• 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.
HSienzant said:
You mean this bullet path?
http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

Yes, it is contrived, I agree. But it is *your* bullet path, not mine.

Remember, you posted two drawings and a carefully cropped photo to illustrate where you thought the entry and exit wounds were in JFK's head. Hopefully, I do not have to link to those three illustrations, you do recall posting all three, right?

You stated the entrance wound was in JFK's right forehead, and the exit wound was in the lower back of his head. Your claims, not mine.

I merely connected *your* purported entrance wound to *your* purported exit wound (to the best of my ability) and asked you to correct it if it was drawn incorrectly. I also asked if it made any sense.

To date, you have not provided a correction to that illustration, nor have you explained how it is incorrect. Is the entrance wound too high? Too low? Is the exit wound misplaced? You merely called it contrived, but explain not any further.

*You* claim the shot came from above JFK and to his right, but the wound illustration I made from your wound claims and from one frame of the Zapruder film shows an entry and exit that comes from below and to the left of the center-line of the limo.

Once again, here's my attempt to make sense of *your* claims.
http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

I admit I cannot make sense of your claims.

Can you?

If so, please provide an illustration with the proper bullet path draw into the z-film frame 312 (the one immediately before the massive explosion that you claim came from the right front and above and struck JFK in the forehead). Or are you claiming a tangential shot to the head by a frangible bullet, instead of merely causing a skin wound and grazing the scalp, would divert itself almost 90 degrees, make a small entrance hole, remain intact until it struck the back of the skull, and then break apart and cause a large exit wound? Does any qualified pathologist in the world (or gun expert for that matter) agree with that theory of yours? If that's not your theory, please enlighten me as to what is your theory.

And of course, you failed to elucidate entirely why you think DiMaio and Dodd needed to be at the autopsy or at Parkland, but why Green and Berg did not. You also failed to explain why the tests that left behind a bullet split in two and numerous fragments shouldn't be believed either. In short, your response was another in a long line of non-responsive responses.

Hank
Click to expand...

You'll get a better response from me if you will post pithy points concisely. As far as the arrow is concerned, the one you drew, it is pointing upwards. Illogical if from the grassy knoll. Should be pointing down from the right temple to the occiput.
 
Walter Ego said:
Whether it's for real or not, my New Year's resolution is to pay less attention to people like Robert Prey. I've sworn off poppycock and regurgitated baloney for 2012.
Click to expand...

You guys keep saying that, and yet keep coming back for more punishment.
 
Robert Prey said:
There is a difference between a "fragment" and a "snow storm."
Click to expand...

Robert, try to follow me here. I used the word fragment as a "verb" and not a "noun".

But it doesn't matter, regardless of what you are told, if it does not agree with your preconceived notions, it cannot be right.

Open your mind, it will change your life in a good way.
 
Robert Prey said:
Your bullet path is contrived and there is no predictable logic to the way a bullet, especially a frangible bullet will behave especially when hitting bone.
Click to expand...
There is no real 'predictable, logical' way to determine how a bullet will behave once it hits a living being. It could do any number of things, even completely miss all of the vitals of the person leaving them with nothing more than a nasty gunshot wound to tend to.

A year ago a congress woman in New Mexico (I think it was) was shot by a man in cold blood... in the head. She survived without the bullet doing much in the way of damage despite what bullets are designed to do.

GregHouseMD said:
Open your mind, it will change your life in a good way.
Click to expand...

How do you think he bought into this crap in the first place?
 
Robert Prey said:
You'll get a better response from me if you will post pithy points concisely. As far as the arrow is concerned, the one you drew, it is pointing upwards. Illogical if from the grassy knoll. Should be pointing down from the right temple to the occiput.
Click to expand...

Yes, it should. But I can't get it to work with the entrance wound you claimed.

So draw that for me.

But remember, you posted this picture claiming a forehead entry wound:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Of course, you also posted this drawing, which shows the whole front of the head missing:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg

So *you* draw the line where you think it should be and see if you can make it logical *and* still agree with the two images above.

Thanks Much!
Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Yes, it should. But I can't get it to work with the entrance wound you claimed.

So draw that for me.

But remember, you posted this picture claiming a forehead entry wound:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Of course, you also posted this drawing, which shows the whole front of the head missing:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg

So *you* draw the line where you think it should be and see if you can make it logical *and* still agree with the two images above.

Thanks Much!
Hank
Click to expand...

Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.
 
GregHouseMD said:
Robert, try to follow me here. I used the word fragment as a "verb" and not a "noun".

But it doesn't matter, regardless of what you are told, if it does not agree with your preconceived notions, it cannot be right.

Open your mind, it will change your life in a good way.
Click to expand...

Pre-conceived nothing. My conclusions are conceived (not pre-conceived) by the 30 plus first hand medical witnesses at Parkland.
 
And yet, every single time Robert attempts to discuss actual evidence he hand waves it away with preconcieved notions based solely upon the opinion that there was a whitewash or conspiracy. Not once has he managed to be objective, or to prove the Parkland statements accurate with actual evidence. Not once hashe accepted hischosen narrative is proven false because it is not supported by anything more than unreliable human memory.

His notions are entirely preconcieved and biased. He believes there to have been aconspiracy, is unable to be objective and will only seek to support some statements instead of veryifying them.
 
And yet, every single time Robert attempts to discuss actual evidence he hand waves it away with preconcieved notions based solely upon the opinion that there was a whitewash or conspiracy. Not once has he managed to be objective, or to prove the Parkland statements accurate with actual evidence. Not once hashe accepted hischosen narrative is proven false because it is not supported by anything more than unreliable human memory.

His notions are entirely preconcieved and biased. He believes there to have been aconspiracy, is unable to be objective and will only seek to support some statements instead of veryifying them.
 
RoboTimbo said:
So someone shot him through the windshield?
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is that if all the drawings and descriptions Robert claims to be accurate and base on perfect testemony are true the bullet would have to curve in the head to enter through the temple and exit through the centre of the back of the head.

But to also enter and exit somewhere entirely different to match the other drawing, and somewhere else for the photo...
 
I have come to the conclusion that Robert is a performance artist, nothing more. He has no beliefs in any CT's he simply is arguing for the sake of arguing.

1. He is short on facts. He regurgitates the same comments over and over because he has not taken the time to do any in depth, independent research.

2. He repeats the same meaningless phrases time and again without respect to whatever question has been presented.

3. He refuses toi answer questions or even enter into a discussion.

4. His arguments, if you can call them that, make s=no sense or are based on no evidence whatsoever.

I love a spirited discussion with both sides presenting their views and true debate but this is nothing like that.

I have not changed my mind about anything. I still think LHO acted alone.
I think vaccines saves millions of lives every year.

I think Robert Prey is a fool with nothing better to do than try and bait people.

I choose not to be part of this farce any longer.

Good luck to you all. I suggest you follow my path and find a more meaningful way to spend your time on this wonderful website.
 
Robert Prey said:
Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.
Click to expand...

Your entrance wound on the zfilm does not match the entrance wound you claim was on the pre-autopsy photo. You have the entrance wound in the hair and to the left of the hairline in the zfilm (and too high to boot).

The pre-autopsy photo shows a wound on the forehead, in the bare skin. You will have to move the entrance wound lower and more forward to get it to align with the pre-autopsy photo (about where I put it, I think).

Your claim of a wound in the forehead: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg
Your cleaimed entrance wound on JFK: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletpath.jpg

We haven't even discussed the differences between the pre-autopsy photo above and this drawing by Paul O'connor:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg

Nor the differences between the O'Connor drawing and the illustration of McClelland's wound description as it appeared in Six Seconds in Dallas (by Josiah Thompson, 1966): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg
 
Last edited:
GregHouseMD said:
I have come to the conclusion that Robert is a performance artist, nothing more. He has no beliefs in any CT's he simply is arguing for the sake of arguing.

1. He is short on facts. He regurgitates the same comments over and over because he has not taken the time to do any in depth, independent research.

2. He repeats the same meaningless phrases time and again without respect to whatever question has been presented.

3. He refuses toi answer questions or even enter into a discussion.

4. His arguments, if you can call them that, make s=no sense or are based on no evidence whatsoever.

I love a spirited discussion with both sides presenting their views and true debate but this is nothing like that.

I have not changed my mind about anything. I still think LHO acted alone.
I think vaccines saves millions of lives every year.

I think Robert Prey is a fool with nothing better to do than try and bait people.

I choose not to be part of this farce any longer.

Good luck to you all. I suggest you follow my path and find a more meaningful way to spend your time on this wonderful website.
Click to expand...

Sigh... Another one bites the dust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom