• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Evidence for the Warren Commission misleading the public other than your word. Even you must realize that your word is about at the lowest ebb it can reach.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Learn to quote properly and your links won't be screwed up like that.

Perhaps that photo is a Rohrschach test. LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Actually no, he is not correct. The drawing was made by Ida Dox for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976. So Robert was wrong about yet another thing. Any chance he will admit it?
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
Evidence for the Warren Commission misleading the public other than your word. Even you must realize that your word is about at the lowest ebb it can reach.
Click to expand...

The word of somebody who posted false evidence? Who argues what I mean by "top" instead of explaining how and why the uncropped version of a picture he posted and called "Death Stare" has a rather large wound in a place that directly and utterly contradicts the testimony that he claims is the best evidence? You believe that is a low ebb?

Unfortunately I have to agree.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Now, for what Robert posted as evidence of the rear exit wound:
Click to expand...

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



Comment
That is a from the Groden collection according to Harrison Livingston. And he provides a drawing by Paul O'Connor to simplify and orientate what is shown in the photograph.

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

Except for the skull broken apart, pretty close to Dr. McClellen's drawing. A large blow-out in the back of the head.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

So as there was never an answer to this right? I'm guessing that perhaps it should boy "Oh boy, that Tom is right. If somebody misrepresents, lies about or takes out of context the Parkland statements that is NOT the doctors being mistaken. There were multiple other options and Robert should say sorry for relying on a silly falacy, and more so for telling lies about it after!"
 
Robert Prey said:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/autopsyheadwound.jpg



Comment
That is a from the Groden collection according to Harrison Livingston. And he provides a drawing by Paul O'Connor to simplify and orientate what is shown in the photograph.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/oconnorsdrawing.jpg
Click to expand...

A drawing? And what is that meant to prove?

Seriously, if I drew a nice picture of the hole fitting on, say, a pig, would that PROVE it was from a pig?

Why not offer a photo from a wider angle so we can just see it is from the corpse you claim?
 
Oh yes the Groden collection.

Sorry folks. I was wrong. This was not a picture of Tippit. I was wrong. Mistaken.

It just isn't a picture of the back of JFKs head either:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

Wanting to show the back of Kennedy's head blown out — and thus push the notion of a Grassy Knoll shooter — they use a close-up autopsy photo of the inside of Kennedy's skull after the brain was removed. By rotating the photo ninety degrees clockwise, they can make it appear that the photo shows a large defect in the back of Kennedy's head. In actuality, Kennedy was photographed from the front, and the photo shows the top if his head blasted out, as shown in this drawing by Dr. Robert Artwohl. Finally, a large and properly-oriented copy of the head photo
Click to expand...

Roberts images:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rotate.gif

The drawing refered to in the text:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/correct.gif

Larger and correctly orientated:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.jpg

ETA: Cropping and rotating through 90 degrees. Sound familiar? It made the fold of skin into an entry wound too in the "Death Stare" photo. A pattern is forming...
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
.
See post 1664.
If the troll had been derailed at the start, there'd be 1 page in this thread.
Click to expand...


Hence my "For the last time..." qualifier in the post you quoted. We all have different thresholds and lines in the sand in these sorts of threads where some of us decide that further discussion is pointless. I reached mine today. You reached yours much earlier. Others here will keep going until the thread is inevitably sent to AAH. I don't see anything wrong with this. It's a decision each poster has to make for themselves. I have decided that Robert is incapable of a rational discussion. If he writes something to make me question my decision, I'll chime in again. In terms of responding directly to Robert though I've said my piece for now.

Is it fair though to label someone a troll after "1 page"? I don't think that what Robert is doing is strictly speaking "trolling". I suspect he is a teenager with all the stubbornness and ignorance that generally comes with that age group, but I don't think he's a troll, per se. For better or worse I believe that he believes everything he writes. If you want to talk about trolls in the JFK CT threads 7forever is a much more likely candidate.
 
EventHorizon said:
Actually no, he is not correct. The drawing was made by Ida Dox for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976. So Robert was wrong about yet another thing. Any chance he will admit it?
Click to expand...

Either you are confused or I am confused. It think it is you if we're talking about this drawing.

This is the Rydberg drawing made for the Warren Commission that is so obviously inconsistent with the autopsy report, that Arlen Spector demanded to see the original photos and x-rays. Request denied.
 
JohnG said:
Hence my "For the last time..." qualifier in the post you quoted. We all have different thresholds and lines in the sand in these sorts of threads where some of us decide that further discussion is pointless. I reached mine today. You reached yours much earlier. Others here will keep going until the thread is inevitably sent to AAH. I don't see anything wrong with this. It's a decision each poster has to make for themselves. I have decided that Robert is incapable of a rational discussion. If he writes something to make me question my decision, I'll chime in again. In terms of responding directly to Robert though I've said my piece for now.

Is it fair though to label someone a troll after "1 page"? I don't think that what Robert is doing is strictly speaking "trolling". I suspect he is a teenager with all the stubbornness and ignorance that generally comes with that age group, but I don't think he's a troll, per se. For better or worse I believe that he believes everything he writes. If you want to talk about trolls in the JFK CT threads 7forever is a much more likely candidate.
Click to expand...

Ah, well. Another one bites the dust, sinking into the abyss of predictable ad hominems before declaring surrender.
 
Robert Prey said:
Either you are confused or I am confused. It think it is you if we're talking about this drawing.
.
Click to expand...

No. We weren't the drawing I posted was this:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=6

The picture you commented on was this:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=6

Why are you suddenly talking about this:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/rydbergdrawing.JPG
Where on earth did THAT come from? It's not even close.


Care to admit you were wrong about THAT?
 
Robert Prey said:
Ah, well. Another one bites the dust, sinking into the abyss of predictable ad hominems before declaring surrender.
Click to expand...

Hmm. And which claim was an Ad Hominem? And where was the defeat? He is just tired of you refusing to engage like a rational human being.

Say, you dont think of this discussion as something you can WIN do you?
 
Robert Prey said:
But in your heart, you know I'm right.
Click to expand...

What?

Seriously?


In my heart I know you would only tyoe that instead of supplying evidence because you have none.

In my heart I know you are wrong.

I also now know you have no idea what is in my heart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom