• 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.
Anders Lindman said:
Fritz Springmeier said on the Alex Jones show today that Onassis was one of those who planned the JFK assassination and Springmeier has a photo with Jackie Kennedy in relation to Onassis.

The Onassis are a part of the Illuminati top bloodline families! And the Illuminati is into mind control. And Jackie Kennedy looks like acting out of mind control in the Zapruder film!
Click to expand...

Please define how somebody looks when acting out of mind control.

Really.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Springmeier has a photo with Jackie Kennedy in relation to Onassis.
Click to expand...

Say it ain't so! He couldn't have a photo of Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis in relation to Onassis, could he?

This is stupid, even for you Anders.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
You have yet to provide any quotes or observations of anybody on the scene either at Parkland, Bethesda or Dealey Plaze which contradicts that observations of 40 plus on the scene witnesses.
Click to expand...

Here's an excellent site that cites quite a number of witnesses that contradict the observations of the medical doctors.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b:reasontobelieve

Among those Elm Street witnesses that say the damage was to the right side of the head, not the back of the head:

Abraham Zapruder
Marilyn Sitzman
Bill Newman
Gayle Newman
Malcolm Kilduff
Douglas Jackson
Sam Kinney
Emory Roberts
etc. etc. (there are plenty more)

How does Robert deal with the fact that the best witnesses on Elm Street and all the physical evidence, and the pathologists report, all place the large visible damage to the right side of the head, not the back of the head?

He simply claims all the evidence is fabricated.

Sorry, that won't work.
At least not here.

Hank
 
Tomtomkent said:
Please define how somebody looks when acting out of mind control.

Really.
Click to expand...


Behold Jackie's mechanical and programmed behavior in the Zapruder film:

1. Jackie turns to JFK and starts looking at him (around frame 190).

2. When the throat shot happens she calmly puts her hand on JFK's elbow and moves her eyes towards Connally.

3. She keeps holding a steady gaze on Connally, waiting.

4. Connally turns his head slowly to the right and at the moment he suddenly quickly turns his head back to the left (time sync signal) Jackie equally suddenly shifts her position.

5. Jackie holds JFK's arm is a steady and fixed position and with her arms makes a clear space for a bullet path from the bottom of the backseat.

6. Jackie keeps holding the same position until the driver pushes a remote button that triggers the gun mounted in the backseat.

7. Bang! An expanding bullet (or two) shoots out from the bottom of the backseat and creates a small entry wound in a lower left position of JFK's head and a large exit wound in the upper right of the skull.

Zapruder clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY

Backseat with bullet hole(s): http://i53.tinypic.com/m5w7a.jpg

Also notice the absence of stains on Jackie's dress compared to the stains on the backseat. Jackie sat in that backseat all the way to the hospital, which means that the stains have been added afterwards to obscure the bullet holes.
 
Robert Prey said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, let's put back everything you snipped and failed to answer.

HSienzant said:
This was covered in detail a few months ago. Your suppositions about what should or should not have been seen by the public are nonsense, especially since the President's own brother - the Attorney General of the U.S. - was opposed to the autopsy photos of his brother being published anywhere.

As Earl Warren stated, the commissioners and the staff were neither doctors nor pathologists, and so were not qualified to interpret neither the photos nor the x-rays, so he felt it best if the pathologists who performed the autopsy describe the wounds in detail in laymen's terms in their testimony. This was done.

Instead of that, you published a cropped image and claimed it showed a entry wound to the forehead. Remember that?

You have no expertise to make such a judgment. No qualified person who does have that expertise has made such a judgment.

You have simply drawn an arrow on an image, and cropped the actual wound out of the picture entirely.

You do remember posting this image, right?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12174504/bulletwoundtemple.jpg
Click to expand...

Now to address your question.

The HSCA interviewed a number of people and established what happened to the brain, and what Bobby Kennedy's views were on the issue.

You can find it all in the HSCA volumes of evidence.

Do you need a specific citation?

Hank
 
Anders Lindman said:
Behold Jackie's mechanical and programmed behavior in the Zapruder film:

1. Jackie turns to JFK and starts looking at him (around frame 190).

2. When the throat shot happens she calmly puts her hand on JFK's elbow and moves her eyes towards Connally.

3. She keeps holding a steady gaze on Connally, waiting.

4. Connally turns his head slowly to the right and at the moment he suddenly quickly turns his head back to the left (time sync signal) Jackie equally suddenly shifts her position.

5. Jackie holds JFK's arm is a steady and fixed position and with her arms makes a clear space for a bullet path from the bottom of the backseat.

6. Jackie keeps holding the same position until the driver pushes a remote button that triggers the gun mounted in the backseat.

7. Bang! An expanding bullet (or two) shoots out from the bottom of the backseat and creates a small entry wound in a lower left position of JFK's head and a large exit wound in the upper right of the skull.

Zapruder clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY

Backseat with bullet hole(s): http://i53.tinypic.com/m5w7a.jpg

Also notice the absence of stains on Jackie's dress compared to the stains on the backseat. Jackie sat in that backseat all the way to the hospital, which means that the stains have been added afterwards to obscure the bullet holes.
Click to expand...


None of which answers my question. That is what Jackie did. How do you know that is how a mind controlled person acts?

Define the tell tale signs of mind control.
 
Anders Lindman said:
6. Jackie keeps holding the same position until the driver pushes a remote button that triggers the gun mounted in the backseat.
Click to expand...
LOL.

7. Bang! An expanding bullet (or two) shoots out from the bottom of the backseat and creates a small entry wound in a lower left position of JFK's head and a large exit wound in the upper right of the skull.
Click to expand...
When you say Bang! you're supposed to post this picture of Robert's feet:
 
Robert Prey said:
A laceration is a tear. And nobody disputes that is front to back. Kilduff did not say it was a 'Large" wound to the temple. That is your own brainwash.

""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...." A great laceration is a tear. There is nothing in his statement that says a large wound to the temple, but a laceration (a tear) from front to back. Try to be a little more honest in summing up a quote.
Click to expand...

Did you not follow the logic? I presume not.

You cited Jenkins as the source of the temple info - you quote him above - citing originally the mention of the temporal bone.
He calls it a great laceration above. He puts that wound on the right side of the head. Where Kilduff put it.

If they are talking about the same wound - and there is no reason to think they are not - then Kilduff is pointing to the location of the large wound on the right side of JFK's head. The one Jenkins called "great" and put "on the right side of the head".

Neither man mentions the back of the head. Both are referring to the side of the the head. Both are obviously talking about the same wound, and therefore the wound Kilduff is pointing to is the one Jenkins called "a great laceration on the right side of the head".

That means he - and Kilduff - are talking about a large wound, not a small one.

You offer no evidence that the wound was front to back, rather than the reverse. You merely assume it, and then proclaim it is true.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
None of which answers my question. That is what Jackie did. How do you know that is how a mind controlled person acts?

Define the tell tale signs of mind control.
Click to expand...

Those ARE the signs of mind control. Notice how eerily calm she was when her husband, the President of the United States of America, was choking on a bullet in his throat. And after that she starts holding a fixed gaze......on Connally! For crying out loud, gimme a break here. That's hardly the behavior of your ordinary innocent housewife and first lady. Total mind control.

And Connally said in an interview with him at the hospital afterwards something like: It's unbelievable what can happen within just a few seconds. And he briefly looked into the camera. He was talking about the immensely beforehand prepared timing and execution of the operation. Jackie - Onassis (who Fritz Springmeier said was one of those who planned the assassination) - 'Illuminati'/'The Family' (group of ancient bloodline families) - mind control (the Illuminati mind controls its own members as Svali has described: http://svalispeaks.wordpress.com/category/the-illuminati-how-the-cult-programs-people/ ). It's as simple as that.
 
Anders Lindman said:
If you don't see the obviousness of the situation, I suspect YOU are mind controlled. Or an agent trying to ridicule any information that shows the truth. Seriously.
Click to expand...

But I do see the obviousness of the situation. You should read the thread so you can see all of the CT loons have had their asses stapled to their faces. Seriously.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Those ARE the signs of mind control. Notice how eerily calm she was when her husband, the President of the United States of America, was choking on a bullet in his throat. And after that she starts holding a fixed gaze......on Connally! For crying out loud, gimme a break here. That's hardly the behavior of your ordinary innocent housewife and first lady. Total mind control.....
Click to expand...


Uh, no. The whole assassination attempt took less than ten seconds. Jackie did not have any familiarity with guns and did not recognize the sounds as gunshots. For an idea of how an ordinary housewife reacts, look at a couple of witnesses on Elm who were regular housewives -- Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. Were they mind controlled too?

Or look at any of the other bystanders visible in the Zapruder film on the far side of Elm Street. Most haven't reacted to the shots until JFK's head explodes. And even then, most simply do not react.

Jackie testified that she turned to look at Connally when he "screamed like a stuck pig" -- Connally testified he shouted, "Oh, no, no, no... they are going to kill us all" after being shot. That is most likely what drew Jackie's attention from her husband for a few seconds during the shooting. When she turned back, she had only a second or two (watch it at regular speed, not in super slow motion) to try to ascertain what was wrong before the final shot struck the president in the head, killing him instantly.


Anders Lindman said:
And Connally said in an interview with him at the hospital afterwards something like: It's unbelievable what can happen within just a few seconds. And he briefly looked into the camera. He was talking about the immensely beforehand prepared timing and execution of the operation....
Click to expand...


And you know he was talkiing about the prepared operation how? Were you able to look into Connally's eyes on the film and read his mind?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
If you don't see the obviousness of the situation, I suspect YOU are mind controlled. Or an agent trying to ridicule any information that shows the truth. Seriously.
Click to expand...

How do we know you're not an agent trying to ridicule any information that shows the truth - that Oswald shot Kennedy and there was no plot?

Your posts read like satire. Did you ever read the article where LBJ had intercourse with JFK's body on the plane, enlarging the neck wound through that act?

If you're unfamiliar with that satire, google "Paul Krassner" and "The Realist".

Here's the link to the issue: http://www.ep.tc/realist/74/


Hank
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
But I do see the obviousness of the situation. You should read the thread so you can see all of the CT loons have had their asses stapled to their faces. Seriously.
Click to expand...

If ridicule is your means of staple ass, I'm underimpressed. :D
 
Anders Lindman said:
If ridicule is your means of staple ass, I'm underimpressed. :D
Click to expand...

Not impressed? No reaction... Mind control!

So jackie was mind controlled because she acted like Jackie. You looked at her reaction and decided mind control? Again, I'm going to ask how. Define the signs of mind control you look for in anybody. Not what she did on that day. Tell me what symptoms indicate mind control and how it can be recognised.

Then explain where you researched those symptoms.
 
HSienzant said:
Uh, no. The whole assassination attempt took less than ten seconds. Jackie did not have any familiarity with guns and did not recognize the sounds as gunshots. For an idea of how an ordinary housewife reacts, look at a couple of witnesses on Elm who were regular housewives -- Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. Were they mind controlled too?

Or look at any of the other bystanders visible in the Zapruder film on the far side of Elm Street. Most haven't reacted to the shots until JFK's head explodes. And even then, most simply do not react.
Click to expand...

I take it you didn't really read my posts:

Anders Lindman said:
6. Jackie keeps holding the same position until the driver pushes a remote button that triggers the gun mounted in the backseat.
Click to expand...

Anders Lindman said:
And Connally said in an interview with him at the hospital afterwards something like: It's unbelievable what can happen within just a few seconds. And he briefly looked into the camera. He was talking about the immensely beforehand prepared timing and execution of the operation.
Click to expand...

Mind control is a bit speculative theory, and Jackie may not have been mind controlled, but I suspect she was after recently having researched mind control a bit (previously I was way more skeptical about mind control).

I don't know about Jean Hill and Mary Moorman but the bystanders in the Zapruder film look suspiciously planted.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Not impressed? No reaction... Mind control!

So jackie was mind controlled because she acted like Jackie. You looked at her reaction and decided mind control? Again, I'm going to ask how. Define the signs of mind control you look for in anybody. Not what she did on that day. Tell me what symptoms indicate mind control and how it can be recognised.

Then explain where you researched those symptoms.
Click to expand...

Mind control itself doesn't automatically mean mechanical behavior I admit but then Jackie was purposely acting in that choreographed fashion. And deep individual mind control I suspect leads to mechanical behavior but that's just a guess.
 
Yes, this is the second thread Anders has spoken about mind control in, and the second thread where no actual research or studies will be provided by him to show it works how he says it works. Or at all. His excuse was that the research was illegal, even though studies of more viable interpretations of "mind control" have been provided.

By "bit speculative" he means "made up because he is bored". This is the guy who considers CT to be a useful alternative to "corrupt" science.

Note he can "see" concealed guns in the car, the driver pushing the button, etc. Sure, point to them on the frames Anders, go ahead.

Then explain how Jackies lack of reaction meant "mind control" and not "shock" or "in on it as an agrieved wife". (Statistically the wife is the most likely suspect after all).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom