• 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.
Except for the wounds themselves as described by all of the medical personnel at Parkland.

Descriptions are not material evidence. There is no material evidence to support the CLAIMS of the Parkland staff.


Let us apply your own standard you used to dismiss the photos and film: do you have the bpdy itself to hand? Do you? Show it to me. No? So by your standard you have material evidence.

I have no idea who you think you will fool by continuing to insist the claims are material evidence. Yourself most likely. Nobody else will fall for it.
 
You must be referring only to the backyard photos, which I have already personally proven to be fake.

That the autopsy photos are fake has already been proven by the statements of those who took and developed the originals.

These two statements are incorrect. Are you lying or mistaken?
 
Who Is The Doofus?

You can't take all the credit. We mustn't forget the pee-stained doofus in the pleather jacket trying to hit you with his broom handle.

I have my own theory about that doofus in the parking lot brandishing the broomstick photo. I think the doofus behind the superimposed V-Mask is Robert Prey himself. Robert's refusal to tells us where he acquired the picture only adds to my suspicion.

Of course it could just be a drunk with urine-stained trousers defending himself with a boomstick. Only Robert knows for sure.
 
Last edited:
descriptions are not material evidence. There is no material evidence to support the claims of the parkland staff.


Let us apply your own standard you used to dismiss the photos and film: Do you have the body itself to hand? Do you? Show it to me. No? So by your standard you have *no* material evidence.

I have no idea who you think you will fool by continuing to insist the claims are material evidence. Yourself most likely. Nobody else will fall for it.

ftfy
 
I have my own theory about that doofus in the parking lot brandishing the broomstick photo. I think the doofus behind the superimposed V-Mask is Robert Prey himself. Robert's refusal to tells us where he acquired the picture only adds to my suspicion.

Of course it could just be a drunk with urine-stained trousers defending himself with a boomstick. Only Robert knows for sure.

He could have peed himself because Robert surprised him when Robert woke him up, offering him half a beer. Looks like Robert caught him on casual Friday, wearing his Dockers. Do winos have casual Fridays?

No, I don't think Mr. Pleather Jacket is Robert but maybe we can get Robert to take a picture of the bottom of the doofus's feet so we can see if they have gunshot wounds or not. That would be definitive.

Robert, would you go find the same pee stained doofus and ask him to take his shoes off, if he has any, and take a picture of the bottoms of his feet? Thanks in advance.
 
The British government censured the series, and in so doing in effect censored it. Ditto in the US where sources close to the government forced an apology from the History Channel and compelled them to stop selling the final 3 episodes and apparently successful in removing these episodes from libraries as well. I call it censorship.

As far as LBJ complicity in the assassination, the statements of witnesses close to LBJ as well as those involved in the plot itself (Jack Ruby and E. Howard Hunt) would carry weight as witness evidence in any criminal court and you know it.

Please document the censoring --- and the claim of 'sources close to the government forced an apology'.

Remember it is available for purchase right now from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Killed-Kennedy/dp/B00005UW74/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326744435&sr=8-1


Thanks!

Hank
 
The British government censured the series, and in so doing in effect censored it. Ditto in the US where sources close to the government forced an apology from the History Channel and compelled them to stop selling the final 3 episodes and apparently successful in removing these episodes from libraries as well. I call it censorship.

As far as LBJ complicity in the assassination, the statements of witnesses close to LBJ as well as those involved in the plot itself (Jack Ruby and E. Howard Hunt) would carry weight as witness evidence in any criminal court and you know it.

You have two subjects in there. I will respond to the second one here:

Please document when Jack Ruby said anything about Johnson being involved in a plot. Or where Jack Ruby said Jack Ruby was involved in a plot.

Thanks,

Hank
 
Please document when Jack Ruby said anything about Johnson being involved in a plot. Or where Jack Ruby said Jack Ruby was involved in a plot.

I'll answer that one. From Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commission:

No one else requested me to do anything. I never spoke to anyone about attempting to do anything. No subversive organization gave me any idea. No underworld person made any effort to contact me... All I want is a lie detector test.. . . All I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all. There was no conspiracy.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/jack_ruby/Ruby_WCR_testimony_1.html

Conspiracy hucksters like the mendacious Mark Lane have quoted Ruby's Warren Commission testimony out context to give the opposite impression, i.e., that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and Ruby may have been part of it.
 
Last edited:
Please document the censoring --- and the claim of 'sources close to the government forced an apology'.

Remember it is available for purchase right now from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Killed-Kennedy/dp/B00005UW74/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326744435&sr=8-1
Thanks!
Hank

No. Episodies 7, 8 and 9 (the best ones) are not included. Can you say CENSORSHIP.

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Men Who Killed Kennedy (DVD)
The version here, is missing the three "good" episodes -- the ones that aren't the same old clips we've seen for 40 years. "The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the Final Chapter" is the one you want.
If a version doesn't have;
. The Love Affair
. The Guilty Men
. The Smoking Gun
-- Then don't buy it.
 
No. Episodies 7, 8 and 9 (the best ones) are not included. Can you say CENSORSHIP.

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Men Who Killed Kennedy (DVD)
The version here, is missing the three "good" episodes -- the ones that aren't the same old clips we've seen for 40 years. "The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the Final Chapter" is the one you want.
If a version doesn't have;
. The Love Affair
. The Guilty Men
. The Smoking Gun
-- Then don't buy it.

1) Apparently you don't understand the word "censorship."

2) Apparently you don't know how to use the "search" function on Amazon.

3) You do realize that a 23 year old TV show isn't all that popular (or pertinent) today, right?
 
You have two subjects in there. I will respond to the second one here:

Please document when Jack Ruby said anything about Johnson being involved in a plot. Or where Jack Ruby said Jack Ruby was involved in a plot.

Thanks,

Hank

"Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had , that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world."

Reporter : Are these people in very high positions Jack ??

Jack : Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDDxYOqyqlc&NR=1

A better video with an important addendum is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-177236594543303

"The answer is the man that is in office now."
 
Last edited:
Robert. Do you have any material evidence to support your claims yet?

Lets start with the Parkland statements: Do you have any material evidence to support the claims that JFKs head wound was consistant with a shot from the front?

Not recollections, statements, descriptions, memories or drawings, but material evidence.
 
Robert. Do you have any material evidence to support your claims yet?

Lets start with the Parkland statements: Do you have any material evidence to support the claims that JFKs head wound was consistant with a shot from the front?

Not recollections, statements, descriptions, memories or drawings, but material evidence.

Do you have any "material evidence" to support your claims that JFKs head wound was consistent with at shot from the back? If so, please submit.
 
Do you have any "material evidence" to support your claims that JFKs head wound was consistent with at shot from the back? If so, please submit.
So avoiding the question suggests no you don't.

Apart from your opinion, and testemonial evidence would you care to disprove the material evidence already submitted with material evidence.

Do you have material evidence to disprove;
The z film
Polaroid,
Autopsy photographs,
Bullet fragments,
Rifle
Pistol
Back yard photos
Blood stain photos?

Just for the record "such and such says they didnt take x photograph" is not material evidence.
 
Do you have any "material evidence" to support your claims that JFKs head wound was consistent with at shot from the back? If so, please submit.

Which parts of the enormous volume of empirical data already submitted do you have the most trouble comprehending? Limit your answer to the top 50 items which are eluding your understanding or no dialog.
 
The Crock Series That Almost Killed Central Television

1) Apparently you don't understand the word "censorship."

2) Apparently you don't know how to use the "search" function on Amazon.

3) You do realize that a 23 year old TV show isn't all that popular (or pertinent) today, right?
One reason the show got into trouble is that on its first broadcast it contained material libelous to living persons.

Gary Mack (archivist at Dallas' Sixth Floor Museum) and senior consultant for the first five episodes:

Neither [senior consultant Robert] Groden nor I were aware of the Corsican hit team theory [which was linked to Mack's "Badge Man" theory, and played a large role in Turner's overall conspiracy theory], developed primarily by Steve Rivele. The original 1988 British broadcast named the three hit men and accused them of killing Kennedy. One, [Lucien] Sarti, was dead, but the other two were still alive.

One threatened to sue Central and had a good alibi. Central quickly produced a 30-minute "apology" program in which the "assassin" told his story. The guests included Groden, Robert Blakey, Howard Willens of the Warren Commission, and James Duffy. I was not invited. The moderator and all of the guests, except Groden, criticized Nigel for failing to do thorough research. Groden tried to emphasize the film's strong points.

The "apology" program, taped in Washington, aired only in England. Parts one and two of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" were then re-edited to remove the accusations, but the show's credibility was damaged. That was the real reason ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS lost interest in purchasing US rights from Central, even though all four initially wanted the series.

While much of the original five-part production holds up well today, some is outdated or contradicted by new information. The version now appearing on the Arts & Entertainment and History channels was edited by Turner to include 6-7 minutes of commercial time in each part. The home video version, available only from A&E, is the full, revised British version.

http://www.jfk-online.com/tmwkk.html

The "apology" program mentioned is not the same as the on-air apology produced by A&E when the series was shown in the US and I seriously doubt Mack's claim that the major networks (including PBS) ever contemplated showing the programs.

(BTW, all the "missing" episodes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy are available on You Tube.)
 
Last edited:
One reason the show got into trouble is that on its first broadcast it contained material libelous to living persons.

Gary Mack (archivist at Dallas' Sixth Floor Museum) and senior consultant for the first five episodes:



The "apology" program mentioned is not the same as the on-air apology produced by A&E when the series was shown in the US and I seriously doubt Mack's claim that the major networks (including PBS) ever contemplated showing the programs.

(BTW, all the "missing" episodes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy are available on You Tube.)

And that simply continues your fallacious attempt to poison the well. I've never cited anything about that above stuff. Only the live on-camera interviews with Crenshaw and Bartlett, which totally exposes your own slander of Crenshaw the "liar".
 
So avoiding the question suggests no you don't.

Apart from your opinion, and testemonial evidence would you care to disprove the material evidence already submitted with material evidence.

Do you have material evidence to disprove;
The z film
Polaroid,
Autopsy photographs,
Bullet fragments,
Rifle
Pistol
Back yard photos
Blood stain photos?

Just for the record "such and such says they didnt take x photograph" is not material evidence.

Prove a negative???? Uh, uh, more fallacious reasoning from a predictable source who cannot support his own assertions with what he defines as "material evidence." Check mate.
 
Prove a negative???? Uh, uh, more fallacious reasoning from a predictable source who cannot support his own assertions with what he defines as "material evidence." Check mate.

How about simply proving your claim LHO attended military language school and spoke fluent Russian on arrival in Moscow? :rolleyes:
 
Prove a negative???? Uh, uh, more fallacious reasoning from a predictable source who cannot support his own assertions with what he defines as "material evidence." Check mate.

So, if proving a negative is fallacious, we can assume your photot of a guy with a broom is not intended to make any kind of valid point. Or perhaps you have misunderstood the concept. That would be "Kindergarden" and "sophmoric" I believe. So, we can assume that despite claiming all the listed evidence was a part of a whitewash, you can not provide any material evidence to disprove their validity.

You state the autopsy is a lie, yet offer no evidence to support this.
You claim photos that show JFK in the autopsy are fakes, yet offer no evidence to support this.
You claim a frangible bullet was used, but offer no evidence.

You claim a narrative that runs counter to evidence, yet offer nothing to counter the evidence.

Where is the evidence Robert?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom