JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

For your questions and answers above, I will have to give you a failing grade, Robert.
The correct answers are:
1. The physical evidence establishes it was Oswald's rifle that was used to shoot JFK and Governor Connally. Eyewitness Howard Brennan - among others - establishes it was Oswald in the window.

2. NO is correct. It is impossible to prove the lack of a conspiracy. However, there is also no evidence that supports a conspiracy.

3. NO. There are suppositions and poor logic passing as evidence, but no evidence supports a conspiracy.

4. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald shot and killed Tippit.

5. Your answer is correct. However, the evidence is likewise equally strong that Oswald was the person who shot at JFK from the sixth floor sniper's nest window.

6. They prove Oswald owned and possessed the rifle found on the sixth floor and they also establish he lied in custody about
a) Owning that rifle.
b) Bring that rifle to the TSBD.

7. The photos have been studied on numerous occasions by numerous legitimate experts and found to bear no evidence of falsification. Marina has testified she took the photos. The only arguments for falsification comes from amateur photo-analysts like Robert Groden and Jack White who have no understanding of even rudimentary photo analysis. As legit photos, they don't (of course) establish anything beyond the facts that Oswald owned the rifle, Oswald brought the rifle to the TSBD, and Oswald lied in custody about both those pertinent items in his statements to law enforcement officers who were interrogating him.

8. Marina has always stated she took photos of Oswald in the backyard. In most of those statements, she said she took the photos in evidence. If you believe as you have stated previously, that Marina took photos of Oswald with her back to the stairs instead of with the stairs in the background, you need to explain why conspirators would destroy legit photos only to substitute fake ones showing essentially the same thing.

Here's point 8 addressed in more detail, which you haven't yet begun to rebut:

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

All this is old stuff, repeatedly debunked. Happy to debunk it again. But only one point at at time.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is pathetic, Robert. Threatening a forum of rationalists with divine punishment is pretty lame but maybe that's all you have left at this point.

Back on topic, let's look at what you posted almost a month ago (God, this has been a long thread!) about those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.



You've included Clint Hill, Jackie Kennedy's SS agent who jumped on the back of the limo and viewed JFK's head as he looked down into the back seat as a Parkland witness but let's not quibble. (Jackie was on the back of the limo picking up a piece of JFK's brain that is completely invisible in the blurry vagina-like Z film according to you.)

So that's 18 Parkland witnesses (which you conflated to 20 and then to 30) and 12 Bethesda witnesses which equals 30. Let's be generous and include those three SS agents you mentioned in the car in back of the presidential limo even though Hill was in that car before the shooting started. That's 18 + 12 + 3 = 33, so you're still 7 "witnesses" short of 40.

Knowing your history of confusing even yourself, I will in the Christmas spirit not accuse you of lying, only of being muddled-headed. If you would like to amend 7 more names to your "witness" list, please do so.

All this is old stuff. You want a dialogue, one witness at a time, please. Pick your poison.

 

[RoboTimbo]

All this is old stuff, repeatedly debunked. Happy to debunk it again. But only one point at at time.

Seriously Robert. Your cowardly dodging doesn't make anyone think any less of you.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is pathetic, Robert. Threatening a forum of rationalists with divine punishment is pretty lame but maybe that's all you have left at this point.

Back on topic, let's look at what you posted almost a month ago (God, this has been a long thread!) about those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.



You've included Clint Hill, Jackie Kennedy's SS agent who jumped on the back of the limo and viewed JFK's head as he looked down into the back seat as a Parkland witness but let's not quibble. (Jackie was on the back of the limo picking up a piece of JFK's brain that is completely invisible in the blurry vagina-like Z film according to you.)

So that's 18 Parkland witnesses (which you conflated to 20 and then to 30) and 12 Bethesda witnesses which equals 30. Let's be generous and include those three SS agents you mentioned in the car in back of the presidential limo even though Hill was in that car before the shooting started. That's 18 + 12 + 3 = 33, so you're still 7 "witnesses" short of 40.

Knowing your history of confusing even yourself, I will in the Christmas spirit not accuse you of lying, only of being muddled-headed. If you would like to amend 7 more names to your "witness" list, please do so.

Old stuff. One witness at at time, please.

 

[Robert Prey]

You appear to be abandoning McClelland as a witness, because he wrote that the parietal bone was protruding out when he saw the large avulsive wound in JFK's head. Kudos. You can learn the truth after all.

And McClelland says what?
"so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half..."

And where is the parietal bone?
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_bone
"The parietal bones are bones in the human skull which, when joined together, form the sides and roof of the cranium."

That sounds a lot like the autopsy photos which show the massive wound in the right temple and top of the head - in the parietal bone.

Hank

I really don't know how this supports a small entry wound in the back of the head. Perhaps you also need a refresher in anatomy.

 

[GregHouseMD]

All this is old stuff. You want a dialogue, one witness at a time, please. Pick your poison.

This is one of the worst responses I have ever read.

I think though that the problem is not that Robert Prey is incapable of accepting that he is frequently wrong but that he simply speaks a different language than everyone else.

If any other poster were to point at a sheep and say "sheep" Robert would say "tractor" or possibly "suicide". He's not wrong, it's just a different language. Yes he is using words that sound like and (in some cases) are spelled like words we all use in the English language but it's a different language.

It won't make sense to most of us because there is no translation tool available. Even Robert can't tell us what he is really saying. For all we know, he is agreeing with us.

I think the problem is related to Robert's parent's having him vaccinated when he was young.

As far fetched as this may sound, it certainly explains a lot of the confusion Robert seems to create when he seemingly contradicts himself daily and even hourly on this forum in various threads.

Regardless of whether or not there is a language barrier, my theory is no less believable than the multifaceted, fluid, ever changing, string of evidence that Robert presents here.

 

[Walter Ego]

This is one of the worst responses I have ever read.

He's also beginning to sputter. He posted what is essentially the same answer three times in a row.

All this is old stuff, repeatedly debunked. Happy to debunk it again. But only one point at at time.

All this is old stuff. You want a dialogue, one witness at a time, please. Pick your poison.

Old stuff. One witness at at time, please.

This seems to me like an obvious ploy to avoid addressing the actual context of the posts he is ostensibly answering, especially my post which was about the conflated number of Parkland and Bethesda "witnesses" he is claiming, not the credibility of specific witnesses as his "answer" seems to imply.

We can often only guess at Robert is trying to say. That he may be speaking some different language that only superficially resembles English in its agreed upon meanings of common words and terms as you suggest is a another question all together.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I really don't know how this supports a small entry wound in the back of the head. Perhaps you also need a refresher in anatomy.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ef10d15d5a2b.jpg[/qimg]

So somebody discusses bones, and robert shows... lobes. Ok... while claiming somebody else needs lessons in anatomy. Wow.

Lets assume the bones cover the same quadrants as the lobes. Oh look, the parietial stretches right around to the side, and butts up close to the frontal. Right where the exit wound Robert cropped from the Death Stare photo was. Yet he can't see how that could be consistant with a shooting from behind.

Says more about Robert than his theory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Of course if he had looked at the link Hank supplied Robert would have seen the majority of ythe side of the head is the parietal bones, so the description is immediately consistent to an even greater degree.

 

[Fourbrick]

Of course if he had looked at the link Hank supplied Robert would have seen the majority of ythe side of the head is the parietal bones, so the description is immediately consistent to an even greater degree.

From Hank's links.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/81844101@N00/6549463247/


From the report " There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring"

Edit for emphasis.

 

[HSienzant]

The difficulty is that some witnesses saw two men involved in the shooting, and none of them identified as Oswald. And planted shells linked to a planted gun is a routine procedure for corrupt cops in the process of framing a Patsy. But the entire episode is irrelevant as to whether there was or was not a conspiracy in the assassination of Kennedy.

Yes, Robert, you've said that before. But you haven't cited any statements from these witnesses, so we cannot determine how credible they are.

And if they are not credible, they in no way call into question the statements of the witnesses who testified before the Warren Commission and stated they saw the gunman (identified as Oswald by numerous witnessses) discard the shells.

So you cannot argue the shells are planted if the witnesses saw the shooter remove them from his revolver and toss them aside as he reloaded his weapon.

And you cannot argue the revolver is planted since numerous witnesses saw Oswald throw a punch at McDonald in the theatre and then pull his [Oswald's] gun in an attempt to kill McDonald.

For example, Johnny Brewer testified to this:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/warren_report/Johnny_Calvin_Brewer.html


Mr. Brewer. Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
. . .
Mr. Belin. Who hit who first?
Mr. Brewer. Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. Belin. Who knocked who?
Mr. Brewer. He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. Belin. When you say he was----
Mr. Brewer. McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. Belin. Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. Brewer. No.
Mr. Belin. You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. Brewer. And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mr. Belin. Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. Brewer. Yes; he was fighting back.
Mr. Belin. Then what happened?
Mr. Brewer. Well, just in a short time they put the handcuffs on him and they took him out.

Do you think Brewer lied about Oswald throwing the first punch and pulling a gun on McDonald?

You want to divorce the JFK shooting from the killing of Tippit and Oswald's assault on a police officer. But the evidence in all three incidents point to the same man, a man who left his rifle behind in the building where he worked, and whowent back to his roominghouse to get his revolver, and then killed Tippit with that revolver when stopped by the officer, and then punched and attempted to shoot Officer McDonald in the Texas Theatre.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Destroy the Legit Photos, Substitute Altered Ones?

All this is old stuff, repeatedly debunked. Happy to debunk it again. But only one point at at time.

Nonsense. You haven't debunked it even once. And you tell me one point at a time, after you list nine points of argument and I respond to all nine? At this rate, with that limitation you impose I won't ever be able to respond to all the nonsense you post. Perhaps that's your goal.

How does this one-point-at-a-time limitation apply to you? Or doesn't it?

You want one point, try responding to the one in bold below.

First, a summary of the questions in this thread, and their relative importance:
<snip nine points>

My original point, which you still haven't addressed, is here:

For your questions and answers above, I will have to give you a failing grade, Robert.
The correct answers are:
<snip rebuttal points, leaving my original point, which you still haven't try to rebut>

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

 

[Tomtomkent]

From Hank's links.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/81844101@N00/6549463247/


From the report " There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring"

Edit for emphasis.

So would you not call the entry wound behind the ear a large wound to that would be bleeding? To assume it was refering the largest wound, the exit wound would be incosistent, or dishonest.

I do not think that the section hank was refering to though, by the way.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nonsense. You haven't debunked it even once. And you tell me one point at a time, after you list nine points of argument and I respond to all nine? At this rate, with that limitation you impose I won't ever be able to respond to all the nonsense you post. Perhaps that's your goal.

How does this one-point-at-a-time limitation apply to you? Or doesn't it?

You want one point, try responding to the one in bold below.




My original point, which you still haven't addressed, is here:

Already answered this several times. Boring. The forged B/Y pics were used to indict LHO in the court of public opinion. Get it?????

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, Robert, you've said that before. But you haven't cited any statements from these witnesses, so we cannot determine how credible they are.

And if they are not credible, they in no way call into question the statements of the witnesses who testified before the Warren Commission and stated they saw the gunman (identified as Oswald by numerous witnessses) discard the shells.

So you cannot argue the shells are planted if the witnesses saw the shooter remove them from his revolver and toss them aside as he reloaded his weapon.

And you cannot argue the revolver is planted since numerous witnesses saw Oswald throw a punch at McDonald in the theatre and then pull his [Oswald's] gun in an attempt to kill McDonald.

For example, Johnny Brewer testified to this:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/warren_report/Johnny_Calvin_Brewer.html


Mr. Brewer. Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
. . .
Mr. Belin. Who hit who first?
Mr. Brewer. Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. Belin. Who knocked who?
Mr. Brewer. He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. Belin. When you say he was----
Mr. Brewer. McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. Belin. Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. Brewer. No.
Mr. Belin. You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. Brewer. And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mr. Belin. Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. Brewer. Yes; he was fighting back.
Mr. Belin. Then what happened?
Mr. Brewer. Well, just in a short time they put the handcuffs on him and they took him out.

Do you think Brewer lied about Oswald throwing the first punch and pulling a gun on McDonald?

You want to divorce the JFK shooting from the killing of Tippit and Oswald's assault on a police officer. But the evidence in all three incidents point to the same man, a man who left his rifle behind in the building where he worked, and whowent back to his roominghouse to get his revolver, and then killed Tippit with that revolver when stopped by the officer, and then punched and attempted to shoot Officer McDonald in the Texas Theatre.

Hank

All irrelevant. At this point LHO knew he was in trouble either for something he did or didn't do. Irrelevant as to the question of who did it and conspiracy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Already answered this several times. Boring. The forged B/Y pics were used to indict LHO in the court of public opinion. Get it?????

That does not answer the question.
So in which post did you explain why genuine pictures of LHO holding the rifle and revolver he used to murder two people were destroyed only to replace them with fake photos of him holding the exact same guns. I can find no post where you offer an explanation as to why the conspirators would not just use the genuine photos that Mariana took of the exact same guns.

Which if you have not explained, means you have not answered the question.

Get it????????????????

 

[Tomtomkent]

All irrelevant. At this point LHO knew he was in trouble either for something he did or didn't do. Irrelevant as to the question of who did it and conspiracy.

So you admit to being wrong about no witnesses now?

Maybe you should give it some thought and consider how his actions fit into events, thenreconsider if it is irrelevant that he was using a revolver that tied him to the murder weapon of JFK...

 

[HSienzant]

The Critics Lie

Robert has been reading the JFK conspiracy literature and apparently taking voluminous notes. However, it does not appear he ever checks the facts cited in that literature for accuracy or completeness.

Here's one point made about the clip, by Sylvia Meagher, in her book, ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (page 120). It should be noted other critics - to this day - repeat the same claims about the clip. I am quoting both the text about the clip as well as her footnote from the same page.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1&relPageId=154

"What is the status of the ammunition clip described in the Warren Report and pictured in the Exhibits? (CE 574-575) The assertion that the clip was in the rifle found in the Book Depository is completely unsupported by testimony or documents.* The citations in the footnote are specious. There are no contemporaneous references to any ammunition clip, or references at any time prior to the Warren Report. No link between the clip and Oswald has been established - by purchase, possession, fingerprints, or other methods.
_______________
* A former assistant counsel who asked that his name not be disclosed told me over the telephone that the footnote (to the Report's assertion that an ammunition clip was in the rifle when it was found) was indeed erroneous. He was unable to cite testimony or documents substantiating this assertion. But he was not perturbed: he believed it possible that three shots could have been fired in five and a half seconds even without a clip. If several cartridges were inserted in the space provided to house a clip, he suggested, the cartridges would still feed automatically into the chamber, because the rifle contained a spring while the clip did not.
Nothing in the literature suggests such an outlandish possibility. Cartridges must be inserted into the chamber manually, a time-consuming operation that would rule out three shots in only five and a half seconds, or they must be placed into a ammunition clip which would feed them automatically and rapidly into the chamber. Moreover, if the counsel's theory was viable, it would be all the more disturbing that the Warren Commission's evidence includes an unauthenticated ammunition clip which one had been led to believe was indispensable for the perpetration of the crime within the specified time period. It is no answer to say, when it is pointed out that the presence of the ammunition clip in the rifle found in the Book Depository is not supported by any evidence, that the ammunition clip is not, after all, essential to the Commission's theory of the crime. The answer needed is whether the ammunition clip can be authenticated, and why the Commission has put the clip forward as verified evidence without first verifying its discovery and the chain of possession. This answer is needed all te more when the best available information indicates an ammunition clip is indispensable to the alleged assassin's ability to fire three shots in about five and one half seconds, and that ability in turn is indispensable to the Commission's conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin."

There are a number of falsehoods in the above.

First off, of course, is the fact that the Commission did not decide the shooting occurred in five and one half seconds. They determined one shot was fired somewhere between Zapruder frames 210 and 224, and another shot was fired at Zapruder frame 313. They said the third shots, which they determined missed the car entirely, could have been fired before the shot at Z210-224, or after the shot at Z313, or in between those two shots. Meagher is less than honest when she dismisses entirely the scenarios that allow Oswald more time, and speaks only of the one scenario which allows Oswald the least amount of time.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is testimony that the clip was found in the rifle. J.C.Day of the Dallas Crime Lab, testified to the Commission that he personally took the rifle from the Depository back to the Crime Lab, and removed the clip there. He stated in his testimony he created a memorandum for the record about the rifle that noted the markings on the clip, and he read that memorandum into the record, which includes the notation "The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"

There are also news photographers photographs taken of Oswald's rifle at the time J.C.Day exited the Depository with the rifle. Several of those show the clip stuck in the rifle. Those photos show Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The clip is linked to Oswald's rifle (and thereby to Oswald) by means of the photos as well as the memorandum for the record that J.C.Day executed on the afternoon of the assassination. Quite clearly, Meagher is wrong at best, and dishonest at worst, when she writes that "The assertion that the clip was in the rifle found in the Book Depository is completely unsupported by testimony or documents ... No link between the clip and Oswald has been established - by purchase, possession, fingerprints, or other methods."

 

[HSienzant]

All irrelevant. At this point LHO knew he was in trouble either for something he did or didn't do. Irrelevant as to the question of who did it and conspiracy.

lol.

Just answer the question, Robert. It's not too difficult as it only requires a yes or a no and it only addresses one point, a stipulation of yours. Do you think Brewer lied about Oswald throwing the first punch and pulling a gun on McDonald when McDonald approached him in the theatre?

 

[HSienzant]

Already answered this several times. Boring. The forged B/Y pics were used to indict LHO in the court of public opinion. Get it?????

Yes, I am granting all that for the sake of the argument. You also admitted that you believe Marina took photos of Oswald holding the rifle, just not the [forged] ones in evidence.

I am pointing out a problem with your re-construction of the crime, that the scenario you are advancing requires the conspirators to destroy perfectly legitimate photos of Oswald holding his rifle, taken by Marina, and then substituting falsified photos of Oswald holding his rifle, purported taken by Marina.

My point is simple and I am surprised you have not been able to explain it away. Why would the conspirators do this, unless they had a lot of free time on their hands and an unlimited budget?

Why not just use the legit photos to frame Oswald in the court of public opinion? Would not those work as well?

For Robert: This is called reduction to an absurdity. I have taken your own argument and accepted your premises, and shown how your argument makes no sense. Therefore, whether you understand it or not, or accept it or not, I have demonstrated you have clearly made a mistake somewhere in your argument. I suggest you go back over the steps and re-think your premises.

Hank