• 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.
Did these 40 doctors form a line after JFK was rolled over or did they all just pick up his head, examine it, and plop it back down?
 
HSienzant said:
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.
Click to expand...

McClelland's drawing was pre-autopsy at Parkland.
 
And yet you have never proven the Z film to be correct.
Or explained the other photographs taken at the plaza.
Nor the photographs you claim to be pre-autopsy, that clearly prove the parkland witnesses wrong.

You ask "what evidence" we answer "all of it".


Why is there not a single piece of material evidence to support the witnesses? Why did you have to resort to cropping and telling lies about the photographs?
 
Wolrab said:
Did these 40 doctors form a line after JFK was rolled over or did they all just pick up his head, examine it, and plop it back down?
Click to expand...

In actuality, Kennedy's body was never turned over at Parkland Hospital during the frantic attempts to resuscitate him. (Posner, p. 288) Or even after Kennedy was dead.

"When we decided to declare him dead," says [Dr.Pepper] Jenkins, "people just started to fade away... With Mrs. Kennedy there, we were not about to start examining the wounds or turning the body over. No one even lifted the head, although a few doctors passed by and quickly looked at the wound." (Posner, p. 292)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
You appear to be in full retreat mode. That's a good strategy for you.
Click to expand...

Either way. It's a drawing, a subjective interpretation of memory, and directly contradicted by material and clinical evidence. Obviously Robert has not retreated far enough to come into contact with reality yet.
 
Robert Prey said:
McClelland's drawing was pre-autopsy at Parkland.
Click to expand...

But you previously said there was no damage to the face.
And there is no damage to the face in the autopsy photo you cited.

Yet O'Connor's drawing shows the damaged area extending through the head all the way to the face.

Which disagrees entirely with the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays, and the other witnesses at the autopsy, as well as everyone at Parkland.

Why cite O'Connor's drawing when it is clearly off-the-wall and disagrees with the other witnesses?

Hank
 
Tomtomkent said:
And yet you have never proven the Z film to be correct.
Or explained the other photographs taken at the plaza.
Nor the photographs you claim to be pre-autopsy, that clearly prove the parkland witnesses wrong.

You ask "what evidence" we answer "all of it".


Why is there not a single piece of material evidence to support the witnesses? Why did you have to resort to cropping and telling lies about the photographs?
Click to expand...

Since you were responding to RP, I assume you mean 'incorrect' in the first sentence above.

Hank
 
Was meant to read "corrupted", but the auto correct on my phone is flawed by an idiot using it.
 
Walter Ego said:
In actuality, Kennedy's body was never turned over at Parkland Hospital during the frantic attempts to resuscitate him. (Posner, p. 288) Or even after Kennedy was dead.Quote:
"When we decided to declare him dead," says [Dr.Pepper] Jenkins, "people just started to fade away... With Mrs. Kennedy there, we were not about to start examining the wounds or turning the body over. No one even lifted the head, although a few doctors passed by and quickly looked at the wound." (Posner, p. 292)
Click to expand...


"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.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Robert, do you have MATERIAL evidence to support your claims? At all?
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

No red herring, Robert. These are not irrelevant and speculative questions.
They follow naturally from what *you* claimed. You wrote, and I quote: "The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden."

Robert, do you believe the body of JFK was altered? If so, when was Connally's body altered, because the altering of one of necessity means the other was likewise altered.

Both men were wounded in the same incident. Both men suffered wounds from shots from behind. It is Lifton's thesis that there were no shooters from behind, and that the wounds on JFK were actually shots from the front made to look like wounds from behind.

Now, if there were no shooters behind JFK, then it follows there were no shooters behind Connally either. Yet his wounds point to a shooter from behind, so his wounds must have been altered as well as JFK's.

You need to address the alteration of Connally's wounds if you are going to claim the body of JFK was altered. And after all, you can only be talking about JFK's body in the above when you wrote: "The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden."

Hank
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
Either way. It's a drawing, a subjective interpretation of memory, and directly contradicted by material and clinical evidence. Obviously Robert has not retreated far enough to come into contact with reality yet.
Click to expand...

Better yet, it's not even a drawing by McClelland. Rather, it's a drawing that first appeared in Six Seconds in Dallas (by Josiah Thompson, published 1967) by an artist commissioned by the author to illustrate McClelland's description of JFK's head wound - based on author interviews with McClelland years after the event.

McClelland's contemporaneous notes say only that JFK suffered a "massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." He says on page two that JFK's "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Note there is no detail in his original notes (written on the same afternoon of the assassination, left than five hours after he saw JFK's body) about the location of the massive head wound. Any details he has offered since then has the possibility of being influenced and corrupted by talking to others about the case. The others would be of course, other doctors as well as government investigators and critics.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0275b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0276a.htm

In my opinion, McClelland meant the massive wound in the right temple that is visible in the Z-film and the autopsy photos when he wrote left temple. Others reversed left and right when speaking about that wound as well. (AP photographer James Altgens for one). The body has a wound in the anatomical right temple, but that wound is to Altgen's left as the limo approaches Altgens. I think McClelland did the same thing.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
. And after all, you can only be talking about JFK's body in the above when you wrote: "The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden."

Hank
Click to expand...

Robert has hinted a lot of evidence has been altered. The autopsy was apparently a sham, the Z film had "missing frames", the WC was a "white wash" and the photos of LHO he failed to recreate have "impossible" shadows.

Not once has he been able to prove any tampering of evidence has taken place. Only that he suspects there might have been because it conflicts with the "true" Parkland evidence.

Unfortunately this is clearly arse about face. The Parkland testemony should be called into question because it fails to match the material evidence. It doesn't matter if there was 20, 30 or 40 witnesses, they rely on subjective memory. Simply demanding "were they lying or mistaken" does not prove they were right. It offers two possibilities why witness testemony is low priority. Especially when no plausible reason is given why one narrative should be considered any more honest than the other possibilities. We can see for ourselves, from multiple sources, there was no massive exit wound on the back of JFKs head after the shots had been fired. It doesn't matter why the Parkland statements are incorrect, they remain incorrect untill MATERIAL evidence is supplied that proves otherwise.

Whenever asked Robert has failed to produce any. He has produced drawings (which aren't) or more testemony (still not material evidence) and some photos that clearly and totally disprove his claims.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Robert,

You haven't begun to address the point I made, which follows from your argument that Marina took backyard photos of Oswald with a rifle, just not the ones in evidence. In case you forgot, here's my point again. That's a bizarre formulation.

You're saying the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald, taken by Marina, holding a rifle in that backyard, and for some reason (too much time on their hands and an unlimited budget, perhaps?) they destroyed the legit ones and went to all the trouble to substitute fake ones?

Do you even begin to think about the implications of some of your conjectures?

It appears not.

Of course, the other interpretation - that Marina, 20 or more years after the event - introduced this change in her story simply because she simply mis-remembered where she was standing at the time and this means the photos in evidence have always been the ones she took (and that Oswald signed the back of one), isn't to your liking, because it implicates Oswald as owning the rifle and being a leftist.

So of course you will seize upon any other interpretation, no matter how bizarre.

That is not the correct way to solve a crime.


Can you explain why the conspirators would do this - destroy the legitimate photos of Oswald holding a rifle and substitute fake ones that could be discovered as falsified? Was it perhaps because they had plenty of time and an unlimited budget?

If you have a credible reason for the conspirators you conjecture to act this way, please advance it now. Otherwise, there is clearly no credible reason and the fact that you have conspirators acting in such a bizarre manner is sufficient to dismiss your conjectures as nonsense.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Hey, these are the same guys who left a rifle that was not Oswalds in the TSBD to "frame" him, THEN switched it for "his" rifle at a later date. And THEN faked the photos of Oswald holding this new rifle.


Ah yes. Reading back over the course of this thread and seeing which parts of Roberts vision make no sense in the context of later posts is always fun.
 
HSienzant said:
Hi Robert,

You haven't begun to address the point I made, which follows from your argument that Marina took backyard photos of Oswald with a rifle, just not the ones in evidence. In case you forgot, here's my point again. That's a bizarre formulation.

You're saying the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald, taken by Marina, holding a rifle in that backyard, and for some reason (too much time on their hands and an unlimited budget, perhaps?) they destroyed the legit ones and went to all the trouble to substitute fake ones?

Do you even begin to think about the implications of some of your conjectures?

It appears not.

Of course, the other interpretation - that Marina, 20 or more years after the event - introduced this change in her story simply because she simply mis-remembered where she was standing at the time and this means the photos in evidence have always been the ones she took (and that Oswald signed the back of one), isn't to your liking, because it implicates Oswald as owning the rifle and being a leftist.

So of course you will seize upon any other interpretation, no matter how bizarre.

That is not the correct way to solve a crime.


Can you explain why the conspirators would do this - destroy the legitimate photos of Oswald holding a rifle and substitute fake ones that could be discovered as falsified? Was it perhaps because they had plenty of time and an unlimited budget?

If you have a credible reason for the conspirators you conjecture to act this way, please advance it now. Otherwise, there is clearly no credible reason and the fact that you have conspirators acting in such a bizarre manner is sufficient to dismiss your conjectures as nonsense.

Hank
Click to expand...

First, a summary of the questions in this thread, and their relative importance:

1. Is there any irrefutable evidence that LHO even fired a single shot?
Answer, No.

2. If LHO did fire a shot at JfK, does that prove he was the only shooter.
Answer: NO.

3. Even if LHO was the only shooter, is there any evidence of others involved?
Answer: Yes.

4. Did LHO kill Tippit?
Answer: Maybe not.

5. If LHO did kill Tippit, does that prove he was the single LN that killed JFK?
Answer: Course not.

6. Do the B/Y Photos, even if real, prove that LHO killed JFK.
Answer: Course not.

7. Is there any evidence that the B/Y photos were forged and used to convict LHO in the Court of Public Opinion as the Lone Nut shooter, thereby brainwashing the public into believing there was no reason to look for anyone else?
Answer: Absolutely

8. Is Marina Oswald a credible witness for either side?
Answer: No.

9. Is the question as to whether or not there was a conspiracy the only question of any real importance?

Answer: Yes. The other questions are all Red Herrings.

In answer to your frivolous, irrelevant post, see No. 7.
 
HSienzant said:
No red herring, Robert. These are not irrelevant and speculative questions.
They follow naturally from what *you* claimed. You wrote, and I quote: "The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden."

Robert, do you believe the body of JFK was altered? If so, when was Connally's body altered, because the altering of one of necessity means the other was likewise altered.

Both men were wounded in the same incident. Both men suffered wounds from shots from behind. It is Lifton's thesis that there were no shooters from behind, and that the wounds on JFK were actually shots from the front made to look like wounds from behind.

Now, if there were no shooters behind JFK, then it follows there were no shooters behind Connally either. Yet his wounds point to a shooter from behind, so his wounds must have been altered as well as JFK's.

You need to address the alteration of Connally's wounds if you are going to claim the body of JFK was altered. And after all, you can only be talking about JFK's body in the above when you wrote: "The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden."

Hank
Click to expand...

I"ve never made the claim that JfK's wounds were altered though they may have been. "Recreated" could refer to the autopsy fraud. But I don't know and neither do you. Nor have I ever claimed there were no shots from behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom