JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

How does that prove a non-conspiracy?

Hi Robert,

Do you think the shells traceable to Oswald's weapon from the Tippit shooting were planted? Or swapped? Or both?

Regards,
Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Hi Robert,

Do you think the shells traceable to Oswald's weapon from the Tippit shooting were planted? Or swapped? Or both?

Regards,
Hank

Sure looks like some kind of shell game. But I don't know, and neither do you, except for the fact, that it has nothing to do with whether JFK hit was or was not a conspiracy.

 

[Robert Prey]

Burden-of-proof shifting. The burden is on you to prove that there is a conspiracy.

Already done that.

 

[EventHorizon]

Already done that.

Again you seem to have trouble with the definition of words. Prove would be one of those words. Evidence, speculation, logic and truth being a few of the others.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Already done that.

What is your single best piece of evidence for a conspiracy?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Already done that.

With two people who thought LHO might have been a lone nut, but in no way aided him.

And by your telling could not conspire with him because he didnt do it.

 

[Walter Ego]

Repeat After Me

Post #2131

Irrelevant and speculative questions that are Red Herrings to avoid the truth of 30 plus first hand witnesses at Parkland observing a large blow-out in the back of the President's head.

Post #2132

The truth of what is seen, or unseen in the Z film is revealed in the 30 or so first hand Parkland witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head.

More mantra chanting. Keep repeating this, Robert. Maybe you'll convince yourself it's true one day. You're certainly not convincing anyone else.

 

[HSienzant]

Sure looks like some kind of shell game. But I don't know, and neither do you, except for the fact, that it has nothing to do with whether JFK hit was or was not a conspiracy.

Wow, Robert, I am really impressed with your answer above.
Not.

Remember *you* brought up the Tippit shooting in this message:

You wrote this in post 983:

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.

I am responding to that point *you* raised.

Now, if the Tippit shooting has nothing to do with the JFK shooting, and doesn't establish or not establish a conspiracy, why did you bring it up in the first place?

 

[Robrob]

Wow, Robert, I am really impressed with your answer above.
Not.

Remember *you* brought up the Tippit shooting in this message:

You wrote this in post 983:



I am responding to that point *you* raised.

Now, if the Tippit shooting has nothing to do with the JFK shooting, and doesn't establish or not establish a conspiracy, why did you bring it up in the first place?

Look if you're going to hold him responsible for what he says it's just going to ruin his whole "troll thing."

 

[HSienzant]

Why is there no visible [back of the head] exit wound in the Z film???/-- The question answered.

Pick and choose:

1. Because there was no exit wound in the back of the head. All of the doctors, nurses and attendants at Parkland simply lied about that as did the autopsy photographers and film developers. Also Doug Horne of the ARRB simply lied.

2. Because there was no exit wound in the back of the head. All of doctors, nurses and attendants at Parkland were simply mistaken, as well as the autopsy photographers and film developers. Also Doug Horne of the ARRB who was simply mistaken.

3. Because the Z film was just to blurry to show it.

4. Because the Z film, examined frame by frame leaves a whole lot of action missing, and the blow-out occurred between frames.

5. Because the Z film was altered by the conspirators, just like the Backyard photos.

Pick and choose, or add your own fantastical explanation. Or simply duck the question, again.

1. Your supposed uniform evidence of all doctors saying the same thing doesn't withstand scrutiny. There is no exit wound visible in the Zapruder film in the back of JFK's head because there was no exit wound in the back of JFK's head.

2. Same answer as above, except Horne is a conspiracy theorist who pushed his own agenda at the ARRB. There is no exit wound visible in the Zapruder film in the back of JFK's head because there was no exit wound in the back of JFK's head.


3. The Z-film doesn't show it because it wasn't there.

4. Are you serious? Did the exit wound vanish immediately after the bullet penetrated the head? Was it a temporary exit wound? If the bullet struck between frames, the wound should still be visible in the following frames.

5. Sure, if you have any evidence of that, just present it. Love to hear the evidence.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

1. Your supposed uniform evidence of all doctors saying the same thing doesn't withstand scrutiny. There is no exit wound visible in the Zapruder film in the back of JFK's head because there was no exit wound in the back of JFK's head.

2. Same answer as above, except Horne is a conspiracy theorist who pushed his own agenda at the ARRB. There is no exit wound visible in the Zapruder film in the back of JFK's head because there was no exit wound in the back of JFK's head.


3. The Z-film doesn't show it because it wasn't there.

4. Are you serious? Did the exit wound vanish immediately after the bullet penetrated the head? Was it a temporary exit wound? If the bullet struck between frames, the wound should still be visible in the following frames.

5. Sure, if you have any evidence of that, just present it. Love to hear the evidence.

Hank

The back of the head is a dark blur. The evidence for the veracity of the Z film is found in the observations of the medical personnel at Parkland. 30 or so independently corroborate each other. That's about as solid evidence as you could have, and unlike the Z film, not subject to alteration nor subjective interpretation.

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow, Robert, I am really impressed with your answer above.
Not.

Remember *you* brought up the Tippit shooting in this message:

You wrote this in post 983:



I am responding to that point *you* raised.

Now, if the Tippit shooting has nothing to do with the JFK shooting, and doesn't establish or not establish a conspiracy, why did you bring it up in the first place?

I didn't. Someone else raised it first.

 

[TheRedWorm]

The back of the head is a dark blur. The evidence for the veracity of the Z film is found in the observations of the medical personnel at Parkland. 30 or so independently corroborate each other. That's about as solid evidence as you could have, and unlike the Z film, not subject to alteration nor subjective interpretation.

Again, who cares about eyewitness testimony when it is in conflict with physical evidence?

 

[Walter Ego]

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

The back of the head is a dark blur. The evidence for the veracity of the Z film is found in the observations of the medical personnel at Parkland. 30 or so independently corroborate each other. That's about as solid evidence as you could have, and unlike the Z film, not subject to alteration nor subjective interpretation.

This is the 3rd time in less than 24 hours that Robert has repeated some variation of this statement. This is his fallback position. You would have to review this entire thread to see how he has boxed himself into this corner but suffice to say we will be hearing this mantra again.... and again... and again.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The back of the head is a dark blur. The evidence for the veracity of the Z film is found in the observations of the medical personnel at Parkland. 30 or so independently corroborate each other. That's about as solid evidence as you could have, and unlike the Z film, not subject to alteration nor subjective interpretation.

Erm. Eyewitness testimony is entirely subjective. It is the personal interpretation of evenets, unavailable for objective verification. We know they are subjective as, has been pointed out already, one of your sources describes the wounds differently several times in his own book.

The Z film is not subjective.
The photographs from the plaza are not subjective.
The fingerprints are not subjective.
The cartridges are not subjective.
The photographs of the body are not subjective.
The autopsy measurements are not subjective.
None of these support the witness testemony.

Ergo the testemony must be at fault.

Edit: Furthermore, simply saying something COULD be subject to tampering is not enough. Robert has never managed to prove any evidence tampering. He has only proven his unwillingness to understand what the evidence actually proves. I have serious doubts that he even understands what th term "proof" means. Take for example his "proof" of conspiracy from the Odio testemony.

For this to prove, beyond any doubt that Oswald and others plotted together. Yet he himself has stated it might have been Oswald "Or somebody impersonating him", and at no point suggests that the two chaps who were of the opinion "Oswald" (or somebody else) was serious in his desire to kill the president, this was hearsay, and not suggestive they were party to, or accomplices in the crime. Worse, Oswald was apparently framed, ergo they, thinking Oswald was guilty, could not have been part of it, unless they were "framing" him. Yet, we have no evidence to support the conjecture they were employed in any way to frame him.

So what does this "prove"? That somebody who may have been Oswald (or not) was considered in the opinion of two people to be capable of killing the president, or he was not and they were framing a patsy, on the assumption this was part of a conspiracy. It does not prove a conspiracy. More importantly, if it DID, and we gave Robert the benefit of the doubt, it does not prove THE SAME CONSPIRACY HE ADVOCATES.

 

[HSienzant]

LOL. 30 becomes 40.

And it was originally 20!

The evidence of veracity is the contemporaneous nature of the witnesses and the fact that each and every Parkland witness is corroborated by 19 or 20 others in the same ER room. That is your evidence. Now what evidence do you have that the statements of those from Bethesda or elsewhere are more accurate than those first hand witnesses who were actually a part of the ER scene?

 

[HSienzant]

Some people do believe that. But I do not find it necessary to believe it or not. The evidence is in the first hand on the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head. I think it's possible that part of the Z film was altered, but even more likely that the face wound in the Z film was painted in, since the President's face was left intact from all accounts.

So in your studied opinion, there are two options, the Z-film was either:
(a) altered, or it was
(b) altered?

lol.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So in your studied opinion, there are two options, the Z-film was either:
(a) altered, or it was
(b) altered?

lol.

Well, that is far more likely than all that blood and ejecta we see exploding out actually landing over his face. Clearly it vanishes into the ether, meaning that an altered film is the only possibility.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

But you previously said there was no damage to the face. O'Connor's drawing shows the damaged area extending through the head all the way to the face.
The drawing from Six Seconds in Dallas [the drawing showing what McClelland's version of the wound was] shows only a large exit wound on the back of the head, with no damage extending into the right temple or all the way to the face.

Can you somehow merge these disparate images into a coherent story line?

I bet you can't.

 

[HSienzant]

Brennan may have seen someone, but even after seeing Oswald on TV that day, Brennan failed to ID Oswald at the police lineup on the night of Nov. 22nd. Then later, he changed his mind, then later, changed his mind again. Not a very credible witness.

A witness with bad eyesight who thinks he saw somebody from a distance but couldn't ID him up close, and then changes his story time and again, is not a credible witness. Obviously.

Hi Robert,

Alleging Howard Brennan had bad eyesight at the time of the JFK assassination is a falsehood. Please retract it.

Thanks,
Hank