• 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.
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Occipital and Cerebellum do not connote front. The wound was front to back. Obviously.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

No. And obfuscation won't work here either. One witness at a time. You cited Zapruder as observing a large wound at the right temple That statement is false.
 
HSienzant said:
....on the right side of the head?

Thank you!

There you go painting yourself into a corner again.

Why is your supposed back of the head witnesses keep saying right side of the head?

This agrees with where Dr. Jenkins put the damage.
....on the right side of the head!


Not in the back of the head.

And it agrees with the head area indicated by Kilduff for the large wound. and the area indicated by Zapruder.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/Zapruder.jpg

http://simfootball.net/JFK/Kilduff.jpg

None of these witnesses said 'back of the head' for the large damage to the head, Robert.

Why do you suppose that is?

Did Zapruder see an altered body? Or altered photos?

Or did he see the large blowout that is clearly visible to all of us in the z-film?

Hank

Hank
Click to expand...

But you attributed to Mr. Z as saying "a large wound to the temple". That is a false attribution but you are still not honest enough to admit it. It is you who has painted yourself into a corner with false attributions. Time to own up to it.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correction: I said there were bullet holes in the bottom of the backseat: http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/ce353a.jpg

So wouldn't the leather have been ripped outwards if there was a gun mounted in the seat? Yes, but it's easy to push the leather back in, and then smear the backseat with stains to obscure the bullet holes: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9039/jfk18c.jpg

And Jackie's dress is inconsistent with those stains: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7015/jfk38c1.png
 
Wolrab said:
I'm glad I didn't hold my breathe as I would still be holding it. Here is the quote from the Doctor as you posted it:



Nowhere does the Doctor make a distinction between exit or entry wound. It was one wound that began in the right occiput. That is where the beveled entry wound is. The skull blew out a big chunk from the entry wound to the exit wound.

How, what you posted as a reply, has anything to do with what your own source says, is beyond me.
Click to expand...

The doctor makes no opinion of "entry". A wound beginning here and ending there is obviously an arbitrary observation that has nothing to do with an opinion of where a bullet entered. But Motorcycle Cop Bobby Hargis riding right behind the Limo, got a faceful and a uniform full of blood, brains and skull which hardly points to shot from the rear.
 
HSienzant said:
Well, first of all, let's put back everything you snipped and failed to answer.



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
Click to expand...

Citing sources of evidence is how things work here. You claimed that Bobby Kennedy did not want autopsy photos published anywhere (as if that should have any weight in solving the crime). And you point to somewhere in the HSCA volumes. No, I don't have time to read all the volumes, so where is your source????
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

The source you cite for this reveals that you, sir, have little regard for honesty or truth. Just checking two additional witnesses (Bill and Gayle Newman) which you cite as observing a wound to the right side of the head (that is not in dispute, sir, the right side of the head exploded, the back of the head is not observed since the witness was in front of the limo) but what you and your source fail to note is that Bill Newman said the fatal shot came from right behind where they were standing which he called The Mall, meaning the Grassy Knoll and he pointed to his left temple, that being the only hand available, meaning the right temple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y3JLIhUYf0

Moreover, in this same blog, Dr. Burkley is quoted as saying that the entrance of that fatal bullet to the brain was the right temple.
The more you try to prove the WR to be truthful, the more you prove that it is indeed a Fairy Tale which has duped you and your fellow LN's for half a century.
 
Robert Prey said:
Occipital and Cerebellum do not connote front. The wound was front to back. Obviously.
Click to expand...

They do not connote front, except for when you say "front" in the next sentence?

Really?

So it doesnt mean front. It means front.

Bravo Robert. And once again, this is your professional medical opinion?
 
To shill a mockingbird

Hello children everywhere. It is story time.

Today our friend Theodore Edison Bear, or Sceptic Teddy as he is known is in court. Don't worry, he hasn't done anything other than leave sticky pawprints on the nice desk he has been given. Poor old Silver Snowdown, the kentish pigmy polarbear has got in trouble again and good old Ted is acting as his Barrister. "Oh bugger," says Ted, realising he isn't going to be a Baristor, and his cappacino making skills will not be required. Never mind, Ted has always thought of himself as a bit of a legal whizz. How hard can it be?

