JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

No. Statements that conflict with the physical evisdence are discounted as unreliable.

We know they are unreliable as the evidence proves them wrong.

Your assesment of the methodology of a sceptic is skewered, to justify calling other "foolish"

Why do you believe stories when there is real evidence to hand?

Why can you not prove "the perps" destroyed the "real" evidence?

Why do you even NEED to misrepresent others to justify your refusal to consider the actual evidence?


The answer to all these questions, and many more is: "Because You are wrong Robert".

Prosecution: Your honor, we have the proof right here in these autopsy photos that the fatal shot came from the back and exited from the front.

Defense Witness Autopsy Photographer Floyd Riebe:

Your honor, those autopsy photos are not the ones I took.

Defense Witness: Photographer James Stringer

Your honor, those autopsy photos are not the ones I took.

Judge; The photos, having no validation as to their veracity, are dis-allowed.

Now do you have any other evidence, counsel???

 

[Robert Prey]

And?

Their memories decades after the event are as liable as anybody elsestobe faliable.

So, neither have your read the sworn statements of several of the Parkland doctors as published in the Warren Report and dated

Nov. 22, 1963?????​

 

[RoboTimbo]

Prosecution: Your honor, we have the proof right here in these autopsy photos that the fatal shot came from the back and exited from the front.

Defense Witness Autopsy Photographer Floyd Riebe:

Your honor, those autopsy photos are not the ones I took.

Defense Witness: Photographer James Stringer

Your honor, those autopsy photos are not the ones I took.

Judge; The photos, having no validation as to their veracity, are dis-allowed.

Now do you have any other evidence, counsel???

Your honor, we have the Zapruder film. Counsel for the defense has drawn on it with a red crayon where he fantasizes an exit wound to be but we have the one without the childish scribbling on it showing the actual exit wound.

Judge: I find for the prosecution and find counsel for the defense in egregious contempt of court for his lying or being mistaken.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Prosecution: Your honor, we have the proof right here in these autopsy photos that the fatal shot came from the back and exited from the front.

Defense Witness Autopsy Photographer Floyd Riebe:

Your honor, those autopsy photos are not the ones I took.

Defense Witness: Photographer James Stringer

Your honor, those autopsy photos are not the ones I took.

Judge; The photos, having no validation as to their veracity, are dis-allowed.

Now do you have any other evidence, counsel???

Nope, that is not how it would work, except in your fairy tale world.

Perhaps in your court you would have missed out on disclosure?

Defense Attorney: Our witness claims those are not the photos he took.
Judge: Approach the bench. Why you have waited until now to point this out? The legal process went on for months before this point. You had every oppertunity to negate this evidence.
Def-Att: Oy!
Judge: And you do realise these are the photos you submitted as "proof" the shot came from the front?
Deff-Att: Oy!
Judge: And you do realise that one photographer saying they are not the photos he took just means I will ask ih he is absolutely sure of that fact, before showing the documentary evidence that places the film in HIS GODDAMNED CAMERA, and will remind him of the serious consequences of lying under oath (consequences that lying to CT authors don't have), before we have photographic experts show there is no sign of tampering, have RFK confirm these were the photos he gave to us, and compare the photos to the rest of the series and the corroborative series. We will then ask you to consider the possibility, given that you refuse to list the members of the autopsy team you consider to be lying, nor provide any evidence other than a man with a faliable memory, that it could be possible that your witness is mistaken, given we have OBJECTIVE and PHYSICAL evidence against his word. You have his word. You can not show any of the documentary evidence to be false, you have not shown the photos to be fake, you have shown one man does not remember it as well as he could have. Guess what. Memories are subjective and can be false. So I would like to caution the defence council that his witness is about to be put under cross examination, in which he is going to have the object evidence dumped in his lap. Perhaps, before you would like to proceed further you would like to explain how and why this man is to be treated as abnormally reliable in terms of psychology and recall?
Defence Attorney: Oy!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Or alternatively:

Prosecution:We call John Thomas Stringer. Mister Stringer, are these the photographs you took?

JTS: Yes.

Prosecution: Is that JFK?

JTS: Yes.

At the closing addresses:
Prosecution: Members of the jury, we have conflicting narratives, as ours is supported by anthropolgists from several different reviews, and our own team, willing to testify and provide supporting evidence it is JFK in those photographs, again including several the defence attempted to submit after cropping and rotating to misrepresent, and given that regardless of who took them they undoubtedly show JFK, show a small entrance wound on the back of the head, and a large exit wound on the temple, as we also have totally indipendant photographs and film, taken by the public, that show the shot coming from behind, I think we should now ask the Defence exactly what they are missing. Why have they yet to produce an explanation for how JFK could have been photographed with such wounds if those were not the wounds he sustained. WHY they have been unable to produce any evidence the photographs are not of JFK, not an opinion, not a statement about what somebody remembers, evidence that is objective and beyond argument. Why they have yet to show a single frame of the Z film, why the polaroid, and YES why the "Death Stare photo" they themselves produced to SUPPORT their claim infact CONTRADICT it. Why thay can not show WHERE or HOW the photos and film were tampered with, when every analysis available except those by CT Whacktards which follow no recognised technique and are for all intents and purposes WORTHLESS LIES AND FRAUDS (as has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt) shows the photos NOT to have been tampered with? If the Photographs show JFK, and have not been tampered with (like the croppoing and rotating the defence did by the by) and yet they show an EXIT wound on the temple, then you have to ask how the defence explain this. They do not. They can not. Their witness didn't remember taking the photos? Which do we rely on? Faliable human memory or objective evidence? If human memory is the best evidence, why does the defence simply discount witnesses that conflict with his narrative and feel the need to slur them as whitewashers? I remind you at least one of his witnesses has already claimed to have lied before a hearing and "changed his mind", is this the unimpeachable word you wish to rely on? A known and self confessed liar? WHERE IS THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE? He has none. WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? Right here, and wants you to believe it is a lie...Because he says so? Whuh?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, neither have your read the sworn statements of several of the Parkland doctors as published in the Warren Report and dated

Nov. 22, 1963?????​

Were their statements taken WHILE saving JFKs life?
No.
Are they from Gallifrey?
No.
Reality demands their statements were recorded after the events.

ETA: Forgot to mention, I can't find any claims those were not the autopsy photos taken, during the WC, and can find the first reference decades later. If anyone has a citation for the page in question where the photographer denounces the photos in the WC I will of course concede my mistake. (I'm not a CT after all.)

 

[HSienzant]

Your questions are too non-specific. Have you not read the Warren Report? The doctors statements in the WR are dated Nov. 22, 1963.

Not asking about the doctors. You cited these two men, Robert: Reibe and Stringer as stating the autopsy photos were not the ones they took. Please advise the dates of their statements to that effect.

Nope. I've never said I believed in body alteration, though I don't dismiss it either. But certainly not at Parkland. But the autopsy photos and x-rays -- according to those who took them -- they are altered or fake substitutes.

*" 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_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html

 

[HSienzant]

Tortured and twisted. First you make a challenge that there was no wound in the right temple, and now you say there was a large wound.
A great laceration from the temporal to the occipital refers to the bullet path, front to back. The quote is consistent with all of the other doctors. Perhaps you need a primer on where the lobes are located. Occipital and cerebellum indicates a large blow-out in the back of the head.

Nope. I *Never* said there was no wound in the right temple. That is your claim, unsupported by any documentation.

It is likewise your *interpretation* - unsupported by any documentation - that that great laceration from the temporal to the occipital refers to the bullet path.

Doctors don't diagnose bullet paths in emergency rooms. That's what autopsies are for. Doctors seek to treat the patient. The doctors had no clue of the bullet path. In fact, immediately after the assassination, one doctor (Kemp Clark?) speculated in a televised press conference that the bullet may had hit JFK in the throat and exited the top of the head - not the back of the head, the top. In short, the doctors simply did not know the bullet path. It is your supposition, not their conclusion, you are advancing above.

In fact, your attention is called to Kemp Clark's testimony to the Warren Commission, specifically this passage:
Dr. CLARK - First, the duration of time that the President was alive in the emergency room was a brief duration. All efforts were bent toward saving his life rather than inspection for precise location of wounds. After his death it was not our position to try to evaluate all of the conceivable organs or areas of the body, knowing that an autopsy would be performed and that this would be far more meaningful than a cursory external examination here.

Dr. Clark's testimony in full can be found here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/clark_w.htm

The Occipital bone wraps around to the side, as you can see in the image I cited earlier.

Doctor Jenkins himself told you what you need to know about the location of the wound - as I pointed out and you have ignored, the quote you offered doesn't say the wound is in the back of the head, it says the wound is on the right side of the head. Forget the cerebellum, where does Jenkins locate the wound in PLAIN ENGLISH BELOW?

Marion Jenkins, (Professor And Chairman Of Anaesthesiology):

"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)...even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound...."

 

[HSienzant]

Nope. I *Never* said there was no wound in the right temple. That is your claim, unsupported by any documentation.

It is likewise your *interpretation* - unsupported by any documentation - that that great laceration from the temporal to the occipital refers to the bullet path.

Doctors don't diagnose bullet paths in emergency rooms. That's what autopsies are for. Doctors seek to treat the patient. The doctors had no clue of the bullet path. In fact, immediately after the assassination, one doctor (Kemp Clark?) speculated in a televised press conference that the bullet may had hit JFK in the throat and exited the top of the head - not the back of the head, the top. In short, the doctors simply did not know the bullet path. It is your supposition, not their conclusion, you are advancing above.

In fact, your attention is called to Kemp Clark's testimony to the Warren Commission, specifically this passage:
Dr. CLARK - First, the duration of time that the President was alive in the emergency room was a brief duration. All efforts were bent toward saving his life rather than inspection for precise location of wounds. After his death it was not our position to try to evaluate all of the conceivable organs or areas of the body, knowing that an autopsy would be performed and that this would be far more meaningful than a cursory external examination here.

Dr. Clark's testimony in full can be found here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/clark_w.htm

The Occipital bone wraps around to the side, as you can see in the image I cited earlier.

Doctor Jenkins himself told you what you need to know about the location of the wound - as I pointed out and you have ignored, the quote you offered doesn't say the wound is in the back of the head, it says the wound is on the right side of the head. Forget the cerebellum, where does Jenkins locate the wound in PLAIN ENGLISH BELOW?

Sorry. It was Dr. Malcolm Perry who stated as a matter of conjecture the bullet path could have entered the neck and then deflected upward after striking the spine to cause the large exit wound in the head:

Dr. PERRY - We were, and our reply was it was impossible with the knowledge we had at hand to ascertain if there were 1 or 2 bullets, or more. We were given, similarly to the discussion here today, hypothetical situations. "Is it possible that such would have been the case, or such and such?" If it was possible that there was one bullet. To this, I replied in the affirmative, it was possible and conceivable that it was only one bullet, but I did not know.
Mr. SPECTER - What would the trajectory, or conceivable course of one bullet have been, Dr. Perry, to account for the injuries which you observed in the President, as you stated it?
Dr. PERRY - Since I observed only two wounds in my cursory examination, it would have necessitated the missile striking probably a bony structure and being deviated in its course in order to account for these two wounds.
Mr. SPECTER - What bony structure was it conceivably?
Dr. PERRY - It required striking the spine.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you express a professional opinion that that did, in fact, happen or it was a matter of speculation that it could have happened?
Dr. PERRY - I expressed it as a matter of speculation that this was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark and I emphasize that we had no way of knowing.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

 

[Robert Prey]

Sorry. It was Dr. Malcolm Perry who stated as a matter of conjecture the bullet path could have entered the neck and then deflected upward after striking the spine to cause the large exit wound in the head:

Dr. PERRY - We were, and our reply was it was impossible with the knowledge we had at hand to ascertain if there were 1 or 2 bullets, or more. We were given, similarly to the discussion here today, hypothetical situations. "Is it possible that such would have been the case, or such and such?" If it was possible that there was one bullet. To this, I replied in the affirmative, it was possible and conceivable that it was only one bullet, but I did not know.
Mr. SPECTER - What would the trajectory, or conceivable course of one bullet have been, Dr. Perry, to account for the injuries which you observed in the President, as you stated it?
Dr. PERRY - Since I observed only two wounds in my cursory examination, it would have necessitated the missile striking probably a bony structure and being deviated in its course in order to account for these two wounds.
Mr. SPECTER - What bony structure was it conceivably?
Dr. PERRY - It required striking the spine.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you express a professional opinion that that did, in fact, happen or it was a matter of speculation that it could have happened?
Dr. PERRY - I expressed it as a matter of speculation that this was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark and I emphasize that we had no way of knowing.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

An entrance wound to the neck? So, what does that tell you????

 

[RoboTimbo]

An entrance wound to the neck? So, what does that tell you????

That he was shot from behind, approximately from the 6th floor of the TSBD. What does it tell the lunatic fringe?

 

[HSienzant]

An entrance wound to the neck? So, what does that tell you????

It tells me you are desperate to score points here, but to do so, you have to grasp at straws and ignore meaningful information - no problem, I've debated conspiracy theorists before, so I know how you reason.

I think the appropriate term for what you are doing is 'quote mining'. Rest assured we're not fooled by these shenanigans.

Remember that Dr. Perry said this: "I expressed it as a matter of speculation ... "

You are treating it as fact above, asking me to draw conclusions from speculation. Sorry, no can do. I will leave that to you and your compadres on the CT side. Remember as well that Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas simply reversed this bullet path, speculating that one bullet fragment from the brain shot exited the throat. That speculation has as much validity as does Perry's. None, when compared to the actual evidence in the case.

I re-affirm what I pointed out earlier, but which you ignored completely.

Here it is again it case you didn't understand the import the first time (or so you can ignore it once again):

...Doctors don't diagnose bullet paths in emergency rooms. That's what autopsies are for. Doctors seek to treat the patient. The doctors had no clue of the bullet path. In fact, immediately after the assassination, one doctor (Kemp Clark?) speculated in a televised press conference that the bullet may had hit JFK in the throat and exited the top of the head - not the back of the head, the top. In short, the doctors simply did not know the bullet path...

In fact, your attention is called to Kemp Clark's testimony to the Warren Commission, specifically this passage:
Dr. CLARK - First, the duration of time that the President was alive in the emergency room was a brief duration. All efforts were bent toward saving his life rather than inspection for precise location of wounds. After his death it was not our position to try to evaluate all of the conceivable organs or areas of the body, knowing that an autopsy would be performed and that this would be far more meaningful than a cursory external examination here.

Dr. Clark's testimony in full can be found here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/clark_w.htm ...

 

[HSienzant]

So, neither have your read the sworn statements of several of the Parkland doctors as published in the Warren Report and dated

Nov. 22, 1963?????​

Remember that Doctor Perry had observed the wound in JFK head, and also had an opportunity to review the autopsy report you find so much fault with.

Perry did not find any fault.

He said this concerning the autopsy:

Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity to examine the autopsy report?
Dr. PERRY - I have.
Mr. SPECTER - And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way with your findings and opinions?
Dr. PERRY - They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the time.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you elaborate on that last answer, Dr. Perry?
Dr. PERRY - Yes There was some considerable speculation, as you will recall, as to whether there were one or two bullets and as to from whence they came. Dr. Clark and I were queried extensively in respect to this and in addition Dr. Carrico could not determine whether there were one or two bullets from our initial examination.
I say that because we did what was necessary in the emergency procedure, and abandoned any efforts of examination at the termination. I did not ascertain the trajectory of any of the missiles. As a result I did not know whether there was evidence for 1 or 2 or even 3 bullets entering and at the particular time it was of no importance.
Mr. SPECTER - But based on the additional factors provided in the autopsy report, do you have an opinion at this time as to the number of bullets there were?
Dr. PERRY - The wounds as described from the autopsy report and coupled with the wounds I have observed it would appear there were two missiles that struck the President.

 

[Robert Prey]

It tells me you are desperate to score points here, but to do so, you have to grasp at straws and ignore meaningful information - no problem, I've debated conspiracy theorists before, so I know how you reason.

I think the appropriate term for what you are doing is 'quote mining'. Rest assured we're not fooled by these shenanigans.

Remember that Dr. Perry said this: "I expressed it as a matter of speculation ... "

You are treating it as fact above, asking me to draw conclusions from speculation. Sorry, no can do. I will leave that to you and your compadres on the CT side. Remember as well that Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas simply reversed this bullet path, speculating that one bullet fragment from the brain shot exited the throat. That speculation has as much validity as does Perry's. None, when compared to the actual evidence in the case.

I re-affirm what I pointed out earlier, but which you ignored completely.

Here it is again it case you didn't understand the import the first time (or so you can ignore it once again):

Dr. Kemp Clark, Associate Professor and Chairman of Neurosurgery:
"There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region." "Both cerebral and cerebellar tissues were extruding from the wound."

So much for Dr.Clark's non-observations.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, is there any danger of you supplying physical evidence to support any of your claims.

That is all you have ever needed since the start of this conversation. One piece of physical evidence to support the claim of a gunman on the grassy gnoll. All your ***************g about there not being a single best piece of "best evidence" to prove LHO was the lone killer, and you have never applied the same standard to your own pathetic warbling.

If you want one narrative dismissed by a standard hold yourself to that standard first. Either supply a single piece of evidence that can not be a conspiracy (as I have no reason to believe your witnesses are less capable of being liars and whitewashers than anybody else), a physical, testable actual piece of evidence that can not be dismissed out of hand as a conspiracy, as you dismiss all others, something that is beyond despute (again, stories can be desputed)... or shut up. Admit you can't provide anything,and stop being hypocritical holding all others to standards you refuse to hold yourself to.


Supply evidence, or admit you are ranting and raving about a fantasy you will prove, that relies on your own opinion of who is honest.

What about it Robert? Going to supply the Golden Evidence you demand of others?

 

[jargon buster]

Maybe Robert was the shooter on the grassy knoll and just wants to ease his burden.
Maybe it was just a badly aligned sight and made his BB gun miss the bottles he was plinking at from the car park behind the fence of the grassy knoll.

 

[Walter Ego]

Debunk This Deep Thinkers!

Maybe Robert was the shooter on the grassy knoll and just wants to ease his burden.
Maybe it was just a badly aligned sight and made his BB gun miss the bottles he was plinking at from the car park behind the fence of the grassy knoll.

Robert can't be the shooter because he is the dufus in the parking lot holding the broomstick proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the backyard photos were faked. He had to obscure his face with a superimposed V-Mask so They won't know who he really is.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, is there any danger of you supplying physical evidence to support any of your claims.

That is all you have ever needed since the start of this conversation. One piece of physical evidence to support the claim of a gunman on the grassy gnoll. All your ***************g about there not being a single best piece of "best evidence" to prove LHO was the lone killer, and you have never applied the same standard to your own pathetic warbling.

If you want one narrative dismissed by a standard hold yourself to that standard first. Either supply a single piece of evidence that can not be a conspiracy (as I have no reason to believe your witnesses are less capable of being liars and whitewashers than anybody else), a physical, testable actual piece of evidence that can not be dismissed out of hand as a conspiracy, as you dismiss all others, something that is beyond despute (again, stories can be desputed)... or shut up. Admit you can't provide anything,and stop being hypocritical holding all others to standards you refuse to hold yourself to.


Supply evidence, or admit you are ranting and raving about a fantasy you will prove, that relies on your own opinion of who is honest.

What about it Robert? Going to supply the Golden Evidence you demand of others?

First hand observations of the Medical personnel are observations of the very best Physical Evidence -- the body itself, and unlike other so-called physical evidence, not subject to alteration, forgery or substitution.

 

[Tomtomkent]

First hand observations of the Medical personnel are observations of the very best Physical Evidence -- the body itself, and unlike other so-called physical evidence, not subject to alteration, forgery or substitution.

And by your own standard, able to be faked and misrepresented by whitewashers.

Face it, you want to believe everybody in the WC was a whitewasher/liar/in on the conspiracy and handwave their evidence, then you have to dismiss ALL possible whitewashers, liars and cheats.

So, by your own standard, we can not rely on their claims.

So try again, what actual physical evidence can you produce that meets the same standards you demand of the evidence for the lone nut? Remember, you are the one who complained we don't have physical evidence only reports about it, and was happy to declare the autopsy, photos, and anything else you disagree with as leaving the possibility of forgery.


Also note that you claim the body can not have been manipulated and altered, and yet, as it has been PROVEN, repeatedly that the body in the autopsy photos (including those YOU submitted) is indeed JFK, and as you have been unable to show, describe or prove how these photos are faked, and as there is no doubt they show JFK, and if you believe a body can not be altered, how and why do the wounds show conflict with the witness testemony you base your entire theory on?

Also note, that as has been pointed out several times before, the wounds your witness describe ARE INCONSISTANT WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. Look again at the image where you drew the path you think the bullet took. Look again at the descriptions and diagrams of the injuries you keep posting (with no reason to accept these guys are any more likely to be honest, or less likely to be conspirators than anybody else) and explain why you draw an arrow showing the bullet both entering and leaving JFKs head at entirely different locations from the wounds would allow?

Oh... and I really do mean this when I repeat it for emphasis. If you are willing to discount any number of witnesses and documentary evidence as lies and cover ups, HOW do you know the Doctors and photographers at Parkland are the honest good guys? What do you base this deduction upon? How do you prove, beyond doubt, theirs is the honest statement?

 

[Robert Prey]

And by your own standard, able to be faked and misrepresented by whitewashers.

Face it, you want to believe everybody in the WC was a whitewasher/liar/in on the conspiracy and handwave their evidence, then you have to dismiss ALL possible whitewashers, liars and cheats.

So, by your own standard, we can not rely on their claims.

So try again, what actual physical evidence can you produce that meets the same standards you demand of the evidence for the lone nut? Remember, you are the one who complained we don't have physical evidence only reports about it, and was happy to declare the autopsy, photos, and anything else you disagree with as leaving the possibility of forgery.


Also note that you claim the body can not have been manipulated and altered, and yet, as it has been PROVEN, repeatedly that the body in the autopsy photos (including those YOU submitted) is indeed JFK, and as you have been unable to show, describe or prove how these photos are faked, and as there is no doubt they show JFK, and if you believe a body can not be altered, how and why do the wounds show conflict with the witness testemony you base your entire theory on?

Also note, that as has been pointed out several times before, the wounds your witness describe ARE INCONSISTANT WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. Look again at the image where you drew the path you think the bullet took. Look again at the descriptions and diagrams of the injuries you keep posting (with no reason to accept these guys are any more likely to be honest, or less likely to be conspirators than anybody else) and explain why you draw an arrow showing the bullet both entering and leaving JFKs head at entirely different locations from the wounds would allow?

Oh... and I really do mean this when I repeat it for emphasis. If you are willing to discount any number of witnesses and documentary evidence as lies and cover ups, HOW do you know the Doctors and photographers at Parkland are the honest good guys? What do you base this deduction upon? How do you prove, beyond doubt, theirs is the honest statement?

You have presented no physical evidence in support of your Lone Nutter viewpoint other than altered, forged and substituted photos and x-rays. And lacking any documented chain of custody, the Z film, even though it shows a shot from the front, must be dis-allowed by any court for lack of documented chain of custody.