JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

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

Then, if the Z film is accurate please explain the descrepancy between the mass visibly ejected from the entrance room, and your earlier statements that the Parkland staff witnessed only a small entrance wound.

The ejecta on the z film can not possibly be from a small entrance wound because of the direcion and volume . Were the Parkland witnesses mistaken or lying?

Or is your source who claims it is consitstant with a fragmentation round lying or mistaken?

In either case unless matter passed from within to without the head of JFK, passing through a large amount of his temple with out damaging it, your earlier assertion of a small entrance wound is invalidated.

Further, if it were a fragmenting bullet that caused a massive ejection through a large wound, why is the direction consistant with a point of origin behind JFK? How did the bullet defy the laws of physics to draw such volumes of mass uprange towards a shooter, yet render a downrange exit wound invisible?

Had such a wound occured, and the majority of JFKs temple been destroyed, how would a trauma surgeon, and not a pathologist, distinguish between an unusual entry wound and an exit wound from behind, based only on the size and shape, given your earlier description of an exit wound?

In short: how could so much mass travel in directions a small entry woundwont allow? Or why did the Parkland staff mistake a big hole consistant with that much mass for the small entry wound described?

Why was a wound consistant with such an ejecta cropped from the deathstare photo by you?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Do you actually believe any of your stuff?

NO.

Thank you for finally admitting it! (see kids, quote-mining is fun! Follow the links back to see what was ACTUALLY said)

 

[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

The veracity of what is seen or not seen in Abe Zapruder's home movie is to be found in the first hand observations of 40 plus witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealy Plaza, of a large blow-out in the back of the head.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The veracity of what is seen or not seen in Abe Zapruder's home movie is to be found in the first hand observations of 40 plus witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealy Plaza, of a large blow-out in the back of the head.

Perhaps you could circle it on the Zapruder film with your red crayon then.

 

[Walter Ego]

Have We Heard This Before?

The veracity of what is seen or not seen in Abe Zapruder's home movie is to be found in the first hand observations of 40 plus witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealy Plaza, of a large blow-out in the back of the head.

Robert could save himself a lot of typing by just cutting and pasting his stock answers from a saved document on his computer.

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 Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden.

The Parkland observations -- 30 or so witnesses independently corroborating each other -- is as solid evidence as there could be.

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.

Note here he says the very same thing in two posts in a row:

Post #2131

Irrelevant and speculative questions that are Red Herrings to avoid the truth of 30 plus first hand witnesses at Parkland observing a large blow-out in the back of the President's head.

Post #2132

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.

You can find other examples. There are so many I stopped collecting them after a while.

 

[Robert Prey]

In either case unless matter passed from within to without the head of JFK, passing through a large amount of his temple with out damaging it, your earlier assertion of a small entrance wound is invalidated.

Had such a wound occured, and the majority of JFKs temple been destroyed, how would a trauma surgeon, and not a pathologist, distinguish between an unusual entry wound and an exit wound from behind, based only on the size and shape, given your earlier description of an exit wound?

More evidence of Photographic Forgery:

Joe O'Donnell, WW II photographer and friend of Robt. Knutson, White House photographer who took several morgue pictures of Kennedy, including front and back of head, all controlled by Secret Service, showed them to O'Donnell and pointed out the wound to the right temple, 3/8 inch and the wound to the back of the head, the size of a grapefruit. But a couple of days later, he showed O'Donnell the same pictures, only the temple wound had been removed along with the large wound in the back of the head. See O'Donnell's testimony in Episode 7, of TMWKK, at 22;30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcReHqGpt8&feature=related

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert could save himself a lot of typing by just cutting and pasting his stock answers from a saved document on his computer.

Note here he says the very same thing in two posts in a row:

Post #2131



Post #2132



You can find other examples. There are so many I stopped collecting them after a while.

Yeah, well the same old questions prompt the same answers. Truth has a way of doing that.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You never actually answer questions, though.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Or to put it another way: the claims of the Parkland staff are disproven by physical evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

More evidence of Photographic Forgery:

Joe O'Donnell, WW II photographer and friend of Robt. Knutson, White House photographer who took several morgue pictures of Kennedy, including front and back of head, all controlled by Secret Service, showed them to O'Donnell and pointed out the wound to the right temple, 3/8 inch and the wound to the back of the head, the size of a grapefruit. But a couple of days later, he showed O'Donnell the same pictures, only the temple wound had been removed along with the large wound in the back of the head. See O'Donnell's testimony in Episode 7, of TMWKK, at 22;30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcReHqGpt8&feature=related

Another story with no physical evidence.

Oh, and that is not a testemony. It was not made under oath at the risk of a purgery charge.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You never actually answer questions, though.

Well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and rephrase the questions to a form he considers valid:

Robert do you have any physical evidence for the following:
1) The presence of an entry wound in the front of the head.
2) An asence of exit wound on the temple
3) Any form of forgery or tampering in the preautopsy, autopsy, polaroid photos or the Z film?

Can you reconcile the differing physical qualities of the frangible bullet wound and the small entry wound that you claim were both on JFKs temple?

If the you-tube video you posted is correct, will you retract your post discussing the cropped and rotated version of the death stare photograph, now this is clearly invalidated by your own evidence?

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and rephrase the questions to a form he considers valid:

Robert do you have any physical evidence for the following:
1) The presence of an entry wound in the front of the head.
2) An asence of exit wound on the temple
3) Any form of forgery or tampering in the preautopsy, autopsy, polaroid photos or the Z film?

Can you reconcile the differing physical qualities of the frangible bullet wound and the small entry wound that you claim were both on JFKs temple?

If the you-tube video you posted is correct, will you retract your post discussing the cropped and rotated version of the death stare photograph, now this is clearly invalidated by your own evidence?

No. There was a mark on the right temple. Not a 3/8 inch hole, though. And, I have as much "physical" evidence on that score as you. And you have still reneged on providing adverse witnesses to the 40 Plus I have cited.

 

[TheRedWorm]

So, no you do not. How about we completely discount eyewitnesses (for AND against a conspiracy) and focus instead of physical evidence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. There was a mark on the right temple. Not a 3/8 inch hole, though. And, I have as much "physical" evidence on that score as you. And you have still reneged on providing adverse witnesses to the 40 Plus I have cited.

Are you lying or mistaken, because I did indeed name a witness, who can support his claim with physical evidence, which is corroborated by further physical evidence.

Are you lying or mistaken about being able to produce as much physical evidence, when you have yet to produce a single photograph that supports your claim, where as numerous photographs counter them?

Are you lying or mistaken about the lack of exit wound on the "pre-autopsy" photograph when the uncropped, unrotated original has been provided, along with corroborating photographs from the same series?

Why are your witnesses not corroborated by the physical evidence, and shown to be wrong by the evidence YOU provided (after your dishonest tampering is exposed)?

Why can you not accept the witnesses are faliable, given the evidence, rather than continuing to try and discredit physical evidence with out proof, or even areasonable hypothosis about how it might be altered (though of course the hypothosis is null unless you canidentify a photographic artefact to indicate tampering, or evidence the body photographed in the morgue, and the man filmed and photographed in the plaza were not JFK).

Why have yet to consolidate your conflicting theories into a single narrative? Why do they conflict at all? Which is true, the frangible bullet as seen in the z film or the wound as described by your witnesses?

Which is true? That Mariana is untrustworthy and a liar, or that she is truthful andshould bebelieved when she claimed not to have taken a photo (just other photos ofthe same guns)?

 

[Robert Prey]

Are you lying or mistaken, because I did indeed name a witness, who can support his claim with physical evidence, which is corroborated by further physical evidence.

And who would that be?

 

[Robert Prey]

So, no you do not. How about we completely discount eyewitnesses (for AND against a conspiracy) and focus instead of physical evidence?

You mean do this?

 

[Tomtomkent]

And who would that be?

Zapruder. I assume you are too lazy to just read the quotes in question.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You mean do this?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f1e6e76c80d9.jpg[/qimg]

No, I mean bring something to the table other than a couple of confused people often reporting what they thought they saw years after the fact, and focus on the photographs (and film, both of which YOU ignore) of what was actually there.

 

[Robert Prey]

Zapruder. I assume you are too lazy to just read the quotes in question.

Abe Zapruder?? You're not joking? That's it? None of your touted autopsy docs????

 

[Tomtomkent]

Abe Zapruder?? You're not joking? That's it? None of your touted autopsy docs????

No im not joking. Please supply any physical evidence you have to prove this witness and his film wrong. THEN I will move onto the others. You act like a child and demand one issue at a time and that is what you will get.