JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

All of your so-called possible answers come under the general heading "mistaken." Thus, given a choice between all the witnesses lying in unison, you say they could be mistaken. So the either/or challenge was logical and accurate, unless, of course, you include the possibility of "truth" which there is no way you are about to do after a half century of thoroughly impregnated brainwash.

So you are suggesting the claim YOUR interpretation and representation is mistaken or dishonest comes under the heading "mistaken", in the question where you asked if the PARKLAND STAFF were mistaken or lying?

So I have to claim THEY were wrong, even if they were misrepresented out of context by YOU?

No. You are now trying to rewrite your question in retrospect to avoid the fallacy.

 

[Robert Prey]

You know the difference between somebody stating a loon actually did research that indicated a genuine error and a writer condoning the conclusions of said loon?

At no point is Mr Ramsey claiming that morningstars conclusions are right. He is stating a single piece of research, the identification of the the Tippet photographs was valid.

I guess expecting you to read a whole page of text by somebody who supports your LBJ claims like Ramsey was too much to ask. Ah well...

So is the death stare photo JFK or Tippit or a composite????Just what is your point???? And how do you know the back head autopsy photo is Tippit?? Or is that just a wild, hopeful guess?????

 

[Robert Prey]

You claim that there are frames missing and that this makes it an incomplete rendition of the event. This is incorrect. That means it is a mistake. That I have to spell this out is astonishing to say the least.

ETA - And before you jump in and claim that you never said that those frames are still missing allow me to point out that you followed the link to the lancer site with this question:



Clearly implying that the frames are still missing. Which of course they are not.

Once the film was sent to Kodak, nobody can really know anything for sure about what the original showed.

 

[I Ratant]

Insanity has been defined as repeating the same action over and over, and hoping for a different result.
This is more than adequately being demonstrated here.
RP and those hopefuls that are trying to get through the armor of ignorance.

 

[EventHorizon]

Once the film was sent to Kodak, nobody can really know anything for sure about what the original showed.

This has what to do with your claim that there are missing frames in the Zapruder film?

Insanity has been defined as repeating the same action over and over, and hoping for a different result.
This is more than adequately being demonstrated here.
RP and those hopefuls that are trying to get through the armor of ignorance.

I know, I know. I just can't help myself. I don't know why, I just can't.

 

[JohnG]

So desperate is the Lone Njutter that he yet clings to trivialities. But as to the "dozens of mistakes concerning the JFK assassination, name one.

(Crickets chirping)

For the last time, you are apparently incapable of acknowledging your mistakes regarding the JFK assassination so you will just spin the evidence any way you want. If a witness disagrees with you, you just allege that they were being threatened into lying. Your "expertise" in ballistics and analyzing the Zapruder footage is belied by the significance you ascribe to that bizarre still from the Z film with what looks like red crayon "brush" from some primitive Paint program drawn over the still by an over-caffeinated three year old.

Because of this blind spot of yours I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you were capable of admitting to making "any mistake" (your words, not mine), no matter how trivial. A type of mistake that met two criteria:

1. I purposely chose a trivial mistake so there was less chance of your ego getting in the way.

2. It was a mistake that was as straightforward and noncontroversial as can be. As straightforward as a spelling mistake or an error in math. In other words a mistake that couldn't be spun with dozens of posts about grainy film footage and eyewitness testimony.

The hilarious (and sad) irony is if you simply owned up to the "assert the consequence" mistake you'd in effect be proving me wrong, in which case you'd be well within your rights to expect an acknowledgment from me. But that's not going to happen, is it? You quite literally are incapable of admitting to any mistakes. This means you are intellectually dishonest. What point is there in debating someone who is intellectually dishonest? It's about as pointless as playing chess with someone who insists on being allowed a "do-over" if a move he makes inadvertently leads to one of his pieces being captured while at the same time insisting that his opponent play by the actual rules of the game.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So is the death stare photo JFK or Tippit or a composite????Just what is your point???? And how do you know the back head autopsy photo is Tippit?? Or is that just a wild, hopeful guess?????

Oh did you not read the post where I explained that?

Well, after a while i was able to match your "death stare" cropped image to the uncropped image I posted. This was simple; I compared it to reliable sources untill i got a match. Colourphotos of JFK of known provenance. The autopsy. It is one of a series that shows wounds matching those visible in the Z film, which is corroborated by other photos. We call this a chain of evidence.

The rear head room you posted is of awkward quality, but on a visual level it appears to match the Tippet series. Black and white, passing resemblance to JFK, small entry wound at the front, rear exit wound much larger.

Unlike you i am happy to admit the limits of my expertise. It is looking at one, looking at the other and saying "oh yes, they are the same." That is an opinion, so careful you dontmistakenly claim i suggested it was fact.

But consider this; your image of the rear exit wound conflicts with the uncropped deathstare. It was part of a different series, of different quality. It appears to be taken on quality B&W stock. Given you claimed ANY photographs of JFK we would see are fake, is it not odd you found two differing sets of photos which you claim to be reliable? Are you willing to retract your previous statement that there are no genuine Post mortem Photos?

 

[bynmdsue]

So it's the FBI, the CIA, Anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, the Mafia and finally Kodak. Anybody else in on this? The DAR perhaps?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So is the death stare photo JFK or Tippit or a composite????Just what is your point???? And how do you know the back head autopsy photo is Tippit?? Or is that just a wild, hopeful guess?????

You do realise the death stare picture shows something different from what you claim, and is NOT the photo of the back of the head? Just saying, when discussing one image you suddenly start throwing accusations about another.

Very odd, and not exactly "grown up" as you like to insist others are.

So let's go through some images shall we?
[NSFW]

This is JFK. It is the uncropped Death Stare picture. The point you indicate as being an entry wound is part of a far larger EXIT wound at the top of the head:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=7

This is the diagram Iratant posted before showing the trajectory that caused the damage:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=6

We can tell this is a photo from a second film taken at the same event of the same body because of matching points, like the fold of skin. Note the ENTRY wound behind the ear. Note the lack of rear exit wounds.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=9

And one of the back, showing the other wound. Still no sign of a large exit wound on the back of the head as Parkland described.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=10

And again:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=11

And confirmation that the "death stare" colour photo is of the same body, in the same location...
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=13

And to put into context, what Robert claimed was an ENTRY wound results in the lump of skill hanging off...

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos

Now, for what Robert posted as evidence of the rear exit wound:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/autopsyheadwound.jpg

Now this is so closely cropped we can't see whose head, or where in the head it came from. So, it could infact be the FRONTAL exit wound in close up. But I have taken Robert at his word (more fool me with no evidence or source to confirm this) that it was from the back of the head of somebody who might pass for JFK.
[/nsfw]

That leaves one obvious candidate, and to my eye some of the features match images once wrongly attributed to JFK, now known to be Tippit. Of course, that is speculation assuming it was an understandable mistake. With out context it could be... anybody.

The majority of JFK sites I am familiar with, even the looniest ones, no longer hold photos of wounds that are clearly on two different heads. A LOT of sites that used to have "conflicting" data have quietly corrected their texts and removed the Tippit shots from their JFK autopsy caches.

 

[jargon buster]

So it's the FBI, the CIA, Anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, the Mafia and finally Kodak. Anybody else in on this? The DAR perhaps?

Joe de maggio.
He wasn't happy at the way Kennedy treated Marylyn.

 

[Robert Prey]

TomTom wrote:


So let's go through some images shall we?
[NSFW]

This is JFK. It is the uncropped Death Stare picture. The point you indicate as being an entry wound is part of a far larger EXIT wound at the top of the head:

Comment: Do you realize you just said "top" of the head. I see no exit wound at the "top" of the head.

 

[jargon buster]

I see no exit wound at the "top" of the head.

Do you see one at the back?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I see no exit wound at the "top" of the head.

Can you use your red crayon to circle the wound that was caused by the shooter from the Grassy Knoll?

 

[Tomtomkent]

TomTom wrote:


So let's go through some images shall we?
[NSFW]

This is JFK. It is the uncropped Death Stare picture. The point you indicate as being an entry wound is part of a far larger EXIT wound at the top of the head:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...photos?image=7

Comment: Do you realize you just said "top" of the head. I see no exit wound at the "top" of the head.

What are you considering to be the top?

On the crown, where the flesh and hair have been folded back to reveal a lack of skull, towards left of frame. The part of the head, that is at the top, when a human is standing upon their feet. The part that is generally, in common parlance, considered to be the upper reaches, or top, of a human being.

Perhaps you feel a need to explain what other large wound you thought I was describing?

 

[Tomtomkent]

TomTom wrote:


So let's go through some images shall we?
[NSFW]

This is JFK. It is the uncropped Death Stare picture. The point you indicate as being an entry wound is part of a far larger EXIT wound at the top of the head:

Comment: Do you realize you just said "top" of the head. I see no exit wound at the "top" of the head.

People will see it was me who wrote it if you use the "quote" button.

 

[Robert Prey]

Tomtom wrote:

This is the diagram Iratant posted before showing the trajectory that caused the damage:

Comment:
That is the drawing provided by the Warren Commission for the purpose of mis-leading the public as to the fatal shot to the head.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you see one at the back?

[sarcasm]
What do you mean the "back"? Which part of the head is at the "back"? Surely the FACE is the TOP so the CROWN must be at the BACK.... [/sarcasm]

The back of the head is clearly visisble in several images. Guess which drawing doesn't match them?

 

[I Ratant]

For the last time, you are apparently incapable of acknowledging your mistakes regarding the JFK assassination so you will just spin the evidence any way you want. If a witness disagrees with you, you just allege that they were being threatened into lying. Your "expertise" in ballistics and analyzing the Zapruder footage is belied by the significance you ascribe to that bizarre still from the Z film with what looks like red crayon "brush" from some primitive Paint program drawn over the still by an over-caffeinated three year old.

Because of this blind spot of yours I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you were capable of admitting to making "any mistake" (your words, not mine), no matter how trivial. A type of mistake that met two criteria:

...

.
See post 1664.
If the troll had been derailed at the start, there'd be 1 page in this thread.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtom wrote:

This is the diagram Iratant posted before showing the trajectory that caused the damage:

Comment:
That is the drawing provided by the Warren Commission for the purpose of mis-leading the public as to the fatal shot to the head.

You are correct. That drawing was issued by the WC. Now perhaps you would like to prove the hil;ighted section of the text?

 

[Robert Prey]

We can tell this is a photo from a second film taken at the same event of the same body because of matching points, like the fold of skin. Note the ENTRY wound behind the ear. Note the lack of rear exit wounds.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...photos?image=9

This photo is fake. Completely inconsistent with the death stare photo and the autopsy report itself as the back of the head is intact. As anyone can plainly see the blurr at the back of the head indicating re-touching.