JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Walter Ego]

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

So I guess the Z film "unblurred" at that point allowing you to see something no one else can see.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Mis-placed post.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why would all the medical witnesses at Parkland describe a large blow-out wound in the back of the head. Go on record. Were they simply mistaken, or were they engaged in a conspiratorial lie??? Which is it?

Perhaps you would be better off telling us how the wound got there when it is clearly NOT there in the film? And how it went away agin in time for the autopsy.

 

[Robert Prey]

Perhaps you would be better off telling us how the wound got there when it is clearly NOT there in the film? And how it went away agin in time for the autopsy.

So you duck the question? Was it a mistake by all at Parkland or a deliberate lie?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So you duck the question? Was it a mistake by all at Parkland or a deliberate lie?

I have not insuated either. Please don't pretend anybody has. We have already covered the "following material evidence" possition before ad nauseum. But if you are opposed to ducking questions, here are a few you might want to answer that you have ducked so far:

1) Why is the exit wound not visible on the Z film?
2) Why is the exit ejecta not visible on the Z film?
3) Why are the parkland statements not compatible with your Frangible Bullet theory?
4) How did all that ejecta from the "entry" wound leave the body while causing a perfect entry wound for a solid bullet?
5) Why is there no spatter on the top of the seats or the trunk?
6) Why is the blood soaked shirt consistant with JFK being shot in the back?
7) How was JFK shot in the back if the shooter was on the Grassy Gnoll?
8) At what point DOES the exit wound described by Parkland become visible, if it is invisible at the time of the Z film?

You wont be holding a double standard here would you? Accusing others of ducking when you supply no answers yourself?

 

[Robert Prey]

I have not insuated either. Please don't pretend anybody has. We have already covered the "following material evidence" possition before ad nauseum. But if you are opposed to ducking questions, here are a few you might want to answer that you have ducked so far:

1) Why is the exit wound not visible on the Z film?
2) Why is the exit ejecta not visible on the Z film?
3) Why are the parkland statements not compatible with your Frangible Bullet theory?
4) How did all that ejecta from the "entry" wound leave the body while causing a perfect entry wound for a solid bullet?
5) Why is there no spatter on the top of the seats or the trunk?
6) Why is the blood soaked shirt consistant with JFK being shot in the back?
7) How was JFK shot in the back if the shooter was on the Grassy Gnoll?
8) At what point DOES the exit wound described by Parkland become visible, if it is invisible at the time of the Z film?

You wont be holding a double standard here would you? Accusing others of ducking when you supply no answers yourself?

So now you duck the question 3 times. Frame 362 shows the object, briefly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdgRADuzdo0&feature=player_detailpage#t=0s

 

[Robert Prey]

Perhaps you would be better off telling us how the wound got there when it is clearly NOT there in the film? And how it went away agin in time for the autopsy.

And how about the autopsy photographers who say the autopsy photos in evidence are not the ones they took? Are they also lying? And also the technician who developed them? Is she lying too? Or merely mistaken.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snipped flooding>

And yet the website you posted earlier (which caused one of your many foot injuries) that talked about entry/exit wounds says exactly the opposite. And the video you posted earlier (another shot to your poor feet) showed what an exit wound looks like. Just like the right front of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film.

How do you account for the discrepancy between the reality of the large exit wound to the right front of JFK's head and your cherry picked quote? Do you think physics books should be rewritten based on that quote? Are yoiu saying that all physicists are mistaken or lying?

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

The Parkland docs didn't see any 'blur." Just a head blown-out in the back from a shot to the front.

 

[Robert Prey]

And yet the website you posted earlier (which caused one of your many foot injuries) that talked about entry/exit wounds says exactly the opposite. And the video you posted earlier (another shot to your poor feet) showed what an exit wound looks like. Just like the right front of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film.

How do you account for the discrepancy between the reality of the large exit wound to the right front of JFK's head and your cherry picked quote? Do you think physics books should be rewritten based on that quote? Are yoiu saying that all physicists are mistaken or lying?

How do you account for no such wound being seen in the death stare photo?
And how to you account for all of the Parkland witnesses seeing a large blow-out in the back of the head? Were they all lying, or simply mistaken?????

 

[RoboTimbo]

How do you account for no such wound being seen in the death stare photo?
And how to you account for all of the Parkland witnesses seeing a large blow-out in the back of the head? Were they all lying, or simply mistaken?????

Interesting how you now claim that all witnesses at Parkland seeing a large blowout in the back of the head. Do you have a citation for all witnesses at Parkland seeing that?

Also, answer the questions. Here they are again for your convenience. Sorry that reality isn't so convenient for you.

And yet the website you posted earlier (which caused one of your many foot injuries) that talked about entry/exit wounds says exactly the opposite. And the video you posted earlier (another shot to your poor feet) showed what an exit wound looks like. Just like the right front of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film.

How do you account for the discrepancy between the reality of the large exit wound to the right front of JFK's head and your cherry picked quote? Do you think physics books should be rewritten based on that quote? Are yoiu saying that all physicists are mistaken or lying?

 

[Walter Ego]

Interesting how you now claim that all witnesses at Parkland seeing a large blowout in the back of the head. Do you have a citation for all witnesses at Parkland seeing that?

I believe it started out as 30 witnesses and now it's "everybody" who saw the exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head (the one that's invisible in the Z film). Next it will be everyone in the parking lot and the motorists driving by on Stemmons Freeway who saw it too.

 

[bynmdsue]

What was the total weight of the bullet fragments recovered from the President's skull?

 

[tsig]

So I guess the Z film "unblurred" at that point allowing you to see something no one else can see.

The film is too blurry to be used as evidence unless RP wants to use it to 'prove' something, then it's quite sharp.

I think the goal of Kennedy CTers is to present gory enough pics so that ordinary people get grossed out and quit leaving them to claim victory.

 

[I Ratant]

...

Deal with it.

.
I and thousands of others have. What you have been told by some other Twinkie is not an entrance wound.
Those novelists prey (Ha!) on you guys, they know their audience.

 

[Walter Ego]

The film is too blurry to be used as evidence unless RP wants to use it to 'prove' something, then it's quite sharp.

Robert has also said the Z film is a Rorschach test allowing people to see what they want to see. So Robert can "see" Jackie Kennedy picking up a piece of JFK's brain from the trunk of the presidential limousine because he needs it to be there in order to prove his claim of a rear exit wound.

The actual Z film doesn't show any brain tissue or skull fragments on the trunk or on the back of the seat where Kennedy was sitting of course. Those of us not in Robert World cannot see what Robert can see.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
The jacketed Carcano bullet has an open base. Lead particles were extruded from that as it passed from the rear to the front through the brain.
The impact on the rear of the skull distorted the shape of the bullet.
My friend Howard Donahue took those lead particles as being left by the .223 bullet fired by the Secret Service agent in the follow-up limosine.
Howard is a forensics expert.
His premise is wrong, and he's retracted it, but the lead debris trail is not unusual.
CE-399s unjacketed base.

 

[I Ratant]

...
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.

.
From the Moorman Polaroid.... AFTER the head wound..
I won't point out the obvious lack of damage to the rear of the head.
Really I won't.

 

[I Ratant]

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?

.
Another repeat.
The head wound bullet after entering the head from the rear, exited the front, and, typical of the Carcano bullet began tumbling. All the forensics authorities have testified to this tumbling.
The bullet went -forward- and impacted the chrome edging at the top of the windshield, fragmented there... fragments were picked up in the front seat area and are in evidence, as is the impact impression of the bullet in the chrome.
A small fragm....
Screw it.
This has been posted before, it's casting pearls in front of swine to deal with you.

 

[EventHorizon]

So now you duck the question 3 times. Frame 362 shows the object, briefly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdgRADuzdo0&feature=player_detailpage#t=0s

This is hypocrisy on a level I've rarely seen. The audacity to accuse someone else of ducking questions combined with a claim that something can be clearly seen in a film that is previously claimed to be too blurry to see anything clearly. This is stunning.