JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

So rob doesn't know what liars I fantasised about, well, lets look at some of his quoted text:

O'Neil: "That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.

"You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the

So he said something, that was not true. He lied. Not reliable.

The quotes of Mariane stating she DID take the photos after all have been pointed out to many times to bother repeating.

 

[I Ratant]

...

Fifteen-year-old Amos Euins saw "what I thought was a pipe" and he saw "the rifle laying across [the sniper's] hand,and I could see his hand on the trigger." After the third shot, Euins remembered the sniper "pulled the gun back into the window." (WC Vol. 2 page 204)

Euins recalling what he saw on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza:

.
That clip was part of a longer episode last night on [Nat Geo] where the first shot is examined.
Some of the movies taken have been nicely enhanced.
The Nix film shows a person in that window.
There is an interesting "hole"? in the traffic light, seen in the FBI reenactment movie.
Someone might try to duplicate a shot with that physical orientation through a similar light, and observe what the bullet does.

 

[I Ratant]

Oswald claimed to be a Marxist, but actually was a loyal patriotic American who loved his country.... LOL stuff clipped...anti-Castro groups at the same time. Someday, when the full truth is accepted, he should be posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom.

.
You seriously out it.

 

[I Ratant]

As demonstrated by Robert, the mental gymnastics you have to go through to believe in a conspiracy are astonishing.

.
There's professional assistance available, and medications.

 

[I Ratant]

Hey! did anyone catch JFK:The Lost Bullet on NatGeo last night? Great stuff, hi-def Zapruder(well as hi-def as possible) and Nix films, Amos Euins and James Tague back down in the plaza and an interesting theory on Oswald's missing bullet.

.
That was nicely done.

 

[Robert Prey]

So rob doesn't know what liars I fantasised about, well, lets look at some of his quoted text:


So he said something, that was not true. He lied. Not reliable.

Lying to the WC at the behest and the pressure of the FBI is very different from a witness, with poor eyesight, claiming to see an assassin from afar, thru a window pane, and then seeing the alleged Perp on TV the same day but unable to ID him the same night in a police lineup, then subsequently revising his story time and again. Get the difference?

Nah!

 

[Robert Prey]

Stunning. And if John Hinckley ever gets out of psychiatric prison we can present him with a medal awarded on live television jointly presented by Yoko Ono and Jodie Foster... and an award to you at the same time for making so many false statements in a single paragraph.

Oswald's Russian was self-taught and not "fluent" as members of the Dallas Russian émigré community could have told you. His refusal to let Marina learn English was, in part, so his barely adequate Russian wouldn't deteriorate. (And, speaking of Maria, was wife beating of her was part of his "cover"?)

And he was such "big slash" with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (the leadership of which told him not to try to organize in New Orleans) that he had to have Marina sign the name of his alias A. Hidell on a membership card so it would look like there was more than one member besides himself in his New Orleans "chapter." And his clumsy attempts to infiltrate anti-Castro groups were more or less proof that he was not an intelligence operative.

(Oswald was in fact such a pathetic **** up that the KGB would not touch him with a ten foot pole when he was in Russia and did not believe the CIA would employee him. Or was being a pathetic **** part of the "cover" too?)

And while we're on the subject of multiple murders, is there anyone else you would care to praise and reward with a medal? Charlie Manson perhaps? Maybe he was a patsy. Can you prove he wasn't?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you can lead a Lone Nutter to the truth, but you can't make him take his head out of the sand. You are still hopelessly filled with the brainwash presented by the government and their assets in the media. Hopeless.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you can lead a Lone Nutter to the truth, but you can't make him take his head out of the sand. You are still hopelessly filled with the brainwash presented by the government and their assets in the media. Hopeless.

Answer the questions, Robert.

Why is there a mass of ejecta coming out the right front of Kenedy's head from the exit wound shot from the rear?

Are all physicists lying or mistaken about how entry and exit wounds work?

Do you revere any other presidential assassins and police officer murderers?

Answer the questions, Robert.

 

[kookbreaker]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you can lead a Lone Nutter to the truth, but you can't make him take his head out of the sand. You are still hopelessly filled with the brainwash presented by the government and their assets in the media. Hopeless.

When you have something that remotely resembles truth and not your own fantasies you might have a point - that has not happened yet. In the meantime you are lionizing a national disgrace of a human being in order to benefit your beliefs.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Lying to the WC at the behest and the pressure of the FBI is very different from a witness, with poor eyesight, claiming to see an assassin from afar, thru a window pane, and then seeing the alleged Perp on TV the same day but unable to ID him the same night in a police lineup, then subsequently revising his story time and again. Get the difference?

Nah!

Different perhaps. But on the other hand can somebody who does not tell te truth be relied on to provide a lynchpin of your claim?

The fact that a man was modest enough to not place 100% weight behind the identification but admit Oswald was more tan likely the guy, is more convincing than somebody whose word we have to take that he is telling the truth now (but not before, honest, even if there is no material evidence to support it).

But let's measure reliability of your eyewitnesses by the only standard that matters: Material Evidence.

Where is the rear exit wound on JFKs head in the Z film? Or the Polaroid? Or the uncropped deathstare photo? Do you not think the testemony, no matter how many members of staff you claim saw it (20, a hundred, all the staff, it matters not) can relied on, if they are claiming to see a wound that:
1) Was not tere immediately after the shooting.
2) We have no evidence of ever being there.
3) Was not there by the time of the autopsy?

You could have a thousand people whose testemony does not change the material evidence, but it wont prove a danged thing:The statements are not supported y the evidence.

Neither does it change that you claimed nobody saw Oswald. Somebody did. Your statement was wrong. Why can't you admit that Robert?

 

[EventHorizon]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you can lead a Lone Nutter to the truth, but you can't make him take his head out of the sand. You are still hopelessly filled with the brainwash presented by the government and their assets in the media. Hopeless.

Yeah because the media is always on the side of the government.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you can lead a Lone Nutter to the truth, but you can't make him take his head out of the sand. You are still hopelessly filled with the brainwash presented by the government and their assets in the media. Hopeless.

Head in the sand? Tell me Rob, which of these inconvenient realities are you unable to face:

1) The uncropped version of the deathstare photograph.[nsfw] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=7 [nsfw] Notice the large hole in the top front of JFKs head?
2) The polaroid image of JFK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Moorman that ties in with the Z film, and fails to sow te back of is head missing.
3) The fact that your claims to describe the ACTUAL exit wound as a entry wound defy the laws of physics on several counts. The amount of ejecta and the trajectories described do not match the entry wound you describe.
4) The evidence trail tying Oswald to the murder weapons.
5) Inconvenient witnesses to his murder of Tippet and attempted murder of another police officer.
6) Your claims that the photographs of Oswald wit is rifle are fraudulent ave not been supported by any kind of evidence. Shadows you claim are impossible are common place.
7) Your "evidence" of a conspiracy is largely speculation based on other, unrelated corruption and gossip.
8) A dead man can not, by any means imaginable leave a latent print. And your "evidence" of retrieving a print was for a metod used in identification, that can not have been used to place a dead persons print on the rifle. No number of claims the rifle was taken to a funeral home, or of a white wash can change that.

 

[I Ratant]

It's just pig wrestling, guys.

 

[Robert Prey]

Head in the sand? Tell me Rob, which of these inconvenient realities are you unable to face:

1) The uncropped version of the deathstare photograph.[nsfw] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=7 [nsfw] Notice the large hole in the top front of JFKs head?
2) The polaroid image of JFK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Moorman that ties in with the Z film, and fails to sow te back of is head missing.
3) The fact that your claims to describe the ACTUAL exit wound as a entry wound defy the laws of physics on several counts. The amount of ejecta and the trajectories described do not match the entry wound you describe.
4) The evidence trail tying Oswald to the murder weapons.
5) Inconvenient witnesses to his murder of Tippet and attempted murder of another police officer.
6) Your claims that the photographs of Oswald wit is rifle are fraudulent ave not been supported by any kind of evidence. Shadows you claim are impossible are common place.
7) Your "evidence" of a conspiracy is largely speculation based on other, unrelated corruption and gossip.
8) A dead man can not, by any means imaginable leave a latent print. And your "evidence" of retrieving a print was for a metod used in identification, that can not have been used to place a dead persons print on the rifle. No number of claims the rifle was taken to a funeral home, or of a white wash can change that.

So were the Parkland witnesses lying or just simply mistaken???

(Crickets still chirping)

 

[Robert Prey]

Different perhaps. But on the other hand can somebody who does not tell te truth be relied on to provide a lynchpin of your claim?

The fact that a man was modest enough to not place 100% weight behind the identification but admit Oswald was more tan likely the guy, is more convincing than somebody whose word we have to take that he is telling the truth now (but not before, honest, even if there is no material evidence to support it).

But let's measure reliability of your eyewitnesses by the only standard that matters: Material Evidence.

Where is the rear exit wound on JFKs head in the Z film? Or the Polaroid? Or the uncropped deathstare photo? Do you not think the testemony, no matter how many members of staff you claim saw it (20, a hundred, all the staff, it matters not) can relied on, if they are claiming to see a wound that:
1) Was not tere immediately after the shooting.
2) We have no evidence of ever being there.
3) Was not there by the time of the autopsy?

You could have a thousand people whose testemony does not change the material evidence, but it wont prove a danged thing:The statements are not supported y the evidence.

Neither does it change that you claimed nobody saw Oswald. Somebody did. Your statement was wrong. Why can't you admit that Robert?

So were the Parkland witnesses all lying, or were they simply mistaken???

(Crickets still chirping)

 

[Robert Prey]

Answer the questions, Robert.

Why is there a mass of ejecta coming out the right front of Kenedy's head from the exit wound shot from the rear?

Are all physicists lying or mistaken about how entry and exit wounds work?

Do you revere any other presidential assassins and police officer murderers?

Answer the questions, Robert.

So does that mean the Parkland witnesses were all lying, or simply mistaken???

(Crickets still chirping)

 

[jargon buster]

 

[Noztradamus]

Oswald claimed to be a Marxist, but actually was a loyal patriotic American who loved his country, loved his president, was a former US Marine, worked for Naval Intelligence, as well as an operative for CIA and FBI was sent to USSR after having been sheep dipped as a disloyal American, but never revoked his citizenship, was apparently sent to language school so that he could speak fluent Russian, then sent to USSR so that he could spy for the US. While he made a big splash with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, he was also working with anti-Castro groups at the same time. Someday, when the full truth is accepted, he should be posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom.

I can't see J E Hoover employing someone who was working, or had ever worked, for the "enemy"

 

[Tomtomkent]

So does that mean the Parkland witnesses were all lying, or simply mistaken???

(Crickets still chirping)

Their statements do not match material evidence. How are you expecting us to comment further? We cant read their minds, we are not making accusations or passing judgement. We are pointing out the statements are not supported by the material evidence. It doesnt matter if they lied. It doesnt matter if they were mistaken. It simply matters that material evidence invalidates the claims and you fail to address why this is so.

Why is there no exit wound on the rear of JFKs head in the polaroid or the z film or the uncropped version of your photograph?

 

[bynmdsue]

I can't see J E Hoover employing someone who was working, or had ever worked, for the "enemy"

Hoover wouldn't have had a choice! This goes much higher than him!