thought we were discussing the exit /entry wounds as opposed to the type of bullet?
Who cares what type of bullet it was?

Because in Robert World only frangible bullets leave trace metal when they deform. And in Robert world there can be an exit wound with out and exit. Of course, if the bullet did break up, that does not mean it ALL remained in the head. Especially as he is trying to support a claim that the head was effectively empty with all brain matter ejected by the exit wound. Apparrently none of the bullet went with it. Which defies physics once again.

 

[Robert Prey]

Really, so why would a concave exit wound look like a convex in tact back of the head in the film?

Why do we not see an blood or body matter splatter over the trunk or top of the seats in the photograph?

Why would the entry ejecta be visible but not the exit ejecta?

How can you tell Jackie is grabbing at brains and skull in the Z film?

How can your source have been so sure the film was consistent with a franagible bullet if he can't have seen anything?

Why does the late show interview not fit the timing of the film? Why does it suggest Jackie said she had brains in her hand BEFORE retrieving them?

Actually, I do see an object on the trunk as both Jackie and Clint Hill appear to be reaching for it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Actually, I do see an object on the trunk as both Jackie and Clint Hill appear to be reaching for it.

Oh good. Point it out to us on a still.

Then explain:
Why there is no visible exit wound.
Why there is no visible ejecta.
How you are able to discern the object is a brain.
Why there is no sign of splatter over the top of the seats or the trunk in the photograph.
Why the uncropped photograph you claim to be evidence does not show an exit wound at the back of the head.

 

[Robert Prey]

Sorry, are you now suggesting those metal fragments are not the bullet? Because if they were the fragments that formed the bullet that does mean the bullet was in the head (all those little bits equal one whole bullet right?), which again would bring the Parkland testemony into dispute?

Full Metal Jacketed bullets normally do not fragment.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, you said Jackie Kennedy crawled across the trunk of the presidential limousine to retrieve a piece of JFK's brain. This quote is not evidence of your claim. Nellie Connally said the blood and tissue was on the interior of the car. This is a very bizarre way of trying to back up your claim of a head wound on the back of JFK's head.

Is is not disputed that Jackie was clutching a piece of JFK's skull or brain in Parkland Hospital that she tried to give to one of the doctors. We are asking you (again) how you know the intentions of a woman who is now dead in crawling out of the limo.

"I have his brains in my hand" was obviously contemporanous to the shot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Full Metal Jacketed bullets normally do not fragment.

They do not COMPLETELY fragment, but any bullet that deforms can leave trace fragments, depending on the stress of impact, range and other factors. The fragments in the x-ray do not solely point to a fragmentation round of some description, they can be traces left by other kinds of bullet. Especially, as discussed at length previously, the entry wounds offered by the autopsy (behind the ear) or the exit notch you are claiming to be an entry wound are not consistant with the bullet fragmenting on impact.

 

[Tomtomkent]

"I have his brains in my hand" was obviously contemporanous to the shot.

Yes, but the interview makes it sound immediatley after the shot. Not after she has got up, retrieved the brain, and got back into the car. The brains are described as spattering in the interior, which makes one wonder why she would NEED to retrieve it from the trunk?

Clearly you are fishing. This is not supporting your claim.

 

[Walter Ego]

Well, I"ve proven beyond any doubt that the backyard photos were forged. There is no reason to think the same could not have been done with the Z film, but that is not necessary. Fact is, if you are honest, you will admit that the Z film is a blur, and nothing regarding the back of the head can be discerned from it. But the wounds --- that tells the story.

Translation: The photographic evidence Z film invalidates my claim of a head shot from the front. Rather than saying it's a fake like the backyard photos, I'm just hand waving it away as a "blur." This is how we explain away inconvenient evidence in Robert World.