• 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.
Since I know you are on and don't have me on ignore:

Robert, do you actually believe any of this, or are you just trolling? You may PM me if you wish.
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
Since I know you are on and don't have me on ignore:

Robert, do you actually believe any of this, or are you just trolling?
Click to expand...

Robert is never going to tell you if he's trolling. I honestly don't think he is, on this thread at least.

He seems, in his own mind, to be on a holy mission to educate the "deep thinkers" and skeptics on JREF. This thread is not a dialogue between rational adults of good will with a difference of opinion on the JFK assassination. It is an opportunity for Robert to "show up" the people he feels superior to.

That the adolescent sneering and arrogant know-it-all attitude he displays in the pursuit of his goal are reminiscent of his dear departed "hero," Lee Harvey Oswald, is an irony that would be totally lost on him if you brought it to his attention.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
There was indeed a wound at the right temple -- an entrance wound.
Click to expand...

Robert,

That is not where YOU put it previously. You put it in the forehead. And you still cannot get your own story straight.

The entry wound is in the temple, no, it's in the forehead. Is there anywhere else this entry wound was?

Or perhaps there were TWO entry wounds in the head?

Remember these posts?

HSienzant said:
Yes, it should. But I can't get it to work with the entrance wound you claimed.

So draw that for me.

But remember, you posted this picture claiming a forehead entry wound:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg

Of course, you also posted this drawing, which shows the whole front of the head missing:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994efb6f48a6d1b.jpg

So *you* draw the line where you think it should be and see if you can make it logical *and* still agree with the two images above.

Thanks Much!
Hank
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.
Click to expand...
 
Case Closed ... Alert The Media !!!

Robert Prey said:
Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.
Click to expand...


So you think the driver shot JFK? Why didn't you say that in the first place?


bulletpath.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

And here I thought you were going to say the Abe was at the autopsy and
give a detailed description. But no, just his home movie? That's it? You have no other witnesses contrary to the 40 plus first hand, on site witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey plaza who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head??? I think I see a white flag.
 
Robert Prey said:
And here I thought you were going to say the Abe was at the autopsy and
give a detailed description.
Click to expand...
He did give a detailed description. Did you fail to understand what Walter had posted earlier showing Zapruder on tv describing the large blowout to the right front? Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpicOfFajNE

But no, just his home movie? That's it?
Click to expand...
Well, no. There's the video of the Zapruder interview that I've linked to again. Are you lying or simply mistaken?

You have no other witnesses contrary to the 40 plus first hand, on site witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey plaza who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head???
Click to expand...
You mean other than the millions of people (includind you!) who saw the right front of JFK's head blow out?

I think I see a white flag.
Click to expand...
I accept your surrender. You finally did one thing right.

Robert, can you point out on Zapruder's home movie where the exit wound is? You may use your red crayon if you wish.

Now, let's see about getting your foot wounds attended to.


LOL.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
And here I thought you were going to say the Abe was at the autopsy and
give a detailed description. But no, just his home movie? That's it? You have no other witnesses contrary to the 40 plus first hand, on site witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey plaza who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head??? I think I see a white flag.
Click to expand...

Wave your white flag if you like. Zapruder was an "on site witness" who saw a shot frombehind, blowing out the temple. He aslo supports his statement with a piece of physicalevidence.


So were you lying or mistaken when you said none had been provided?

When can we expect Robert to provide physical evidence to counter the Z film? I notice that Z not being who Robert expected is in no way a counter argument to dicredit or. Disprove the testemony. By Roberts own standards, having seen the actual shooting itself, before the body could be altered or interfered with Z should be a better witness than the parkland staff.
 
RoboTimbo said:
He did give a detailed description. Did you fail to understand what Walter had posted earlier showing Zapruder on tv describing the large blowout to the right front? Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpicOfFajNE


Well, no. There's the video of the Zapruder interview that I've linked to again. Are you lying or simply mistaken?


You mean other than the millions of people (includind you!) who saw the right front of JFK's head blow out?


I accept your surrender. You finally did one thing right.

Robert, can you point out on Zapruder's home movie where the exit wound is? You may use your red crayon if you wish.

Now, let's see about getting your foot wounds attended to.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_267444efb7302cca59.jpg[/qimg]

LOL.
Click to expand...

Hang on. We have his home movie? I thought we only had reports of evidence.

Robert are you lying or mistaken to say we only have reports of evidence?
 
Bingo!

Walter Ego said:
This thread is not a dialogue between rational adults of good will with a difference of opinion on the JFK assassination. It is an opportunity for Robert to "show up" the people he feels superior to.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about the Kennedy assassination at all. It's about Robert "winning." The smoking gun:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I think I see a white flag.
Click to expand...
 
It seems odd he would "expect" the autopsy staff to be the first witnesses I refer to, when the guy with the cine-cam who saw the events unfold had already been mentioned and his testemony (that Robert has not been able to show to be untrue or otherwise unreliable) was already on the field.

Then again it seems odd to me that somebody would think "Doctor X's memories prove material/physical/objective (use which ever term you prefer the meaning is clear) evidence to be wrong" when for anybody wanting to prove anything the statement should be "the objective evidence casts doubt upon the witnesses memories."

Let's do an experiment. I just need 39 people to swear blind they saw Robert promise me $40,000 dollars. We can't ALL be wrong?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Wave your white flag if you like. Zapruder was an "on site witness" who saw a shot frombehind, blowing out the temple. He aslo supports his statement with a piece of physicalevidence.


So were you lying or mistaken when you said none had been provided?

When can we expect Robert to provide physical evidence to counter the Z film? I notice that Z not being who Robert expected is in no way a counter argument to dicredit or. Disprove the testemony. By Roberts own standards, having seen the actual shooting itself, before the body could be altered or interfered with Z should be a better witness than the parkland staff.
Click to expand...

And let's not forget Malcolm Kilduff who pointed to his right temple in Parkland on the day of the assassination as the place for the President's large wound to the head. He didn't point to the back of his head. He didn't point to the forehead. He pointed to the temple.

The same place Zapruder - on the day of the assassination - gave a statement on TV and placed the large wound in the right side and top of the president's head. Which of course validates the Z-film damage and shows that it is not altered to have that wound painted in (as some allege).

Hank
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
Wave your white flag if you like. Zapruder was an "on site witness" who saw a shot frombehind, blowing out the temple. He aslo supports his statement with a piece of physicalevidence.


So were you lying or mistaken when you said none had been provided?

When can we expect Robert to provide physical evidence to counter the Z film? I notice that Z not being who Robert expected is in no way a counter argument to dicredit or. Disprove the testemony. By Roberts own standards, having seen the actual shooting itself, before the body could be altered or interfered with Z should be a better witness than the parkland staff.
Click to expand...

And remember that David Lifton, who invented the whole body alteration nonsense to start with, is now suggesting that the Parkland doctors were part of the conspiracy. To paraphrase Lifton, Parkland would be where the conspirators would naturally expect JFK to be taken. Since the body alteration was in the original conspiracy plans, it's logical to assume that the body alteration was to be done at Parkland. But when the Secret Service took the body back to Air Force One, and then on to Washington, the conspirators were forced to scramble to come up with an alternate plan - and thus the body alteration was done at Bethesda.

So if one of the leading conspiracy shallow thinkers alleges the Parkland staff had to be in on the original conspiracy, I'm not too certain Robert should be citing these guys as evidence of anything.

Of course, Lifton never did explain how Connally's wounds were altered.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
And remember that David Lifton, who invented the whole body alteration nonsense to start with, is now suggesting that the Parkland doctors were part of the conspiracy. To paraphrase Lifton, Parkland would be where the conspirators would naturally expect JFK to be taken. Since the body alteration was in the original conspiracy plans, it's logical to assume that the body alteration was to be done at Parkland. But when the Secret Service took the body back to Air Force One, and then on to Washington, the conspirators were forced to scramble to come up with an alternate plan - and thus the body alteration was done at Bethesda.

So if one of the leading conspiracy shallow thinkers alleges the Parkland staff had to be in on the original conspiracy, I'm not too certain Robert should be citing these guys as evidence of anything.

Of course, Lifton never did explain how Connally's wounds were altered.

Hank
Click to expand...

Indeed. The 30 plus medical workers at Parkland had a conference before the assassination and decided to enter into a grand conspiracy to alter the President's wounds validated by David Lifton's conjecture. Thus, they are all lying as are the witnesses at Bethesda and the on the scene witnesses in Dealy Plaza. Is that your theory as well?
That's got to be the most ridiculous, tortured argument any LN has ever made. I think I see another White Flag.
 
HSienzant said:
And let's not forget Malcolm Kilduff who pointed to his right temple in Parkland on the day of the assassination as the place for the President's large wound to the head. He didn't point to the back of his head. He didn't point to the forehead. He pointed to the temple.

The same place Zapruder - on the day of the assassination - gave a statement on TV and placed the large wound in the right side and top of the president's head. Which of course validates the Z-film damage and shows that it is not altered to have that wound painted in (as some allege).

Hank
Click to expand...

Malcomb Kilduff, correctly pointing to where the fatal shot entered:


 
But, others point to the large blow-out in the back of the head:



Beverly Oliver: "The whole back of his head went flying out the back of the car."
Phillip Williis: "It took the back of his head off."
Dr.C. Crenshaw: 'The wound was the size of a baseball."
Dr. R. Jones: "...there was a wound in this area of the head."
Dr. R. McClelland: It was in the right back of the head -- very large..."
Dr. Paul Peters: "...right there..."
Dr. C. Carrico: "There was a large -- quite a large -- defect about here..."
Nurse Audrey Bell: "There was a massive wound at the back of his head."
Abrey Rike: "You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of his head."
Floyd Riebe: "... a big gaping hole in the back of the head."
Frank O'Neill: "A massive wound in the right rear."
Paul O'Connor: "There as an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain."

And many more.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom