JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Still waiting for an answer, what you claim above is not supported with physical or photographic evidence.

Now you will point out that of course there is no physical evidence to support your claim since the conspirators destroyed or modified it all.

How inconvenient for you.

Nor is there any photographic evidence to support the counter-claim -- that of an intact back of the head except for a small entry wound. But there is a mountain of testimony of first hand witnesses of a large blow-out in the back of the head. And that testimony is not subject to alteration or falsification.

 

[Robert Prey]

LHO tried to teach himself Russian during his three years in the USMC. He was never "sent" anywhere)

How do you know that?

 

[EventHorizon]

Nor is there any photographic evidence to support the counter-claim -- that of an intact back of the head except for a small entry wound. But there is a mountain of testimony of first hand witnesses of a large blow-out in the back of the head. And that testimony is not subject to alteration or falsification.

Sure there is. You yourself keep on posting the death stare photo which shows no evidence of a blowout to the back of the head and shows a large wound to the right front of the head.

How do you know that?

They teach you how to do research in high school. Or at least they used to, who knows what they do nowadays.

 

[Robert Prey]

After serving in Japan and at El Torro air base, he left the USMC and moved (via a circuitous route) to Minsk. He lived and worked in Russia for 2.5 years - marrying a Russian woman. That's how he became "fluent" in Russian.

See how you took an established historical fact and then twisted it out of shape in order to fit your preconceived POV?

"Marina Oswald said that by the time she met him in March, 1961 he spoke the language well enough so that at first she thought he was from one of the Baltic areas of her country". P. 257, Warren Report

 

[Robert Prey]

Sure there is. You yourself keep on posting the death stare photo which shows no evidence of a blowout to the back of the head and shows a large wound to the right front of the head.



They teach you how to do research in high school. Or at least they used to, who knows what they do nowadays.

Perhaps you need eyeglasses. You are seeing things. Nor is there any view of the back of the head in the death stare photo. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

Good point. Destroy the film and claim it was damged during development. Z himself would not suspect foul play because of some hidden meaning to the film. He was an eye witness who had noreason to lie,no intelligence connections, and was willing to describe how he saw JFK shot from behind.

Unlike the parkland allegations he has photographic evidence to back it up.


There is of course a double standard at play. Robert claims other witnesses can lie or be mistaken, that photographs can be faked and indeed it should be assumed they were for the purposes of a conspiracy with out assuming the same, and dissproving the same, for his own evidence. Exactly why "all" staff at Parkland were in a possition to testify to the nature of a headwound is beyond me. If doctors are saving my life the janitor should not be getting in the way to take a look. More importantly no reason has ever been offered why one narrative should be considered objectively more honest than the other. Robert simply supposes the autopsy was dishonest on the grounds of Parkland being honest.

To maintain a single standard all testemony should be considered honest until proven otherwise. Unfortunately the fact, proven beyond any doubt by indipendant photographic sources that verify each other, was there was no exit wound to the back of the head when JFK left the plaza. There was not one at the time of autopsy. The photos Robert claims to be pre-autopsy and reliable do not match his description unless heavily cropped. If we look at the rest of the photos taken at the same time, in the same location, we see a small entry wound on the back of the head, no large exit wound to the back of the head.

When he claims that is demonstratably fake he should both renounce his own death stare photo as fake, then demonstrate it is false, which will no doubt be saying "the photo doesn't match the witnesss" which is itself not proof the photo is fake, but can be proof the witnesswas wrong.

Baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

BTW, your list of 30 people at Parkland Hospital who saw the hole in JFK's head included military and government employees. Were they not subject to the same pressure as the "frightened" military autopsy doctors?

Hardly.

 

[jargon buster]

Nor is there any photographic evidence to support the counter-claim -- that of an intact back of the head except for a small entry wound.

sigh

 

[Robert Prey]

If the Z film was so damning, if it showed things the conspirators did not want seen, if they had control over the film while it was at Kodak in Dallas for processing, why did they not simply destroy it and claim it did not get exposed?

If they had simply replaced the film with a different roll and strip a few of the sprocket holes out, they could then claim the film never fed through the camera and nothing was exposed.

Why do something so risky as altering the film?

Care to answer that one Robert?
?

No. It's a ridiculous hypothetical question. Stick to the evidence at hand, if you can.

 

[matt.tansy]

"There was a great laceration on the right side fo the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. Warren Report, Page 530.

Embiggening mine.

 

[jargon buster]

Stick to the evidence at hand, if you can.

 

[EventHorizon]

Perhaps you need eyeglasses. You are seeing things. Nor is there any view of the back of the head in the death stare photo. Obviously.

I do need eyeglasses. I happen to be wearing them right now. And I'm seeing the giant wound to the right front of the head that you conveniently try to ignore as evidenced by your posting of the cropped version of the photo in an attempt to be completely dishonest. Though I believe the photo shows enough of the back of the head to see at least part of a massive wound that might be there I will concede that this may not be the case. It doesn't matter though because it shows the giant wound in the front of the head. Your not seeing it is the equivalent of a 3 year old closing his eyes and claiming something isn't there because he can't see it.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Very Best Witness of All

Please explain why the Parkland witnesses give unalterable facts and yet the witnesses to the shooting itself, the autopsy staff and seemingly any other witnesses who do not support your theory can be flawed?

They are not flawed, but consistent with the Parkland medical personnel. For example, let's zero in on the one very best first hand witness, close up and personnel; namely Secret Service Agent Clint Hill to wit:

Hill was the agent walking right in back of the Limo. He claims the following:

* The shot or (shots) to the head may have come from the "right" and not from the rear.

* There may have been more than one shot to the head.

* The right rear portion of the President's head was missing.

*The shot or shots to the head sounded different than the first shot from the rear, and sounded like it may have been from a revolver.

* There was one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head...

* "A portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."

-- Warren Commission Testimony
http://www.jfklancer.com/CHill.html

Now Come Forth All Ye Lone Nutters and claim the Agent was either lying, mistaken or telling the truth -- like all the other witnesses. Grow a spine. Which is it?

 

[Robert Prey]

I do need eyeglasses. I happen to be wearing them right now. And I'm seeing the giant wound to the right front of the head that you conveniently try to ignore as evidenced by your posting of the cropped version of the photo in an attempt to be completely dishonest. Though I believe the photo shows enough of the back of the head to see at least part of a massive wound that might be there I will concede that this may not be the case. It doesn't matter though because it shows the giant wound in the front of the head. Your not seeing it is the equivalent of a 3 year old closing his eyes and claiming something isn't there because he can't see it.

Oh, now you change your story from the top of the head to the right side of the head. Yeah, there is something there, but not a large blow-out, probably and emulsion of tissue from the pressure of the entry bullet. But let's try to act grown-up. There never was any cropped photo but the one still used to introduce the youtube video which showed everything -- excerpt for the back of the head.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~~
One copy with the original went to Life magazine. Another copy went to the Secret Secret service.
~~~

There's a Secret Secret service? The CTs are going to have a field day with that information

 

[EventHorizon]

They are not flawed, but consistent with the Parkland medical personnel. For example, let's zero in on the one very best first hand witness, close up and personnel; namely Secret Service Agent Clint Hill to wit:

Hill was the agent walking right in back of the Limo. He claims the following:

* The shot or (shots) to the head may have come from the "right" and not from the rear.

May have come. Not did come.

* There may have been more than one shot to the head.

May have been, not was.

* The right rear portion of the President's head was missing.

And he would know this how? Was he examining wounds? Or did he see a bloody mess in Mrs. Kennedy's lap?

*The shot or shots to the head sounded different than the first shot from the rear, and sounded like it may have been from a revolver.

May have been, not was. And there are any number of reasons the shots may have sounded different.

* There was one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head...

You said that before. Answered above.

* "A portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."

You said that before. Answered above.

-- Warren Commission Testimony
http://www.jfklancer.com/CHill.html

Now Come Forth All Ye Lone Nutters and claim the Agent was either lying, mistaken or telling the truth -- like all some of the other witnesses. Grow a spine. Which is it?

I've highlighted your error. Actually since it was another intentional act of dishonesty I'm not sure if error is the correct word.

Yes, he was mistaken like SOME OF the other witnesses. After all this you still don't understand why eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Especially when the stories are so wildly different as they were on November 22, 1963.

Oh, now you change your story from the top of the head to the right side of the head. Yeah, there is something there, but not a large blow-out, probably and emulsion of tissue from the pressure of the entry bullet. But let's try to act grown-up. There never was any cropped photo but the one still used to introduce the youtube video which showed everything -- excerpt for the back of the head.

I understand that reading comprehension is not your strong suit but you'll notice that I said right FRONT. The story has never changed, we may have said front in the past but that's probably because none of us ever felt the need to specify. But since you need everything spelled out for you...

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nor is there any photographic evidence to support the counter-claim ...

... the right front head wound as depicted in the Z film ...

Oops!

Robert, how do you deal with your cognitive dissonance?

 

[GregHouseMD]

Baloney.

With a well thought out and articulate argument such as this, how can any rebuttal be possible?

Time to go back to reading my novel, at the least the author admits it's fiction, something Robert won't do.

 

[Tomtomkent]

They are not flawed, but consistent with the Parkland medical personnel. For example, let's zero in on the one very best first hand witness, close up and personnel; namely Secret Service Agent Clint Hill to wit:

Hill was the agent walking right in back of the Limo. He claims the following:

* The shot or (shots) to the head may have come from the "right" and not from the rear.

* There may have been more than one shot to the head.

* The right rear portion of the President's head was missing.

*The shot or shots to the head sounded different than the first shot from the rear, and sounded like it may have been from a revolver.

* There was one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head...

* "A portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."

-- Warren Commission Testimony
http://www.jfklancer.com/CHill.html

Now Come Forth All Ye Lone Nutters and claim the Agent was either lying, mistaken or telling the truth -- like all the other witnesses. Grow a spine. Which is it?

So rather than answering the question you decide if they are reliable based on if they agree with you or not?

Hmm. If only there was some way to test the accuracy of subjective memories. To compare them to some source of material evidence rather than adopt an attitude of "enough people sayit must be true".

You can tell me to grow a spine and indulge in childish bravado all you like. But the answer will remain "unsupported by material evidence"

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, now you change your story from the top of the head to the right side of the head. Yeah, there is something there, but not a large blow-out, probably and emulsion of tissue from the pressure of the entry bullet. But let's try to act grown-up. There never was any cropped photo but the one still used to introduce the youtube video which showed everything -- excerpt for the back of the head.

Lie 1) there never was a cropped picture. The one posted is smaller than the one posted by me, ergo it was cropped. I don't care which versions were also featured in a video.
Lie 2) the wound is not an exit wound; directly contradicted by the descriptions of exit wounds Robert himself posted.
Lie 3; uprange damage from the entry of the bullet. Defies logic and the laws of physics.

Simple deductions;
1) Autopsy photos are only "fake" when it is convenient for Rob.
2) the "accurate" drawing shows a considerable percentage of the back of the head removed. If it is indeed accurate the malformation would be visible. Yet the head remains concave.
3) the large exit wound at the top of the head allows for ejecta to disperse in the cloud seen in the Z film, which the entry wound would not. Ergo we witnessed mass exiting that wound suggesting it was downrange.
4) for not noticing that wound, what ever the cause or reason, and not desacribing it in the quotes or pictures selected by RP the parkland staff are clearly not reliable. Regardless of the presence of wounds they did describe, their accounts, or the selected quotes and illustrations are proven flawed by the unmissable feature they missed.