JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Walter Ego]

The observations of SOME (fixed that little bit of dishonesty for you) of the medical personnel at Parkland doesn't match the actual evidence.

That number went from 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 and now it's all the medical personnel at Parkland, including I assume people who weren't even in the trauma room. It's odd, though, that he's putting all his eggs in this one basket.

From my reading of this thread, Robert doesn't know that much about the Kennedy assassination theories and most of the talking points on his small collection of flashcards come from one or two conspiracy books (specifically Livingstone, minus, of course, the now invalidated Groden photographs) and whatever conspiracy sites he's surfing on any given day.

 

[EventHorizon]

That number went from 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 and now it's all the medical personnel at Parkland, including I assume people who weren't even in the trauma room. It's odd, though, that he's putting all his eggs in this one basket.

From my reading of this thread, Robert doesn't know that much about the Kennedy assassination theories and most of the talking points on his small collection of flashcards come from one or two conspiracy books (specifically Livingstone, minus, of course, the now invalidated Groden photographs) and whatever conspiracy sites he's surfing on any given day.

And instead of admitting his mistakes and trying to actually learn about what happen he embraces his ignorance, stubbornness and arrogance like a badge of honor. Strange behavior.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Did you even look at the links I provided, especially the overhead one?

There is no way a wound in the forehead and a wound in the back of JFK's head points to the grassy knoll.

If the wounds are where you say they were, it's not even close to a shot originating from the grassy knoll.

Look at the links, Robert.

Please explain how a shot from the knoll ends up hitting JFK in the forehead and comes out the back of his head.

Thanks,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

So you don't think the doctors are part of a conspiracy, then, I take it?

Lifton's argument for body alteration is nonsense, and his 800-page tome can be dismissed with five words: Where were Connally's wounds altered?

The Z-film alteration argument is akin to conspiracy theorists eating their young.
For decades the argument was the Z-film proved conspiracy - the backward head snap, the delayed reaction, the magic bullet path, etc. etc - all were alleged to be all the evidence necessary to establish more than one shooter from more than one location.

However, all those arguments that allegedly "prove" conspiracy must be thrown out if the Z-film's provenance is doubted by you.

So which is it? Is the z-film legit, or not?


Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

So you don't think the doctors are part of a conspiracy, then, I take it?

Lifton's argument for body alteration is nonsense, and his 800-page tome can be dismissed with five words: Where were Connally's wounds altered?

The Z-film alteration argument is akin to conspiracy theorists eating their young.
For decades the argument was the Z-film proved conspiracy - the backward head snap, the delayed reaction, the magic bullet path, etc. etc - all were alleged to be all the evidence necessary to establish more than one shooter from more than one location.

However, all those arguments that allegedly "prove" conspiracy must be thrown out if the Z-film's provenance is doubted by you.

So which is it? Is the z-film legit, or not?
Hank

Makes no difference to me. The unanimous observations of the medical witnesses at Parkland trump everything else.

 

[Robert Prey]

Did you even look at the links I provided, especially the overhead one?

There is no way a wound in the forehead and a wound in the back of JFK's head points to the grassy knoll.

If the wounds are where you say they were, it's not even close to a shot originating from the grassy knoll.

Look at the links, Robert.

Please explain how a shot from the knoll ends up hitting JFK in the forehead and comes out the back of his head.

Thanks,
Hank

The wounds of the President's head trump all other adverse theories.

 

[Robert Prey]

That number went from 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 and now it's all the medical personnel at Parkland, including I assume people who weren't even in the trauma room. It's odd, though, that he's putting all his eggs in this one basket.

From my reading of this thread, Robert doesn't know that much about the Kennedy assassination theories and most of the talking points on his small collection of flashcards come from one or two conspiracy books (specifically Livingstone, minus, of course, the now invalidated Groden photographs) and whatever conspiracy sites he's surfing on any given day.

Oh, I've also read Posner's book your most oft quoted source. Do you think Posner is a good, reliable source?

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

No, Their observations don't match official script.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The wounds of the President's head trump all other adverse theories.

Can you circle the President's wounds in the Zapruder film? You may use your red crayon if you like.

 

[Walter Ego]

So which is it? Is the z-film legit, or not?

I realize this has been a long, long thread but as this has been discussed ad nauseum and since Robert didn't answer you I'll give you a selection of his stock replies.

Zapruder never viewed the back of the President's Head. Neither did you. But the Parkland doctors did.

The Z film is hardly "tangible": evidence. Nor is it fraud proof. The Best Evidence is the condition of the wounds of the fatal shot to the head, observed and described by the doctors and attendants at Parkland.

Attempts to divert the subject from the statements of witnesses on the scene at Parkland, to varying interpretations of the Z film, are useless. I do not use the Z film to prove conspiracy. I cite the 20 or so witnesses at Parkland. Deal with that, if you can.

The Z film is all open to interpretation which is why you prefer to discuss it as opposed to that which is not open to interpretation, namely, the contemporaneous observations of the Doctors, Nurses and Attendants at Parkland. That you cannot mis-interpret.

The truth of what is seen, or unseen in the Z film is revealed in the 30 or so first hand Parkland witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head.

The back of the head is a dark blur. The evidence for the veracity of the Z film is found in the observations of the medical personnel at Parkland. 30 or so independently corroborate each other. That's about as solid evidence as you could have, and unlike the Z film, not subject to alteration nor subjective interpretation.

[In the Z film] I see a shot from the front blowing out his head producing a predictable jet effect spray of blood, brain and tissue. You see only what you want to see. I also see Jackie turning around to the trunk to try to retrieve a chunk of the JFK's brain blown away from the back of his head. But it's all subject to interpretation, which is why my proof of a second shooter lies in the un-assailable statements of the Parkland Personnel, not the Z film.

The Z film is a rorschach test. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Perhaps it's a vagina.

He's been chanting variations of this mantra for months. His opinion du jour on the Z film is not based on common sense or even the film itself. The Z film contradicts his shot from the grassy knoll theory so he is required to declare the film is unreliable or faked. His interpretation of reality follows from his predetermined beliefs, not the other way around.

 

[EventHorizon]

The wounds of the President's head trump all other adverse theories.

You finally got one thing right. Unfortunately for you, the wounds of the President's head blow your ridiculous theory out of the water. I mean the ACTUAL wounds, not the observations of a few people at Parkland who A) didn't get a good look at the wound and B) weren't qualified to examine the wounds anyway.

 

[HSienzant]

The wounds of the President's head trump all other adverse theories.

Yes they do. But where *you say* the wounds to the head were does not match up with where *you say* the source of the head shot was, Robert.

Why is that?

Are your wounds wrong, or is your source of the shots wrong?

It has to be at least one (if not both), because you can't get the wounds to align with the grassy knoll.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Both Roberts statements contradict each other.

We have a good record of the wounds before and after Parkland, and if need be we can dig up the body and run a simple DNA test to prove JFK is in his grave, then point at the actual skull with the actual wounds.

Wounds that do not match the Parkland testemony.

But besides that there is the blatant disconnect of the statements. Either the material body is the best it).


Still who knows, one day Robert might prove WHY the doctors at Parkland are more reliable than the autopsy staff objectively, rather than just saying the autopsy disagrees with witnesses who support his prefered narrative. But who cares what a witness says when we do have the best evidence, the material evidence, and it proves the Parkland stories wrong every which way.

By the way, were the Parkland witnesses mistaken or lying when their statements did not match a wound causing massive ejecta from an exploding bullet with immense uprange splatter? You know, as Robert also claimed?

Were they mistaken or lying about the location of the entry wound if the shot came fromthe grassy knoll?

How did the wound move between being drawn in the two sketches Robert wants to be accurate?

How did it move between the Parkland people seeing it, and the autopsy? (Claim the autopsy was faked if you like,but that does not explain all consequent witnesses of the body before burial).

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes they do. But where *you say* the wounds to the head were does not match up with where *you say* the source of the head shot was, Robert.

Why is that?

Are your wounds wrong, or is your source of the shots wrong?

It has to be at least one (if not both), because you can't get the wounds to align with the grassy knoll.

Hank

I'd say it's your contrived angles and positions that are wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

You finally got one thing right. Unfortunately for you, the wounds of the President's head blow your ridiculous theory out of the water. I mean the ACTUAL wounds, not the observations of a few people at Parkland who A) didn't get a good look at the wound and B) weren't qualified to examine the wounds anyway.

Oh, and do you have a picture of these "actual wounds"? If you do, then show it.

 

[Robert Prey]

He's been chanting variations of this mantra for months. His opinion du jour on the Z film is not based on common sense or even the film itself. The Z film contradicts his shot from the grassy knoll theory so he is required to declare the film is unreliable or faked. His interpretation of reality follows from his predetermined beliefs, not the other way around.

And how about Gerald Posner? Your favorite, practically your only source. A good and reliable source?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'd say it's your contrived angles and positions that are wrong.

You dictated that picture. Were you lying or simply mistaken?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, and do you have a picture of these "actual wounds"? If you do, then show it.

You mean like the large exit wound on the temple in the uncropped version ofthe deathstare?

Or the Z film?
The polaroid?

Those don't show actual wounds?

Robert has it backwards. The testemony should be dismissed for not matching the evidence. I have no idea why he is throwing the baby away and keeping the bathwater.

 

[EventHorizon]

Oh, and do you have a picture of these "actual wounds"? If you do, then show it.

You mean like the large exit wound on the temple in the uncropped version ofthe deathstare?

Or the Z film?
The polaroid?

Those don't show actual wounds?

Robert has it backwards. The testemony should be dismissed for not matching the evidence. I have no idea why he is throwing the baby away and keeping the bathwater.

Yep, those right there. They're in this thread Robert, just go back a few pages.

 

[HSienzant]

I'm using *your* contrived angles and positions. If they are wrong, they reflect on your claims, not mine.

Remember locating the in-shoot and the out-shoot location in the head here?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletpath.JPG

Now, try extending that line back to the top of the fence on the knoll. It doesn't work, Robert. Your preferred wound locations don't work with your preferred shooter location.

Please explain.

Or you can look at the wounds from the top, taking into account the leftward cant of JFK's head relative to Zapuder's camera.

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

An entry wound in the right forehead (where you claim there was one); and an exity wound in the read of the head (where you claim there was one) simply don't come close to pointing back to the knoll.

Quite simply, your contrived angles for the wounds align neither in the horizontal nor vertical plane with a shooter on the knoll. That is, your claims of a shooter on the knoll make no sense relative to where you place the wounds and your claims of the wound locations make no sense relative to where you place the shooter.

The locations *YOU* claim (not me, YOU) and your contrived angles derived don't make sense. Please explain why.

Here's my attempt to draw in the location of the shooter, and the entry and exit wounds.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/RobertsTheory.png

If anything is wrong therein, please correct it with your own lines pointing back to the shooter and the entry wound location in the forehead. Thanks!

It appears from here that at least one of these claims of yours (and possibly both) is therefore wrong, no matter how many times you dismiss it by saying the doctors observations trump all else.

If the doctors observations are correct (as you continually claim), then it appears there was no shot from the knoll that aligns with the wounds in JFK's head that you claim were present. You do understand that, right?

Hank