JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

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.

No. It isn't, because it is not even simaler. The angle of the stick is nowhere near exact, itis considerably different. How is it going to prove fraud? Bare in mind there are two different recreations posted here that managed to replicate both the pose and the shadow. If the shadow can be recreated, the reason to assume fraud is nullified.

That you think you posting was "exact enough" to prove a negative (woah there, you complained there was no way to prove a negative, and yet you claim this doofus didexactly that? Double standard much?)

Now then Robert, would you kindly explain why you dont accept the polaroid or z film as material evidence?

Or if you will ever provide material evidence yourself? You do realise how utterly stupid you seem when you act as though "no where is YOUR evidence" is an answer to the queastion. "Can you support that claim with material evidence?" The answers are either "yes here it is", or "no". Yet you respond with either (often misrepresenting) more opinions, or asking where the evidence to refute you is. Or worse, pretending the evidence itself does not real simply because I didn't do the studies myself. Well, did you do all your interviews yourself? No? How can you trust them by your standard?

It is very simple Robert, the more you worm around this chanting "I am rubber you are glue" the more obvious it is you have no material evidence and offer no reason to tilt the balance of evidence against the claims of the everchanging number of staff at Parkland.

I am going to ask some questions. Answer them one at a time if you like, over as many posts as you need. If you impose the "one question at a time" request that will be taken as an admission of your inability to answer truthfully:

Do you have material evidence the polaroid was faked?
Do you have material evidence the z film WAS tampered with?
Do you have material evidence the autopsy (or the uncropped and rotated versions of the "pre" autopsy photos if you insist on calling them that) were altered in any way?

Now, a hint to help you here, digital copies are available to all of good enough quality to recognise artefacts with in the photos that would result from tampering. So feel free to point out the evidence of tampering. You can not rely on your "you only read reports of evidence so it isnt emperical" claptrap.

A hint also, the following is the most important question, as so far all the photographic evidence you have submitted has been misrepresented by you to frankly lie about the wounds they portray. You have pretended a flap of skin was an entry wound, and ignored the massive exit wound that directly contradicted your witness statement:

Do you have any photographic evidence to support the wounds Parkland staff apparently describe in your quotes, other than those already shown to have been misrepresentations of photos that actually support the WC?

What is your best (material) evidence of a frangible bullet (please take into account the claims you recently made of x-rays and the z-film being fake)?

What is your best (material) evidence for a shooter on the grassy gnoll?

What is your best material or documentary evidence for alternate kill teams in other locations?

What is your best explanation for how the autopsy photographs were created if we are meant to assume they are fake?

Take your time, take as many posts as you need. We can all wait.

 

[EventHorizon]

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.

You are just a dishonest disaster. At least you're entertaining (in that train wreck sort of way.)

 

[Tomtomkent]

For witnesses who refute the blow out at the back of the head: The Autopsy and Zapruda. We have no reason to assume Z, or anybody in the autopsy staff, to be less honest than the Parkland staff. Also, trained pathologists are far more likely to accurately calculate the direction of gunshot wounds than trauma surgeons. As has already been shown on this thread.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I would also submit: Anybody who has seen the Z film and been unable to spot the back of JFKs head blowing out. (Until Robert an provide evidence of the film having been tampered with we have no reason to argue the entry wound on the back of the head, and the blow out from the temple are fraudulant).

 

[Robert Prey]

For witnesses who refute the blow out at the back of the head: The Autopsy and Zapruda. We have no reason to assume Z, or anybody in the autopsy staff, to be less honest than the Parkland staff. Also, trained pathologists are far more likely to accurately calculate the direction of gunshot wounds than trauma surgeons. As has already been shown on this thread.

Uh, uh, uh. Those are conclusions, not facts. You have yet to present a contrary "witness" with specifics.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. It isn't, because it is not even simaler. The angle of the stick is nowhere near exact, itis considerably different. How is it going to prove fraud? Bare in mind there are two different recreations posted here that managed to replicate both the pose and the shadow. If the shadow can be recreated, the reason to assume fraud is nullified.

That you think you posting was "exact enough" to prove a negative (woah there, you complained there was no way to prove a negative, and yet you claim this doofus didexactly that? Double standard much?)

Now then Robert, would you kindly explain why you dont accept the polaroid or z film as material evidence?

Or if you will ever provide material evidence yourself? You do realise how utterly stupid you seem when you act as though "no where is YOUR evidence" is an answer to the queastion. "Can you support that claim with material evidence?" The answers are either "yes here it is", or "no". Yet you respond with either (often misrepresenting) more opinions, or asking where the evidence to refute you is. Or worse, pretending the evidence itself does not real simply because I didn't do the studies myself. Well, did you do all your interviews yourself? No? How can you trust them by your standard?

It is very simple Robert, the more you worm around this chanting "I am rubber you are glue" the more obvious it is you have no material evidence and offer no reason to tilt the balance of evidence against the claims of the everchanging number of staff at Parkland.

I am going to ask some questions. Answer them one at a time if you like, over as many posts as you need. If you impose the "one question at a time" request that will be taken as an admission of your inability to answer truthfully:

Do you have material evidence the polaroid was faked?
Do you have material evidence the z film WAS tampered with?
Do you have material evidence the autopsy (or the uncropped and rotated versions of the "pre" autopsy photos if you insist on calling them that) were altered in any way?

Now, a hint to help you here, digital copies are available to all of good enough quality to recognise artefacts with in the photos that would result from tampering. So feel free to point out the evidence of tampering. You can not rely on your "you only read reports of evidence so it isnt emperical" claptrap.

A hint also, the following is the most important question, as so far all the photographic evidence you have submitted has been misrepresented by you to frankly lie about the wounds they portray. You have pretended a flap of skin was an entry wound, and ignored the massive exit wound that directly contradicted your witness statement:

Do you have any photographic evidence to support the wounds Parkland staff apparently describe in your quotes, other than those already shown to have been misrepresentations of photos that actually support the WC?

What is your best (material) evidence of a frangible bullet (please take into account the claims you recently made of x-rays and the z-film being fake)?

What is your best (material) evidence for a shooter on the grassy gnoll?

What is your best material or documentary evidence for alternate kill teams in other locations?

What is your best explanation for how the autopsy photographs were created if we are meant to assume they are fake?

Take your time, take as many posts as you need. We can all wait.

Those ridiculous questions have been answered a thousand times over. It your now your turn to come of with some "material" evidence for your own Lone Nutter hallucinations.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Uh, uh, uh. Those are conclusions, not facts. You have yet to present a contrary "witness" with specifics.

Who cares about witnesses when we have physical evidence?

Also, do you actually believe any of your stuff, or are you simply trolling?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Those ridiculous questions have been answered a thousand times over. It your now your turn to come of with some "material" evidence for your own Lone Nutter hallucinations.

A thousand times? Are you sure? As I still can't find a single piece of material evidence (look, no need for quotations) provided by you, for any of them that withstands scrutiny? And what is this bull hockey about taking turns? It's simple Robert, you can provide evidence to support what the witness claims to have seen or not. It is mutually exclusive from any other narrative, and there is no reason for you to pretend otherwise.

So please point me to the post where you have actually found:

*An aretefact in the back yard photo that proves the photograph was faked (and note the shadow is no longer valid as it has been recreated by others here, regardless of the failure of your "model" while holding the stick an entirely different way).
Any evidence the Polaroid was faked (your claim it was taken before the final shot is clearly disproven by the visible background, so no this one has not been answered).
*Evidence the Z film was tampered with (that it was handed to the government and copied is not evidence of tampering, let alone proof, so far you have been unable to highlight any part of any frame that shows sign of tampering, and your lies about "missing" frames have been disproven when they have been shown to be available).
*Photographic, or any other material evidence, to support the parkland witnesses. The photographs you have supplied so far have both been cropped and rotated to misrpresent them, and under any form of scrutiny can be seen to be concurrent with the WC descriptions.
*Any form of material evidence for the frangible bullet. So far none has been provided, so were you lying or mistaken when you said this had been answered already?
*Any material or documentary evidence of reserve kill teams you assert to have been hidden around the city. Were you lying or mistaken when you said this one was answered too?
*Nope, I cant find you answering once, let alone a thousand times, how the autopsy photois were faked either? Could you link me to the best of the thousand answers? The one you have any form of evidence for?
*The only answer you have given for material evidence to support the claims of Parkland staff is "The body as they saw it", which by your own standard you can't produce, nor have you seen. Oh dear. And clearly the memories of witnesses aren't material, and there is no material record, so let's assume that answer was void. Would you care to supply a valid answer this time? Or just complain it has been answered a thousand times? Because invalid answers are no answers, so by count it is zero times.

Of course, you could earn your first piece of credibility, "son", by admitting there is no material evidence to support your claims.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Uh, uh, uh. Those are conclusions, not facts. You have yet to present a contrary "witness" with specifics.

The autopsy is very specific. It described and photographed the wounds clearly, and disagreed with your claims directly. As you refused to name which members of the autopsy team were liars, I have no choice but to assume you consider them credible witnesses, giving a contrary and specific conclusion.

So was this post of yours a lie or a mistake?

Or will you now list all members of the autopsy team who were "lying" in the documents?

 

[HSienzant]

A thousand times? Are you sure? As I still can't find a single piece of material evidence (look, no need for quotations) provided by you, for any of them that withstands scrutiny? And what is this bull hockey about taking turns? It's simple Robert, you can provide evidence to support what the witness claims to have seen or not. It is mutually exclusive from any other narrative, and there is no reason for you to pretend otherwise.

So please point me to the post where you have actually found:

*An aretefact in the back yard photo that proves the photograph was faked (and note the shadow is no longer valid as it has been recreated by others here, regardless of the failure of your "model" while holding the stick an entirely different way).
Any evidence the Polaroid was faked (your claim it was taken before the final shot is clearly disproven by the visible background, so no this one has not been answered).
*Evidence the Z film was tampered with (that it was handed to the government and copied is not evidence of tampering, let alone proof, so far you have been unable to highlight any part of any frame that shows sign of tampering, and your lies about "missing" frames have been disproven when they have been shown to be available)...

Just to clarify - Zapruder had the original film developed at a Kodak processing plant in Dallas while he observed the processing every step of the way (to ensure that no illegal copies were made from the original negative). The government didn't even know of the existence of the film at this time.

He sold the original negative and two copies of the film (struck from the original negative) to Time-Life. Copies of one of the copies were made and provided to the Secret Service. The Secret Service had copies made of their copy and distributed them to other agencies.

But the government wasn't involved in any way in the filming of the assassination by Zapruder, nor in the original developing of his film.

Any claims to the contrary are just conspiracy theorist speculation and conjecture (which CT's often confuse with 'proof').

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Uh, uh, uh. Those are conclusions, not facts. You have yet to present a contrary "witness" with specifics.

No, Robert. Within an hour or so of the assassination, Abraham Zapruder was on local TV in Dallas and held his hand to the right top of his head to explain the large blowout in JFK's head he saw.

The same wound we all see when we view the Z-film Zapruder took.

No way around it - the wound we see in the Z-film was authenticated by Zapruder on the day of the assassination, within an hour or so of the assassination, when his memory was freshest.

Was he mistaken or lying? And is the Z-film mistaken or lying?

This is your cue to accuse Zapruder of being part of the conspiracy.

Hank

 

[Robrob]

The position of the figure and the stick/rifle are just about exact and prove fraud.

"Just about exact?" They are about as opposite as you could get them. One points forward, toward the camera and the other back, away from the camera.

In your stick photo, you (or whoever) are twisted halfway away from the camera in an attempt to change your shadow from the LHO photo. Gun in front of the body vs. stick behind the body.

Is this another of your, 2+2=5 leaps of logic?

 

[Tomtomkent]

"Just about exact?" They are about as opposite as you could get them. One points forward, toward the camera and the other back, away from the camera.

In your stick photo, you (or whoever) are twisted halfway away from the camera in an attempt to change your shadow from the LHO photo. Gun in front of the body vs. stick behind the body.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/524584f1c7fc34c3c5.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/art/gunsp.jpg[/qimg]
Is this another of your, 2+2=5 leaps of logic?

No, just further evidence that Robert is a little hazy on what evidence and proof actually mean.

 

[Walter Ego]

Just to clarify - Zapruder had the original film developed at a Kodak processing plant in Dallas while he observed the processing every step of the way (to ensure that no illegal copies were made from the original negative). The government didn't even know of the existence of the film at this time.

He sold the original negative and two copies of the film (struck from the original negative) to Time-Life. Copies of one of the copies were made and provided to the Secret Service. The Secret Service had copies made of their copy and distributed them to other agencies.

Just to further clarify, about ten minutes after the assassination Harry McCormick, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, arrived in Dealey Plaza and one of the first people he encountered was Abraham Zapruder who told him he had photographed JFK being shot.

McCormick immediately realized the Secret Service would want to see the film and offered to locate Forrest Sorrels, head of the Dallas Secret Service office.

Sorrels arrived at Zapruder's office in the Dal-Tex Building in Dealey Plaza at 1:50 PM, about an hour and ten minutes after Zapruder first spoke to McCormick. Two Dallas Police Department officers had arrived about five minutes earlier asking Zapruder to surrender the film to them but Zapruder refused to do so.

So the Secret Service and the Dallas Police knew about the film before it was processed later that day shortly after 3:00 PM at the Eastman Kodak lab near Love Field. The important point, though, is that Zapruder had custody of the film from the time it was shot until it was sold to Life Magazine the next day.

A technical note: the Zapruder film was 8mm Kodachrome color movie film which was a reversal film (the same as used for color slides), so there was no negative.

ETA:

A Z film chronology can be found here and a history of the Z film here. Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic by Josiah Thompson here.

David R. Wrone, author of The Zapruder Film. Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kentucky, 2003), makes a point of how diligent Zapruder was in ensuring throughout the day of November 22, 1963, that no one altered or made an unauthorized copy of his original film, going to the extent of securing notarized affidavits to this effect from the Eastman Kodak Company in Dallas after it developed the film that day, and from Jamieson Film Company in Dallas after it made three copies of the film for him. Further, Zapruder and his partner at his dress company, Erwin Schwartz, watched the technicians as they processed the film. (Wrone, pp.123–124, 281–283)

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert. Within an hour or so of the assassination, Abraham Zapruder was on local TV in Dallas and held his hand to the right top of his head to explain the large blowout in JFK's head he saw.

The same wound we all see when we view the Z-film Zapruder took.

No way around it - the wound we see in the Z-film was authenticated by Zapruder on the day of the assassination, within an hour or so of the assassination, when his memory was freshest.

Was he mistaken or lying? And is the Z-film mistaken or lying?

This is your cue to accuse Zapruder of being part of the conspiracy.

Hank

There was indeed a wound at the right temple -- an entrance wound.

 

[Robert Prey]

The autopsy is very specific. It described and photographed the wounds clearly, and disagreed with your claims directly. As you refused to name which members of the autopsy team were liars, I have no choice but to assume you consider them credible witnesses, giving a contrary and specific conclusion.

So was this post of yours a lie or a mistake?

Or will you now list all members of the autopsy team who were "lying" in the documents?

NO. You list just who you are referring to and leave out the conclusions of the WC or the HSCA,, just the words of the Autopsy docs, or whoever you are referring to. Conclusions are not facts.

 

[Robert Prey]

A thousand times? Are you sure? As I still can't find a single piece of material evidence (look, no need for quotations) provided by you, for any of them that withstands scrutiny? And what is this bull hockey about taking turns? It's simple Robert, you can provide evidence to support what the witness claims to have seen or not. It is mutually exclusive from any other narrative, and there is no reason for you to pretend otherwise.

So please point me to the post where you have actually found:

*An aretefact in the back yard photo that proves the photograph was faked (and note the shadow is no longer valid as it has been recreated by others here, regardless of the failure of your "model" while holding the stick an entirely different way).
Any evidence the Polaroid was faked (your claim it was taken before the final shot is clearly disproven by the visible background, so no this one has not been answered).
*Evidence the Z film was tampered with (that it was handed to the government and copied is not evidence of tampering, let alone proof, so far you have been unable to highlight any part of any frame that shows sign of tampering, and your lies about "missing" frames have been disproven when they have been shown to be available).
*Photographic, or any other material evidence, to support the parkland witnesses. The photographs you have supplied so far have both been cropped and rotated to misrpresent them, and under any form of scrutiny can be seen to be concurrent with the WC descriptions.
*Any form of material evidence for the frangible bullet. So far none has been provided, so were you lying or mistaken when you said this had been answered already?
*Any material or documentary evidence of reserve kill teams you assert to have been hidden around the city. Were you lying or mistaken when you said this one was answered too?
*Nope, I cant find you answering once, let alone a thousand times, how the autopsy photois were faked either? Could you link me to the best of the thousand answers? The one you have any form of evidence for?
*The only answer you have given for material evidence to support the claims of Parkland staff is "The body as they saw it", which by your own standard you can't produce, nor have you seen. Oh dear. And clearly the memories of witnesses aren't material, and there is no material record, so let's assume that answer was void. Would you care to supply a valid answer this time? Or just complain it has been answered a thousand times? Because invalid answers are no answers, so by count it is zero times.

Of course, you could earn your first piece of credibility, "son", by admitting there is no material evidence to support your claims.

I'm not going to let you get away with your 'Material Evidence" canard any longer. You can placed that crap on the scrap heap of Lone Nutter garbage right on top of the liar/plagiarist Gerald Posner.
Here is what Material Evidence is according to Black's Dictionary of Law:

"Evidence having some logical connection with the facts of consequence or the issues. in the case. In describing material evidence courts have noted that material evidence is fact, statement or information that if believed would tend to influence or affect the issue under determination."

Witness observations are material evidence. End of story.

 

[Robert Prey]

Who cares about witnesses when we have physical evidence?

Also, do you actually believe any of your stuff, or are you simply trolling?

NO. You only have statements concerning physical evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

NO. You only have statements concerning physical evidence.

Which of a following do you consider to be a statement?

The Z film?
The Polaroid?
The "pre" autopsy photos?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm not going to let you get away with your 'Material Evidence" canard any longer. You can placed that crap on the scrap heap of Lone Nutter garbage right on top of the liar/plagiarist Gerald Posner.
Here is what Material Evidence is according to Black's Dictionary of Law:

"Evidence having some logical connection with the facts of consequence or the issues. in the case. In describing material evidence courts have noted that material evidence is fact, statement or information that if believed would tend to influence or affect the issue under determination."

Witness observations are material evidence. End of story.

So once again you are cowering behind the "two peoples seperateds by a common language"card, that you gibbered about with inertia and newtonian physics, chain of evidence,etc.

Ok, in your parlance: what PHYSICAL evidence supports your claim? This is ignoring the obvious hinderence to you that witness testemony can not be established as fact due to the subjective nature.
(You may have noticed anybody of the least credibility would have answered instead of making excuses. I defined the terminology enough times for no doubt to remain of context and intention). And prey tell, what will be the consequences of my continuing to pointout your utter lack of physical evidence? How will you "not allow" me to continue? Please donot resort to childish threats, it impairs your argument.