• 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.
SpitfireIX said:
He burned his notes after he copied them, because they had Kennedy's blood on them. He testified about this to the HSCA:




(source)
Click to expand...

So answer Roberts question, I would give a lot of credence to the doctor who destroyed contaminated notes after copying them. Had he not done this he would have been incompetant.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So answer Roberts question, I would give a lot of credence to the doctor who destroyed contaminated notes after copying them. Had he not done this he would have been incompetant.
Click to expand...

He burned his original notes because he was forced to. They didn't fit the official script.
 
Walter Ego said:
More opinions on the man Robert would elevate to the level of an American hero.

Robert Stone, New York Review of Books, June 22, 1995.



From Don DeLillo, author of Libra, a novel about Oswald.
Click to expand...

And he was so deranged, that he was somehow able to shoot the President both from the TSBD and also from the Grassy Knoll.
 
Robert Prey said:
He burned his original notes because he was forced to. They didn't fit the official script.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
And he was so deranged, that he was somehow able to shoot the President both from the TSBD and also from the Grassy Knoll.
Click to expand...

Yet more claims with no evidence. We're over 2200 posts in and you have yet to post evidence for any of your claims. When do you plan on starting?
 
He burned his original notes because he was forced to. They didn't fit the official script.
Click to expand...
That doesnt make sense, why would the people doing the forcing allow a doctor to burn notes himself?
Wouldnt the forcers simply have wanted to see the original notes and confiscate them and destroy them themselves?

Phone call
Hey Doc, you better burn those notes
Ok, I have burned them.
Right now keep it shut , or else.
 
Robert Prey said:
And he was so deranged, that he was somehow able to shoot the President both from the TSBD and also from the Grassy Knoll.
Click to expand...

Are you foot injuries keeping you from answering questions, Robert? Your hasty retreat seems to have turned into a full on rout. Could you post that picture again where you colored in an exit wound with your red Crayola? Or the picture with Half a Beer Boy Doofus posing with his broom? How about the video that showed entry and exit wounds like the exit wound we see in the Zapruder film in the right front of JFK's head?

Your poor feet.
 
jargon buster said:
That doesnt make sense, why would the people doing the forcing allow a doctor to burn notes himself?
Wouldnt the forcers simply have wanted to see the original notes and confiscate them and destroy them themselves?
Click to expand...

Because this is a conspiracy theory and in a conspiracy theory all military men are unthinkng automatons who follow orders without question.

Or...

His notes were confiscated and destroyed and his tale of burning them was the coverstory he was ordered to present.
 
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, perhaps you can resolve this infamous Humes quote as well:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360
Click to expand...

Asked and answered!

When speaking extemporaneously, people sometimes mis-speak.
Have you never done this?

What did the autopsy report that Cmdr Humes signed say about the bullet to the head?

It says the bullet traversed the head in a posterior-anterior direction. That means back-to-front.

I would suggest that would be a good source to resolve the apparent conflict:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who is Patsy and why do you think he/she had anything to do with it/
 
Robert Prey said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994ef27bba10f0b.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

And if this was a coverup of any sort, would he have been so nice as to tell you about it?

You think the conspirators are so dumb that they spill the beans at every turn, but so smart and have their bases covered to the extent that there is still no physical evidence that confirms a conspiracy?

All you have are stories, Robert. In some case stories first advanced three or more decades after the fact.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
I take it you don't see anything unusual about this Marxist "hunter of Fascists" joining up with the Marines, perhaps to fight commies and get killed somewhere, a Marxist who got a secret clearance to work at the Atsugi Airbase tracking U2's, a Marxist who had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well.... Just your normal, every day Marxist hunter of Fascists wanting to impress what? his daughter. I don't know what your day job is, but I suggest you don't go into any kind of detective work.
Click to expand...

Dodged the question for a fifth time.

Here it is again.

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries.

So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble.

I will answer your questions - When Oswald first tried to join the Marines, like his older brother Robert had previously, he was deemed too young by the Marines and turned down. He eventually did join a year later. Do you really think U.S.Intelligence was recruiting 16 year old high school dropouts with NO skills?

He got the clearance (the lowest level available) due to the nature of his job in the Marines, working with the radar group at Atsugi where he and other Marines were stationed.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence supporting the claim that Oswald "had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well".

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?

Hank
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Who is Patsy and why do you think he/she had anything to do with it/
Click to expand...

Well, for starters she's crazy, always out walking after midnight beneath the blue moon of Kentucky falling to pieces til she's back in her baby's arms.

Or

Oswald was attempting to mock JFK's "I am a jelly donut" by declaring himself a "pastry" but his stagefright tripped him up.
 
jargon buster said:
That doesnt make sense, why would the people doing the forcing allow a doctor to burn notes himself?
Wouldnt the forcers simply have wanted to see the original notes and confiscate them and destroy them themselves?

Phone call
Hey Doc, you better burn those notes
Ok, I have burned them.
Right now keep it shut make a note of it, or else.
Click to expand...

ftfy:)
 
bynmdsue said:
He needed the fotos to prove his bona fides to the Reds he was infiltrating on orders of the intelligence community.

Duh.
Click to expand...

lol.

I would ask you for evidence to support those claims, but we both know you don't have anything other than suppositions and quotes out of context.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Dodged the question for a fifth time.
Click to expand...

2200 posts in and RObert has yet to give a coherent narrative of what he thinks happened, tell us why shadows in the "post" photograph are at different angles, supply material evidence to support his claims, or explain what evidence there is that makes his "Parkland" narrative more honest or accurate than any other.

I think you might want to add this question to the list he claims to have answered with out offering an answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom