• 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.
And then there's this. Quote: "Let's face it. I only made up the story [about Lee Harvey Oswald said:
because everybody makes a million dollars off the Kennedy assassination, and I haven't made anything. So now it's my time. "

—George de Mohrenschildt, quoted by Willem Oltmans

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1k3KAaxyA
Click to expand...

And here is more on Your source, Willem Oltmans.

"According to Oltmans, George de Mohrenschildt confessed to being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "I am responsible. I feel responsible for the behaviour of Lee Harvey Oswald... because I guided him. I instructed him to set it up." Oltmans claimed that de Mohrenschildt had admitted serving as a middleman between Lee Harvey Oswald and H. L. Hunt in an assassination plot involving other Texas oilmen, anti-Castro Cubans, and elements of the FBI and CIA.

Oltmans told the HSCA: "He begged me to take him out of the country because they are after me." On 13th February 1977, Oltmans took de Mohrenschildt to his home in Amsterdam where they worked on his memoirs. Over the next few weeks de Mohrenschildt claimed he knew Jack Ruby and argued that Texas oilmen joined with intelligence operatives to arrange the assassination of John F. Kennedy...."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoltmans.htm
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
Nope, that is a claim not proven. You know what you need for something to be proven?

Actual evidence. Not grave doubt, not opinion, not you tube, "leaving open the possibility", material evidence.

Will you ever supply any Robert? As it is getting real dull watching you try to pretend that claims, opinions or documentary evidence are material evidence.

If you cant supply proof, have enough dignity to say that.
Click to expand...

Witnesses are proof in any court of law, son. And your reports of this and of that are nothing but reports. You have nothing in hand to be examined, empirically. Nothing at all. And you have become nothing but a sounding brass.
 
Robert Prey said:
Witnesses are proof in any court of law, son. And your reports of this and of that are nothing but reports. You have nothing in hand to be examined, empirically. Nothing at all. And you have become nothing but a sounding brass.
Click to expand...


Testemony under oath is evidence in a court of law. Not proof, but documentary evidence. Evidence of low standing by the way,because of human failings. All of which is beside the oint: evidence of a possibility of tampering is not proof of the tampering having happened. You provide one and claim the other.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the distinction.

Like you appear ignorant of the distiction between commenting on the evidence against you and providing material evidence to prove one of your assertions, rather than evidence of a possibility that you claim to be proof.

If you can't handle the distinction, admit so now before you look a fool calling people "son" like an embittered little man.
 
Last edited:
Rich_C said:
Why would the KGB lie in their internal documents?
Click to expand...
On the remote chance that decades later somebody would stumble on the truth of assassins in storm drains in Texas?

No, it makes no sense. From the KGBs point of view any faked document they leaked would be more beneficial to disrupt, not aid, a theoretical cover up.
 
Robrob said:
So either Robert is citing materials he hasn't actually read or he's being deceitful? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He scrambling and grasping at straws.

As noted, one would expect Oswald's Russian language skills to have improved after almost three years of study and living in Russia. Robert's "cite" doesn't prove his conjecture that Oswald attended a Russian language school before he defected to the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
Robert: do you believe any of this? I know you don't have me on ignore, so would you actually answer me this time?
 
EventHorizon said:
It's remarkable that it comes from someone with the analytical skills of a child isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, like witness=proof. Shall we see how that works.

Prosecutor: John Smith claims to have seen the defendant.
Defence: The dna evidence is not the defendants, the fibres dont match the defendant, and we have CCTV footage of somebody else entirely committing the crime. We also have other witnesses who say it was not the defendant, and yet more that say he was somewhere else.
Prosecutor: yeah, but John Smith says he saw it, and that is not just evidence IT IS PROOF.


Witnesses are evidence, not proof. And as far as evidence goes they are at the bottom of the scale. It is a simple fact of life, when witnesses offer differing narratives you know which is more accurate by the material evidence. There is none supporting Roberts assertions, there is pleanty supporting the WC. If Robert wants to "prove" anything he just has to offer material evidence. Show us which x-ray was tampered with, and how that matches his claims. A guy saying there is a possibility of something, or room to doubt, is not proof. For a start it isn't saying X is the only explanation, it is merely stating X may, or may not, have occured. The source does not state the alleged conclusion, so cannot prove the alleged conclusion.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Yes, like witness=proof. Shall we see how that works.

Prosecutor: John Smith claims to have seen the defendant.
Defence: The dna evidence is not the defendants, the fibres dont match the defendant, and we have CCTV footage of somebody else entirely committing the crime. We also have other witnesses who say it was not the defendant, and yet more that say he was somewhere else.
Prosecutor: yeah, but John Smith says he saw it, and that is not just evidence IT IS PROOF.


Witnesses are evidence, not proof. And as far as evidence goes they are at the bottom of the scale. It is a simple fact of life, when witnesses offer differing narratives you know which is more accurate by the material evidence. There is none supporting Roberts assertions, there is pleanty supporting the WC. If Robert wants to "prove" anything he just has to offer material evidence. Show us which x-ray was tampered with, and how that matches his claims. A guy saying there is a possibility of something, or room to doubt, is not proof. For a start it isn't saying X is the only explanation, it is merely stating X may, or may not, have occured. The source does not state the alleged conclusion, so cannot prove the alleged conclusion.
Click to expand...

If corroborated eye-witness evidence is not "proof" than neither is anything else. What "proof" do you have that anything you have cited is real? Only the claims of others. And I am still waiting for you to supply some of that "material" evidence for your claims. Not reports. "material evidence". Nor do I think you have ever even attempted to name one single person who has refuted the claims of the 40 plus witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda and Dealy Plaza of a large blow-out in the back of the head. So after all this time, perhaps you could name at least one???And provide appropriate "proof." I don't think so. And by the way, conclusions are not facts, nor are conclusions "evidence."
 
Robert Prey said:
If corroborated eye-witness evidence is not "proof" than neither is anything else. What "proof" do you have that anything you have cited is real? Only the claims of others. And I am still waiting for you to supply some of that "material" evidence for your claims. Not reports. "material evidence". Nor do I think you have ever even attempted to name one single person who has refuted the claims of the 40 plus witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda and Dealy Plaza of a large blow-out in the back of the head. So after all this time, perhaps you could name at least one???And provide appropriate "proof." I don't think so. And by the way, conclusions are not facts, nor are conclusions "evidence."
Click to expand...

I can recommend a dictionary if you think it would help you.

Show us the video of the bullet causing a large blowout behind a steel plate again.

Bang! LOL.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Yes, like witness=proof. Shall we see how that works.

Prosecutor: John Smith claims to have seen the defendant.
Defence: The dna evidence is not the defendants, the fibres dont match the defendant, and we have CCTV footage of somebody else entirely committing the crime. We also have other witnesses who say it was not the defendant, and yet more that say he was somewhere else.
Prosecutor: yeah, but John Smith says he saw it, and that is not just evidence IT IS PROOF.


Witnesses are evidence, not proof. And as far as evidence goes they are at the bottom of the scale. It is a simple fact of life, when witnesses offer differing narratives you know which is more accurate by the material evidence. There is none supporting Roberts assertions, there is pleanty supporting the WC. If Robert wants to "prove" anything he just has to offer material evidence. Show us which x-ray was tampered with, and how that matches his claims. A guy saying there is a possibility of something, or room to doubt, is not proof. For a start it isn't saying X is the only explanation, it is merely stating X may, or may not, have occured. The source does not state the alleged conclusion, so cannot prove the alleged conclusion.
Click to expand...


I've already proven the B/Y photos to be faked. And these statements from the autopsy photographers are not conditional, but definite. They did not take nor develop the photos in evidence. End of story. Your witness. So as far as autopsy photos are concerned, you have none. Now,produce the originals -- your "material" evidence.

*" Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_cri...nd_photos.html
 
Robert Prey said:
I've already proven the B/Y photos to be faked. And these statements from the autopsy photographers are not conditional, but definite. They did not take nor develop the photos in evidence. End of story. Your witness. So as far as autopsy photos are concerned, you have none. Now,produce the originals -- your "material" evidence.

*" Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_cri...nd_photos.html
Click to expand...

One of the two autopsy photographers... guess if he didnt take them, the other guy could have. Or he could be mistaken. Or have been refering to other photos. (Again, the autopsy photos include those YOU cited Robert, why undermine your own evidence?)

As for having proven the back yard photos fake, you have done no such thing. Your analysis of the situation, and specifically the imposibility of shadows (on a guy posing the wrong way to deliberately avoid said shadows) is plain silly.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Robert: do you believe any of this?
Click to expand...

He didn't answer, did he? Robert reminds me of something that was said about the late red-baiting senator Joe McCarthy.

It was said by his critics that McCarthy couldn't have been doing a better job for the communists if he was a paid agent of Moscow. Robert couldn't be doing a better job of discrediting JFK assassination theorists if he was a paid agent of the cabal of conspirators who (allegedly) killed JFK.

Whether Robert is preforming his services gratis or for financial compensation is a matter of opinion.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
One of the two autopsy photographers... guess if he didnt take them, the other guy could have. Or he could be mistaken. Or have been refering to other photos. (Again, the autopsy photos include those YOU cited Robert, why undermine your own evidence?)

As for having proven the back yard photos fake, you have done no such thing. Your analysis of the situation, and specifically the imposibility of shadows (on a guy posing the wrong way to deliberately avoid said shadows) is plain silly.
Click to expand...

The position of the figure and the stick/rifle are just about exact and prove fraud. Now, then, you were going to submit your "Material" evidence. Also witnesses that refute blow-out in the back of the head.
 
Robert Prey said:
The position of the figure and the stick/rifle are just about exact and prove fraud.
Click to expand...
The position of the broom handle and the pleather jacket prove that he's a pee-stained doofus. I think everyone agrees that he's a doofus, don't you?

Now, then, you were going to submit your "Material" evidence. Also witnesses that refute blow-out in the back of the head.
Click to expand...
No, you were going to do that with your red crayon on the Zapruder film. LOL.
 
Walter Ego said:
He didn't answer, did he? Robert reminds me of something that was said about the late red-baiting senator Joe McCarthy.

It was said by his critics that McCarthy couldn't have been doing a better job for the communists if he was a paid agent of Moscow. Robert couldn't be doing a better job of discrediting JFK assassination theorists if he was a paid agent of the cabal of conspirators who (allegedly) killed JFK.

Whether Robert is preforming his services gratis or for financial compensation is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...



I found that to be the case with many of those that have beliefs that lean to the woo side of the spectrum. Maybe because they don't base their belief(s) on anything solid. Or they are trolling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom