• 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.
Robert Prey said:
Cyril Wecht has said a lot of things.

Reprinted from Reclaiming History.


"I reminded Dr. Wecht that at the London trial I had asked him to be more specific as to the location of his possible second gunman, and he ended up positioning the triggerman not on the grassy knoll but "around the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and more down towards the other end [far west side] of the building."' When I pointed out to him in our phone conversation that from that position-not as far behind the president as Oswald was believed to be, but still to the president's right rear at the time of the first shot that hit him-it would have been physically impossible for a bullet shot from there to enter the front of the president's throat, he replied, "Yes, of course. And that's why I want to drop that position of mine and put the possible second gunman more to the west [right front] in the area of the grassy knoll. I know I testified to the other position in London and also wrote that in one of my articles in the past' but I no longer believe that to be true."
Click to expand...

And what was the followup Q&A, Robert? And why don't you quote that?

And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi?

Why are you now quoting from a purported phone call the author says he made?

Remember claiming you doubted Bugliosi's sanity, Robert?

Robert Prey said:
The best debunking of Poser's 'Case Closed" is the Bug Man's "Reclaiming History." The Bug Man indicts himself and his own internal sanity by his crusade to indict George W. Bush for War Crimes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.
Click to expand...

Robert dodged the question for a Sixth SEVENTH EIGHTH time!

Here it is again. I've placed it in boldface below in case you have trouble finding it amidst my answers to your other bogus issues.

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth fifth 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.

...

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.
Click to expand...

When evidence reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled,
Brave, brave Sir Robert.

Yes brave Sir Robert turned about,
And gallantly he chickened out,
Brave, brave Sir Robert.

Bravely shooting both his feet,
He beat a very hasty retreat,
Brave, brave Sir Robert.
 
HSienzant said:
And what was the followup Q&A, Robert? And why don't you quote that?

And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi?

Why are you now quoting from a purported phone call the author says he made?

Remember claiming you doubted Bugliosi's sanity, Robert?
Click to expand...

Oh, but the Bug man is one of your heroes.
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, but the Bug man is one of your heroes.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Either you consider the source reliable enough to cite, or you consider it to be lacking sanity.

So clarify which it is.

Then explain why you skipped the follow up Q&A. (Perhaps as it totally undermined your interpretation of the quoted section? Oh no!)


But your cowardly dodge of answering the questions has been noted.
 
Robert Prey said:
Logic and Divine Revelation.
Click to expand...


I just prayed to God and asked Him who killed JFK and He said Oswald did it all by himself.

Since God is giving us inconsistent answers we have to assume he isn't going to tell us the truth. We're gonna have to rely on logic.
 
HSienzant said:
And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi?
Click to expand...

Robert will quote mine Bugliosi after calling him insane if it serves his purpose the same way he will quote mine the Warren Report after calling it a whitewash. He is not above rank hypocrisy of this sort. He has more or less given up on presenting any kind of argument and is falling back on one liners, non sequiturs and outright absurdities, his usual strategy to avoid giving real answers.

He can't even rally to the defense of his hero Lee Harvey Oswald except to tell the same lies about Oswald he's told before. I do note, however, he is no longer repeating his claim that Oswald arrived in the U.S.S.R. speaking fluent Russian that he learned at a U.S. government language school. Why is that, I wonder?
 
Last edited:
matt.tansy said:
I just prayed to God and asked Him who killed JFK and He said Oswald did it all by himself.

Since God is giving us inconsistent answers we have to assume he isn't going to tell us the truth. We're gonna have to rely on logic.
Click to expand...


Two conspiraciy theorists die and go to Heaven. As they stand before God, one of them asks, "Lord, please tell us, who killed JFK?"

God looks at them sternly and says, "I want you to listen carefully. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot John F. Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building. Got it?"

One of the conspiracists turns to the other and says, "This is even bigger than we thought."
 
Undesired Walrus said:
One thing I have never understood about the assassination is why JFK raised his arms in that manner after the second bullet.
Click to expand...

You mean up near his neck with his elbows splayed outward?

Like as seen here?

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z239.jpg

Thorburn position - it's caused by damage to the neck vertebra. John Lattimer found it first described in the medical literature during the Civil War and gave credit to the original doctor. I've seen NFL football players who are knocked down by a hard hit to the head (compressing the neck and spine) involuntarily assume the same position as JFK as they lay on the field. Wayne Chrebet for one.

As he is temporarily paralyzed in his upper body all JFK can manage to do is point to the throat with his left index finger (most obvious in the z255-265 range). The paralysis was of course caused by the bullet transiting the neck and going on to strike Connally.

As seen here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7879805770464697597#
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z259.jpg

Hank
 
Last edited:
I'm sure this has been discussed (I haven't had the time to dig through the entire thread as yet) But there was an excellent program on a few weeks ago that was about as convincing as it could get that LHO acted alone. The bullet hole through the top of the traffic light!!! It lined up with all of the other evidence and was more than to convince me that he acted alone. (any conspiracy couldn't have been much deeper than borrowing some ammo IMO)

yet people continue to claim otherwise... why? Is it the deep seated notion of having "secret ,inside information that nobody else knows? Does it give one a sense of superiority in an otherwise mundane existence?

It's like the 9/11 truthers, My girlfriend at the time worked at the Pentagon and was driving into work late when she saw the plane. Yet a truther told me to my face she was lying. (even though she happened to call and tell me as much before she knew what was going on).

I've known a few crackpots in my time, but I had no idea the rabbit hole was as deep and occupied as it is.
 
Walter Ego said:
He can't even rally to the defense of his hero Lee Harvey Oswald except to tell the same lies about Oswald he's told before. I do note, however, he is no longer repeating his claim that Oswald arrived in the U.S.S.R. speaking fluent Russian that he learned at a U.S. government language school. Why is that, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Oooh, pick me! I know, I know!
 
LogicFail said:
I'm sure this has been discussed (I haven't had the time to dig through the entire thread as yet) But there was an excellent program on a few weeks ago that was about as convincing as it could get that LHO acted alone. The bullet hole through the top of the traffic light!!! It lined up with all of the other evidence and was more than to convince me that he acted alone. (any conspiracy couldn't have been much deeper than borrowing some ammo IMO)

yet people continue to claim otherwise... why? Is it the deep seated notion of having "secret ,inside information that nobody else knows? Does it give one a sense of superiority in an otherwise mundane existence?

It's like the 9/11 truthers, My girlfriend at the time worked at the Pentagon and was driving into work late when she saw the plane. Yet a truther told me to my face she was lying. (even though she happened to call and tell me as much before she knew what was going on).

I've known a few crackpots in my time, but I had no idea the rabbit hole was as deep and occupied as it is.
Click to expand...

So a bullet hole through a traffic light is the extent of your scholarship? How about a bullet through the front of the head and a large blow-out in the back? I'll bet they didn't cover that on that TV special.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom