JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Your statement is very confused. Grodon made no claims.

He stated a photo was of the back of the head. You repeated the claim yourself when you posted the photo. This was a lie. It was a cropped and rotated image of the established exit wound. All this has been previously established in the discussion.

Please do not lie Robert. You fool nobody.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Grodon "misrepresented photos"??? How do you know that?

Only one question mark at a time or no dialogue. LOL.

 

[Walter Ego]

Grodon "misrepresented photos"??? How do you know that?

Here's how we know. Livingstone, who co-authored a book with Groden and is often cited by Robert, is a photo fraudster, too.

Groden and Livingstone:
Don't Like What a Photo Shows? Just Rotate it Ninety Degrees!

That's what "photo experts" like Robert Groden (in The Killing of a President, page 81) and Harrison Livingstone (in High Treason II) do. Wanting to show the back of Kennedy's head blown out — and thus push the notion of a Grassy Knoll shooter — they use a close-up autopsy photo of the inside of Kennedy's skull after the brain was removed. By rotating the photo ninety degrees clockwise, they can make it appear that the photo shows a large defect in the back of Kennedy's head. In actuality, Kennedy was photographed from the front, and the photo shows the top if his head blasted out, as shown in this drawing by Dr. Robert Artwohl. Finally, a large and properly-oriented copy of the head photo.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

 

[Tomtomkent]

While we are on the subject of Groden, and the claims he did not make, perhaps Robert could explain if Groden was lying or mistaken when he claimed in his book that a policeman filmed with a shotgun (in the Mentesana film) was carrying a second rifle?

Then again perhaps Robert will retract his posting of the fraudulantly cropped/rotated photo as a matter of course, because Groden acted in OJ's defence. After all, if one source is disregared because of OJ Groden should be too. Especially after his hilariously inept defence:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/groden1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/groden2.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/groden3.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/groden4.htm

So once more: If Robert dismisses one source as a supporter of OJ, will he dismiss his own source on the same grounds? Or will he continue to act uder a blatant double standard?

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's how we know. Livingstone, who co-authored a book with Groden and is often cited by Robert, is a photo fraudster, too.

Here is how Livingston describes the photo in question:
"No part of this photo appears to be faked, but the problem is in knowing which part of the head it is in or whose head it is."

Now just how is that a mis-representation????

 

[Tomtomkent]

Here is how Livingston describes the photo in question:
"No part of this photo appears to be faked, but the problem is in knowing which part of the head it is in or whose head it is."

Now just how is that a mis-representation????

Because he claims there is a problem with knowing which part of whose head it is, despite us having the uncropped image to hand, which can be placed conclusively in the series of autopsy photos.

Groden and Livingston claim one thing. The truth is different. They misrepresent it. Again: WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL AND CAN SEE WHICH PART OF WHOSE HEAD IT IS. To claim otherwise is misrepresentation, a lie, which according to you is a sin. Why are you a sinner Robert?

 

[HSienzant]

all anybody needs to know about oj is that he is guilty as sin as the civil trial proved, but baden groden supported his cacamammy defense in the criminal trail. But baden groden also has a track record of following the money no matter how low life the crime.

ftfy.

 

[Walter Ego]

To Rotate Or Not To Rotate?

Because he claims there is a problem with knowing which part of whose head it is, despite us having the uncropped image to hand, which can be placed conclusively in the series of autopsy photos.

Groden and Livingston claim one thing. The truth is different. They misrepresent it. Again: WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL AND CAN SEE WHICH PART OF WHOSE HEAD IT IS. To claim otherwise is misrepresentation, a lie, which according to you is a sin. Why are you a sinner Robert?

Apparently Groden was a bad influence on Livingstone.

Livingstone uses [High Treason 2] as a platform to criticize other members of the assassination research community, and his former partner Robert Groden in particular (it is indicated that there was a falling-out between them, but whatever it was isn't specified).

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/89559012

This means Robert will have to cut out the parts of the book tainted by Groden and only keep the Livingstone parts.
-------------
ETA:

Robert made a little boo-boo in this post.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/autopsyheadwound.jpg

That is a from the Groden collection according to Harrison Livingston.

The picture link he used is actually the un-rotated photo! Compare it with the rotated photo used by Groden and Livingstone. Oh, dear!

 

[HSienzant]

Try this one on here.

Robert,

First off, my apologies for the delay in responding to this.

A couple of points to remember.

There is a downward slope to Elm Street of approximately four degrees from left to right from Zapruder's position that is not reflected in the image above. If you take that slope into account, the line you drew above clearly does not point to the top of the fence on the knoll at any time.

Secondly, and equally important, JFK's head at the time of the above image was determined to be canted to the left of the centerline of the limo by about 17 degrees - that is, JFK is not in profile, but is turned approximately 17 degrees to the left of a profile.

Thus, if you believe the image below as drawn by Paul O'Connor and the line you drew from the forehead to the back of the skull in the z-film link above correctly reflects the damage caused by a bullet hitting JFK's skull in the area of the forehead and blasting out the back of the skull, then it would appear that bullet should have been fired from the front-left of the presidential limo and on a plane with the limousine, not to the far right, slightly ahead, and above the limo.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg

Let me know if you disagree with that assessment, and if so, why.

Here's an overhead drawing reflecting the bullet path from the TSBD to the head, but if you reverse that line, it is the approximate path you believe the bullet travelled through the head (forehead to back of skull) on the horizontal plane, correct?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0085b.htm

Now, do you really think that shot came from the Grassy Knoll?

Thanks,

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well Walter, it hardly matters as Robert will no doubt retract the evidence because you can't trust anybody who would defend a low life like OJ, which is exactly what Groden did. Or perhaps he will retract his statements suggesting that defending OJ is grounds to dismiss evidence.


My the air is fresh up here on the moral highground. I wonder why OJ is such a lowlife for his crime? Why he not be more like the "heroic" LHO and shoot people from behind with a rifle then go kill a policeman?

 

[HSienzant]

Apparently Groden was a bad influence on Livingstone.

I was disappointed in this book, especially in light of the first High Treason. Part 2 was written without Part 1's co-author Robert Groden. His absence is notable here, because he apparently kept Part 1's narrative on track...

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/89559012

This means Robert will have to cut out the parts of the book tainted by Groden and only keep the Livingstone parts.

Actually, and to clarify, what the quoted reviewer above apparently misunderstands, is that Robert Groden got co-author credit solely as part of a deal for Livingstone to publish the photos that Groden had possession of. Livingstone wanted the photos, Robert Groden wanted co-author credit, so a deal was struck.

There is nothing in either High Treason book actually written by Robert Groden (or Charles Grodin, either, for that matter).

 

[Walter Ego]

Actually, and to clarify, what the quoted reviewer above apparently misunderstands, is that Robert Groden got co-author credit solely as part of a deal for Livingstone to publish the photos that Groden had possession of. Livingstone wanted the photos, Robert Groden wanted co-author credit, so a deal was struck.

There is nothing in either High Treason book actually written by Robert Groden (or Charles Grodin, either, for that matter).

So since Groden (Robert, not Charles) testified for the O.J. defense and Groden only supplied the photographic "evidence" for Livingstone and Livingstone has repudiated Groden, Robert (Prey, not Groden) can only use those parts of Livingstone's first High Treason book that do not reference Groden's photographic "evidence" as "proof" of a conspiracy to kill JFK?

It's a good thing then that Robert (Prey, not Groden) "accidentally" posted that non-rotated autopsy photo rather than the Groden rotated photo Livingstone used. The remarkable prescience he demonstrated in doing that is downright scary. It's like he could anticipate shooting himself in the foot again weeks in advance!

 

[GregHouseMD]

So since Groden (Robert, not Charles) testified for the O.J. defense and Groden only supplied the photographic "evidence" for Livingstone and Livingstone has repudiated Groden, Robert (Prey, not Groden) can only use those parts of Livingstone's first High Treason book that do not reference Groden's photographic "evidence" as "proof" of a conspiracy to kill JFK?

It's a good thing then that Robert (Prey, not Groden) "accidentally" posted that non-rotated autopsy photo rather than the Groden rotated photo Livingstone used. The remarkable prescience he demonstrated in doing that is downright scary. It's like he could anticipate shooting himself in the foot again weeks in advance!

Does Robert (Prey) want to sign up for the Million Dollar Challenge?

 

[HSienzant]

FYI - David Lifton asserts here that some of the doctors at Parkland were involved in the plot. See 5:20 - 6:00 minutes of the film below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrxtiA98hc&feature=youtu.be

Robert, do you believe Lifton?

 

[Robert Prey]

FYI - David Lifton asserts here that some of the doctors at Parkland were involved in the plot. See 5:20 - 6:00 minutes of the film below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrxtiA98hc&feature=youtu.be

Robert, do you believe Lifton?

That's a Lifton theory that has little relevance to what the first hand observations were as to the wound to the back of the head.

 

[HSienzant]

That's a Lifton theory that has little relevance to what the first hand observations were as to the wound to the back of the head.

I beg to differ. If the doctors are part of a conspiracy to assassinate the President, how can you trust what they said?

Let's start with a simple question: Do you believe body alteration took place?

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

I beg to differ. If the doctors are part of a conspiracy to assassinate the President, how can you trust what they said?

Let's start with a simple question: Do you believe body alteration took place?
Hank

I believe what the medical personnel observed at Parkland and independently corroborated by each, is the best evidence. As to body alteration and Z film alteration, I don't know and neither do you, but Lifton makes a plausible argument.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert,

First off, my apologies for the delay in responding to this.

A couple of points to remember.

There is a downward slope to Elm Street of approximately four degrees from left to right from Zapruder's position that is not reflected in the image above. If you take that slope into account, the line you drew above clearly does not point to the top of the fence on the knoll at any time.

Secondly, and equally important, JFK's head at the time of the above image was determined to be canted to the left of the centerline of the limo by about 17 degrees - that is, JFK is not in profile, but is turned approximately 17 degrees to the left of a profile.

Thus, if you believe the image below as drawn by Paul O'Connor and the line you drew from the forehead to the back of the skull in the z-film link above correctly reflects the damage caused by a bullet hitting JFK's skull in the area of the forehead and blasting out the back of the skull, then it would appear that bullet should have been fired from the front-left of the presidential limo and on a plane with the limousine, not to the far right, slightly ahead, and above the limo.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg

Let me know if you disagree with that assessment, and if so, why.

Here's an overhead drawing reflecting the bullet path from the TSBD to the head, but if you reverse that line, it is the approximate path you believe the bullet travelled through the head (forehead to back of skull) on the horizontal plane, correct?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0085b.htm

Now, do you really think that shot came from the Grassy Knoll?

Thanks,

Hank

Yes. The Grassy knoll, or thereabouts. Lines, slopes, degrees are all imperfect approximations. But the Best Evidence are the wounds themselves. That points to a fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll.

 

[Robert Prey]

The picture link he used is actually the un-rotated photo! Compare it with the rotated photo used by Groden and Livingstone. Oh, dear!

Dr. Artwohle's hallucinatory drawing is so obviously contrived to bolster his Lone Nutter position, and is totally inconsistent with the Best Evidence -- the documented unaltered first hand observations of all the medical personnel at Parkland.

 

[EventHorizon]

Dr. Artwohle's hallucinatory drawing is so obviously contrived to bolster his Lone Nutter position, and is totally inconsistent with the Best Evidence -- the documented unaltered first hand observations of all the medical personnel at Parkland.

I like how he capitalizes it to imply that THIS particular eyewitness testimony is somehow less fallible than the average eyewitness testimony. Unbelievable. I wonder if he actually believes the stuff he writes. Psst, Robert. Here's a hint. The observations of SOME (fixed that little bit of dishonesty for you) of the medical personnel at Parkland doesn't match the actual evidence. But since you don't know the definition of evidence that won't bother you in the slightest.