JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Walter Ego]

I suspect "Robert Prey" is trolling JREF.

Possibly. If it's a troll, it's a good one. The more pertinent question is what on Earth does he think he is accomplishing aside from giving textbook examples of credulous irrationalism?

 

[Walter Ego]

For some reason, the Warren Commission did not want to actually see the autopsy photos or x-rays, perhaps because they might conflict with their pre-determined script....

Robert is simply lying in this assumption.

The reason is well known. Earl Warren himself said the intent was to publish everything the Warren Commissioners saw, and he felt if they saw the autopsy photos, they should publish them. They felt they were too gory to publish, so Warren made the decision not to have the Commissioners view them.

This is only partially correct. It was the Kennedy family (specifically RFK) who refused to release the autopsy photos to the Warren Commission. Warren, fearing that if the Commission had the photos they might be leaked to the press, did not pressure RFK on this issue. (Warren Commission staffer Arlen Specter registered his objection to this policy in this memo.) in June 1964, RFK did allow Warren and chief council J. Lee Rankin to review but not publish the photos. (Posner, Case Closed pp. 409-410)

(Warren's fears were not unreasonable as it turned out. While working as an advisor to the HSCA in the late 1970s, assassination ghoul and conspiracy huckster Robert Groden purloined copies of some of the more gruesome photos and sold them later to a supermarket tabloid for big bucks.)

In any case, the original autopsy photos and x-rays were reviewed by a medical panel assembled by Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1968, by the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 and again by the HSCA in 1979. All of these expert panels confirmed the conclusions of the Warren Commission regarding the autopsy findings so it is irrelevant at this late date whether the Commission had access to the photos and x-rays. Their interpretation of the autopsy evidence was correct.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert is simply lying in this assumption.



This is only partially correct. It was the Kennedy family (specifically RFK) who refused to release the autopsy photos to the Warren Commission. Warren, fearing that if the Commission had the photos they might be leaked to the press, did not pressure RFK on this issue. (Warren Commission staffer Arlen Specter registered his objection to this policy in this memo.) in June 1964, RFK did allow Warren and chief council J. Lee Rankin to review but not publish the photos. (Posner, Case Closed pp. 409-410)

(Warren's fears were not unreasonable as it turned out. While working as an advisor to the HSCA in the late 1970s, assassination ghoul and conspiracy huckster Robert Groden purloined copies of some of the more gruesome photos and sold them later to a supermarket tabloid for big bucks.)

In any case, the original autopsy photos and x-rays were reviewed by a medical panel assembled by Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1968, by the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 and again by the HSCA in 1979. All of these expert panels confirmed the conclusions of the Warren Commission regarding the autopsy findings so it is irrelevant at this late date whether the Commission had access to the photos and x-rays. Their interpretation of the autopsy evidence was correct.

But as you very well know, the people who shot and processed the autopsy photos have asserted that the ones in evidence are frauds.

 

[Robert Prey]

Also; why does that drawing differ so much from the one you posted before that showed the exit wound on the centre of the back of the head?

Which witness was "lying or mistaken" if they drew pictures so differently?

Dr. McClellend's drawing is just 2 dimensional.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dr. McClellend's drawing is just 2 dimensional.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

Both are 2d line drawings.

They also show different wounds.

Who was "lying or mistaken"?

 

[Tomtomkent]

But as you very well know, the people who shot and processed the autopsy photos have asserted that the ones in evidence are frauds.

And yet you never sourced this in a way that presented which photos were fraud.

Nor has it stopped you submitting photos as evidence yourself (which you have yet to retract) despite trying to crop and rotate them to aid your lies about what they apparently show.

The exit wound "on the back of the head" was not so.
The "entry wound" was a fold of skin from a vast exit wound you tried to crop out

Do you have any material evidence to support your witness statements yet?

Care to explain why the descriptions of the wound froma single source conflict?
Why the drawings do not match?

No. I didn't think so.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I suspect "Robert Prey" is trolling JREF.

If the definition of trolling is to shoot yourself in the foot numerous times, make a spectacle and mockery of yourself, and be pointed at and laughed at, then Robert is the bestest troll ever.

Come on Robert, troll us some more. Bang! LOL.

 

[Walter Ego]

But as you very well know, the people who shot and processed the autopsy photos have asserted that the ones in evidence are frauds.

Robert, I know no such thing and neither do you and my post about the Warren Commission not having the original autopsy photos and x-rays was addressed to HSienzant, not to you. Please don't interrupt when the adults are talking to each other.

 

[HSienzant]

After JFK's death, everyone in the Federal govenment "worked for" the man who took his place: LBJ. Obviously.

Okay, so at the time this supposed 'conspiracy to assassinate JFK' was plotted, the people named thus far in the various agencies (like Nicholas Katzenbach in the Justice Department) work for whom, Robert?

Why does who they worked for *after the plot was completed* count for more than *who they worked for when the plot was hatched*?

Can you explain that coherently?

You never think of the implications of where these conspiracy theories lead, do you?

With all due respect,
Hank

 

[Walter Ego]

If the definition of trolling is to shoot yourself in the foot numerous times, make a spectacle and mockery of yourself, and be pointed at and laughed at, then Robert is the bestest troll ever.

That dufus in the parking lot holding a broomstick picture was good for a chuckle. Like most insufferable know-it-alls, Robert is completely lacking a sense of humor so any amusement he provides is completely unintentional. Whatever his intentions may be, however, he can rest assured we are laughing at him and not with him.

 

[HSienzant]

There are a whole lot of "whys" in regard to the b/y photos. Why did the DPD not find any in the Paine Garage on Nov. 22nd but did on the 23d? And why were there photos of the Neely Backyard in the hands of FBI hired photo processers the night of the 22nd, only to miraculously find the pics in the Paine garage the next day. And why was there a never discovered till 1995 photo of Oswald's "ghost" in that Neely backyard in a DPD evidence locker? A whole lot of "whys" Lone Nutters prefer to ignore.

You left one out: Why did Marina show one on the day after the assassination to Lee Harvey's Oswald's own Mother, who adivised her to burn it and flush the ashes down the toilet?

This is from the testimony of Marina Oswald.

You never did adress the question I raised about the photos. You alleged the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald with a rifle in the backyard, but destroyed those and susbtituted others - the ones now in evidence.

You never explained why we should believe that, instead of Marina's own admissions to the Warren Commission and to the HSCa, that she took the photos.

For example (testimony before the HSCA, as Mrs Marina Porter, in 1978):

Mrs. Porter, I have got two exhibits to show you, if the clerk would procure them from the representatives of the National Archives.
We have two photographs to show you. They are Warren Commission Exhibits C-133-A and B, which have been given JFK Nos. F-378 and F-379. If the clerk would please hand them to you, and also if we could now have for display purposes JFK Exhibit F-179, which is a blowup of the two photographs placed in front of you.
Mrs. Porter, do you recognize the photographs placed in front of you?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I do.
Mr. McDONALD. And how do you recognize them?
Mrs. PORTER. That is the photograph that I made of Lee on his persistent request of taking a picture of him dressed like that with rifle.

Now, unless you can explain *why* the conspirators would do something as silly as destroying legit photos of Oswald with a rifle, only to substitute falsified photos of Oswald with a rifle, it is clear the only reasonable explanation before us is that Marina took the photos, and simply mis-remembered at one time (ovr twenty years after the fact) which way she was facing.

I know you don't accept it, and never will. But it is the only reasonable explanation - unless you can address the silliness in your own claims and explain it reasonably.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And yet you never sourced this in a way that presented which photos were fraud.

Nor has it stopped you submitting photos as evidence yourself (which you have yet to retract) despite trying to crop and rotate them to aid your lies about what they apparently show.

It's not Robert's fault. The conspiracy books throw so much garbage against the wall, hoping some of it will stick, that some people reading the books never get the concept that a lot of the allegations contradict each other, and thus at least one (if not both) must be false.

So Robert claims the autopsy photos in evidence aren't the real ones, then cites supposed evidence from one autopsy photo that it is alleged, shows JFK was shot from the front. And he doesn't even see the conflict in his own claims!

This is true throughout the conspiracy literature. I am thinking of the claims about the nearly-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital (Commission Exhibit399).

Some CTs allege it was planted, others allege it was swapped, still others allege it was both planted and swapped.

Not sure where RP stands on this, but it's clear that if conspirators planted the bullet, there would be no need to swap it later, and if it was swapped later, it clearly wasn't planted.

Still, that doesn't stop some less-thoughtful conspiracy theorists from alleging both happened.

Now, Robert, you can swamp us with arguments on both sides of that fence, but we realize what you don't - that something is not kosher with a conspiracy theorist if they argue for both. You need to pick one, if you are going to argue the bullet is not legit - no conspirator would act in the way the conspiracy books allege.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The question at hand is not whether there was a crime, or that somebody shot at Kennedy. The question is, was it a conspiracy? A sub question might be was LHO involved, and there is considerable doubt about that. But even if he was, there is a mountain of evidence for others involved. Coming late to the forum, I suggest you read up on what you have missed.

If there is doubt about whether Oswald was involved, why did you mention the Cubans at Odio's apartment story, and tell us they were co-conspirators with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Have you changed your mind about the import of the Odio story?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oswald talked to his cell mate. Ruby talked to the cameras. Sam Giancana talked to his brother. Frank Fiorini (Sturgis) talked. Marita Lorenz gave sworn testimony. And then there is the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt.

Hi Robert,

I was asking about the co-conspirators you named earlier. Do you even recall them?

Here's what I asked again:

So, let's keep count, shall we?

Involved in the conspiracy or coverup of the conspiracy according to you thus far:

Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, the two cubans, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who made the JFK should be shot remarks, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI.

I have no doubt there will be several thousand more co-conspirators or cover-upper-ers added by you in the ensuing days.

How'd they get all those guys together and agree to do this?

How'd they get all them guys to stay silent for nearly 50 years?

Hank

Now, instead of answering that question, you simply added more conspirators to the pile! Did any of the original co-conspirators you named confess to anything? No? Why couldn't you have said that, then?

So we're up to, according to your own statements, Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, two Cubans who appeared at Sylvia Odio's apartment, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who, it is alleged, made a "JFK should be shot" remark, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI, as well as definitely Oswald (who talked to a cellmate), Ruby, Sam Giancana, Frank Fiorini (Sturgis), Marita Lorenz, and E. Howard Hunt!

Now, I doubt you can offer a coherent theory about how this conspiracy work, but I feel duty-bound to ask: How did this conspiracy work? What was the plan? Where did it go wrong, and why did they have to forge backyard photos instead of just using the ones they had that Marina took, why did they have to alter the autopsy photos *AND* the z-film *AND* the body? Why did they have to both plant and then later swap a bullet at Parkland for the bullet they originally planted? etc. etc. etc. I realize you may not have made all these claims yet, but they are all in the conspiracy literature, and you are simply parroting back to us the claims from that literature, so it's probably only a matter of time before you make these other claims.

You've already flip-flopped a number of times on whether Oswald was involved. Why don't you start with that?

Better yet, why not just tell us which of the above you don't believe? We can start there.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The unsupported claim on this board, is that it was Oswald's pistol that was used to kill Tippit. When questioned as to how that was proven, nobody on this board seemed to know.

Not sure if this was covered in detail yet (I am still catching up) but the shells found at the scene indicate they were fired from Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Robert, please advise, if you feel Tippit was shot with an automatic, as I'm sure you do, why the conspirators didn't bother to shoot Tippit with a revolver or better yet, frame Oswald for owning and attempting to shoot officer Nick McDonald in the Theatre with an automatic?

Was this a conspiracy of dunces?

Why would conspirators even think to do what you allege happened?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yes. But never in anger. Here is someone who has:

A combat-hardened ex-Marine and police sharpshooter Craig Roberts, author of "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza", asked,

" In a head shot, the exit wound, due to the buildup of hydrostatic pressure, explodes in a conical formation in the down-range direction of the bullet. "[/B]

http://www.jfklancer.com/sbt-1.html

Hi Robert,

Where is the conical explosive formation in the z-film?

I see it forward of the President.

Do you see it elsewhere?

Your source says that would be down-range (away from the shooter). Now, your source tells us that the shooter would be behind the president, if the above is true.

Is that wrong?

 

[Robert Prey]

Hi Robert,

Where is the conical explosive formation in the z-film?

I see it forward of the President.

Do you see it elsewhere?

Your source says that would be down-range (away from the shooter). Now, your source tells us that the shooter would be behind the president, if the above is true.

Is that wrong?

He was speaking of the absence of that conical explosive formation forward of the President, meaning, the fatal shot, in his view, did not come from behind.

 

[Tomtomkent]

He was speaking of the absence of that conical explosive formation forward of the President, meaning, the fatal shot, in his view, did not come from behind.

And yet that does not explain why the ejecta of an exit wound is not visible from the back of the head.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not sure if this was covered in detail yet (I am still catching up) but the shells found at the scene indicate they were fired from Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Robert, please advise, if you feel Tippit was shot with an automatic, as I'm sure you do, why the conspirators didn't bother to shoot Tippit with a revolver or better yet, frame Oswald for owning and attempting to shoot officer Nick McDonald in the Theatre with an automatic?

Was this a conspiracy of dunces?

Why would conspirators even think to do what you allege happened?

Hank

So, having failed to prove a Lone Nut assassin of the President, you now prefer to engage in a side issue of the shooting ot Tippit? Even if, how does that prove a Lone Nutter conspiracy???

 

[RoboTimbo]

a Lone Nutter conspiracy???

lol. You may want to look up the definition of conspiracy.