JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

What are the odds of witneses being mistaken?

If they agree with Robert they are infallible. Even if they admit lies, offer no material evidence, or are directly contradicted by the evidence.

If they disagree with him they are able to make mistakes, tell lies, or otherwise be invalid.


It seems odd.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sir, why don't you want to do your own homework?

Er... he asked if you were aware of witnesses that contradict your claim.

This avoidance would suggest you are.

 

[Walter Ego]

This is what those witnesses observed:

Robert, please show us in the frames from the Zapruter film below where we can see a large gaping exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head.

In the frame on the lower left we can see the back of Kennedy's head is intact. Where is that big hole oozing blood and brain tissue that we should see if that drawing is correct?

 

[Walter Ego]

So to understand this thread properly; Roberts irreducible delusion is that eyewitness are more reliable than physical evidence, and his masochistic lie is that the z film doesn't show anything of note. That about sum it up?

Just about. The Z film does not show an exit wound on the back of JFK's head where it should be if Robert's shot from the front (i.e., from the direction of the Grassy Knoll) is correct so the evidence of the Z film must be hand-waved away as irrelevant.

 

[EventHorizon]

"The wound I saw was a large gaping wound located in the right ocipitoparietal area." -- Dr. Carrico, Warren Comm. Hearings, Page 6, Vol. 6

So is Dr. Carrico lying/mistaken this time or is he lying/mistaken when he says he didn't see a wound to the back of the head? Which is it?

That photo (if it is a photo) is provably fake. Not only does it contradict the 30 or so witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda, but it clearly does not match the death stare photo http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=7

Nonsense. Both photos match perfectly. Both show a massive wound to the right front of the head and no wound in the back of the head. You have to be blind (or looking at a cropped photo) to not see that.

 

[Robert Prey]

Just about. The Z film does not show an exit wound on the back of JFK's head where it should be if Robert's shot from the front (i.e., from the direction of the Grassy Knoll) is correct so the evidence of the Z film must be hand-waved away as irrelevant.

Have you seen the missing frames from the Z film????

 

[Robert Prey]

witness statements over photographic evidence and a film?

Are you sure Robert?

Have you seen the missing frames of the Z film?

 

[Robert Prey]

No. That is a drawing of what they claimed to have seen.

Why would we believe any witness when we can clearly see JFK has a large exit wound on the front of his head (that you cropped out of your version of the deathstare photo) and if no photographs after the shooting show an exit wound to the back of his head.

When DID the rear exit wound appear? Do you have any material evidence it was there? Orare you making a special pleading some witnesses are ok, but the ones you don't like are liable to be invalid?

Witnesses who have first hand knowledge, and no allegiance to adverse government proclamations, have much more credibility than a couple of frightened autopsy docs.

 

[Robert Prey]

What are the odds of witneses being mistaken?

The odds of 30 some first hand witnesses being mistaken? Pretty small.

 

[Robert Prey]

I'm curious about the bias in selecting the witnesses you mentioned.

I'm sure that any number of the Deep Thinkers on this board would be happy to help you out.

 

[Walter Ego]

Have you seen the missing frames from the Z film????

Yes, I have and so has everyone else. There are no "missing" frames, Robert. Some frames were damaged after Zapruder turned over the camera original to Life magazine but three complete first generation copies were made before Life got the film so none of the frames were actually missing. Try again.

In October 1964, the U.S. Government Printing Office released 26 volumes of testimony and evidence compiled by the Warren Commission. Volume 18 of the commission's hearings reproduced 158 frames of the Zapruder film in black and white. However, frames 208–211 were missing, a splice was visible in frames 207 and 212, frames 314 and 315 were switched, and frame 284 was a repeat of 283.[8] In reply to an inquiry, the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover wrote in 1965 that 314 and 315 were switched due to a printing error, and that the error did not exist in the original Warren Commission exhibits. In early 1967, Life released a statement that four frames of the camera original (208–211) had been accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963. Life released the missing frames from the first-generation copy it had received from Zapruder with the original.[9] (Of the Zapruder frames outside the section used in the commission's exhibits, frames 155–157 and 341 were also damaged and spliced out of the camera original, but are present in the first-generation copies.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

 

[RoboTimbo]

Witnesses who have first hand knowledge, and no allegiance to adverse government proclamations, have much more credibility than a couple of frightened autopsy docs.

Bang Bang! LOL.

 

[EventHorizon]

There's a whole lot the Z film shows and doesn't show according to live witnesses on the scene. It is not a reliable piece of evidence. And there is much controversy over missing frames. How can you cite a film as evidence that is not a complete rendition of the event???


`1988
"This year, the original Zapruder slide set was transferred within the Archives; at that time, it was found to be missing frames 180, 321, 349 and 372. The reproduction set was found to be missing fraomes 164-170, and 344-486, but these were never part of the original set." ( Archives memo)

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

Have you seen the missing frames from the Z film????

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z180.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z349.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z372.jpg

All the rest of the "missing frames" mentioned in your post are on that website too.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There's a whole lot the Z film shows and doesn't show according to live witnesses on the scene. It is not a reliable piece of evidence. And there is much controversy over missing frames. How can you cite a film as evidence that is not a complete rendition of the event???

Bang! You're going to need a scooter to ride around in.

Answer the questions, Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Witnesses who have first hand knowledge, and no allegiance to adverse government proclamations, have much more credibility than a couple of frightened autopsy docs.

That is not a description that matches every witness you quote. Do you read all the posts you write? Not everybody you list, even limited to parkland staff were doctors.

And how do you know the autopsy team were frightened?

You have never supplied a good reason for the Parkland doctors to be more reliable than anybody else. All you ever offer are groundless assertions that evidence that disagrees must be wrong. Why? With out mentioning a conspiracy, whitewash or allegation, can you supply material evidence? (With out cropping the photo this time. Haha)

 

[Tomtomkent]

The odds of 30 some first hand witnesses being mistaken? Pretty small.

Ah. So the thirty something witnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD were rightafter all....

Wow. You have no idea how poor witness testemony is. Try material evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z180.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z349.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z372.jpg

All the rest of the "missing frames" mentioned in your post are on that website too.

I would love to know what argument the missing frames are meant to make.

There are frames before, where a rear exit wound is not visible.
There are frames after where ditto.
There is a polaroid taken after the shots. Still the back of the head is in tact, bar a small entry wound behind the ear.

So in the space of a few frames the back of JfKs head is blown out...then disguised?


Wow. Those conspiritors were good.

Alternatively some witness statements of people who did not look at the back JFKs head might be Wrong. Still all you have is photo evidence. How can that compare to a drawing?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm sure that any number of the Deep Thinkers on this board would be happy to help you out.

Yes. I will happily suggest you have a bias in evidence selection. I will also suggest you didnt understand the point of the question.

 

[I Ratant]

Waste of time.
"You can't fix stupid".

 

[Robert Prey]

The Shadow of Doubt

Did I say "employee", Robert? I said "employ", it means "use". Do I have to use only one syllable words for you to understand?

As for Hoover using any agent whose soul he did not own - extremely unlikely, considering his treatment of MI-6 double agent Dusan Povov in 1941. And Hoover had not grown more reasonable and mellow with age.

The Shadow of Doubt:

From: Marry Ferrell Foundation

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Walkthrough_-_Warren_Commission_Executive_Sessions

Walkthrough: Warren Commission Executive Sessions


"The Warren Commissioners met in secret executive session on multiple occasions. Originally marked "top secret," the transcripts of these meetings were declassified in the years following the Commission's work, some of them only after Freedom of Information Act lawsuits by Harold Weisberg.

These transcripts provide a fascinating glimpse at the Commissions' inner workings, reveal its political motivations and constraints, and provide clues to some of the mysteries of the JFK assassination."




22 Jan 1964 - "This session was called specifically to address the allegation that Oswald was a paid "FBI Undercover Agent," number 179, paid $200 per month from September 1962 until the assassination. Waggoner Carr, the Texas Attorney General, had called Rankin that morning with allegations which had come from a member of the press (Lonnie Hudkins, though not named in the transcript). Rankin noted that "I am confident that the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their records will never show it...," and noted that Oswald's use of postal boxes "would be an ideal way to get money to anyone that you wanted as an undercover agent." Rankin also noted that if the allegation were true "then you would have people think that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination that nothing the Commission did or anybody could dissipate." Rankin expressed puzzlement that the normally conservative FBI was so insistent the Oswald was the sole assassin, saying "They would like to have us fold up and quit." After more such discussion, Dulles said the transcript of the meeting itself "ought to be destroyed." This was indeed done, but an original court reporter's tape was later recovered and the transcript re-made from it after a long legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg."

27 Jan 1964 - "Five days later, discussion of the allegation that Oswald was an FBI informant continued. According to Rankin, the Justice Department did not want to confront FBI Director Hoover with the allegation, so he suggested that perhaps "I should go over and see Edgar Hoover myself, and if that produced unsatisfactory results, that ""the Commission would have to feel free to make such other investigations and take testimony if it found it necessary." He added: "We do have a dirty rumor that is very bad for the Commission...and it must be wiped out so insofar as it is possible to do so by this Commission." Warren disliked the idea of going to the FBI "until we have at least looked into it." Dulles noted that the Bureau had already categorically denied the allegation in the press. Boggs: "Of course, we get ourselves into a real box. You have got to do everything on earth to establish the facts one way or the other." Commissioners discussed putting FBI agents under oath and questioning them, since according to Dulles "The record might not be on paper." Boggs: "The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?" Dulles: "Yes, but he wouldn't tell." After much discussion, in which the fear of J. Edgar Hoover is readily apparent, the consensus was that the allegation had to be investigated independently by the Commission. It never did."