The first winess is called. They have a shiny rifle and lots of bullets.
"Objection!" Yells Teddy with great flair. "That rifle was planted to frame my client!"
"What?" Says the judge. "This is a shocking revelation. Can you prove it?"
"Yes. My client didn't do the shooting, so it must have been a plant!"
"But can you prove it?" Asks the judge.
"Well... Yes. Because if my client didn't, er, never mind." Teddy sits back down
"We also got these fingerprints from the rifle." Says the witness.
"Those are clearly the fingerprints taken from my client when he was arrested!" Shouts Teddy, punching the air in triumph.
"No." Says the FBI witness, they were latent prints from the rifle, taken using a magnezium based dust.
"Well, I don't see them on the rifle now" Teddy says, turning the gun over in his hands.
"Because," Mr FBI explains slowly "I lifted them onto this card."
"My Client never touched the card!" Teddy thumps his desk. "I put it to you, your honour, that those prints are the ones taken from my client when arrested. He never even owned that rifle."
"Mister Bear, are you aware these prints are formed from a grey dust, where as you are claiming they are black ink?" Judge Watvafek asks.
"Oh." Says Ted. "These conspiritors are good. Clearly that can not possibly be true, because my client says so! I demand all evidence that denys my version of events be disregarded."

Next is a nice man with a picture is called. The picture is of Silver holding the rifle. It was signed by Silver himself and given to his mates as a present.
"Your honoour, that is clearly faked." Teddy says. "Look, I have a picture of somebody else holding a broomstick in an entirely different way. That proves if he held the rifle differently the shadows would have been different."
"Would you care to approach the bar mister bear?"
"Bloody right I would. I could murder a double scotch."
"Mister Bear, we don't consider there to be a conspiracy just because you say your client is innocent. We consider your client to be lying unless you prove the photo to be a fake."
"Even the ones of the dead body?" Teddy gasped.
"Yes," explains the judge. "We use evidence to show if somebody is telling a lie or not. We do not use witnesses to test the evidence. If courts worked like that we would never get anywhere, murderers would walk free even if they were photographed in the act, because anybody who misremembered or lied, or was mistaken, or whose statement was taken out of context, would appear to disagree with physical evidence. Unless you can show me how and why the photos are faked this court refuses to recognise any claims to Nuh-Uh No Returns."
"What if I really really believe the person saying it?" Asks Teddy.
"Can you prove what they say with any evidence of your own?" Asks the judge.
"I can say I really really believe them, and call everyone else liars?"
"Can you prove their claims with evidence?"
"I can say baloney and tell you why I don't like other peoples evidence."
"Mister Bear, do you have any evidence to bring to trial?"
"Well, I can I cut up the pictures of the dead body and turn them another way up so they look more like somebody else did it? Or throw all the other stuff out and say it was planted? I mean the man holding the broomstick surely shows that the shadows WOULD be different if Silver had held the rifle backwards not forwards. And I could tell people the video shows something different if I use this crayon..."

See Teddy in his cell wondering what "Contempt of Court" means.
 
Robert Prey said:
Citing sources of evidence is how things work here. And you point to somewhere in the HSCA volumes. No, I don't have time to read all the volumes, so where is your source????
Click to expand...

It doesn't count as a source because you're too lazy to read it? LOL.
 
jargon buster said:
Maybe Robert was the shooter on the grassy knoll and just wants to ease his burden.
Click to expand...

Haven't you seen the BBC documentary series Red Dwarf? JFK was sent back in time by Lister, the Cat, and Rimmer to stand on the grassy knoll, and shoot himself, to preserve his reputation.:D
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not much of debunking there. I'm still not exactly overwhelmed.
Click to expand...

When you supply some kind of valid assertion people will debunk it.

If you can't define what a mind controlled person looks like, how do we knoe Jackie acted like a mind controlled person?

If you don't offer anything to suggest we should even contemplate the driver pressing a button or hidden guns in the back of the car why would you expect a response other than: "No, you have no evidence for your daydream."

Here is another interpretation that is EXACTLY as valid as your inane warblings:

Jackie Kennedy was a supreme psychic.
She grabs JFKs arm for a direct psychic contact.
She concentrates real hard.
JFKs head explodes because of her psychic microwave death thoughts.

Of course, there is no evidence she had psychic powers (or was mind controlled). But we know that is what psychic (or mind controlled) killers look like because that is what she does! And I haven't seen anybody debunking psychics. Or mind control. Or proving a ghost didn't get up JFKs nose and punch him to death from the inside. Or MArtians with super secret air-zooka rifles.

You seem to have it the wrong way around (again) Anders. In this thread and others you spout your bile and say nobody debunked it. Wrong. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. You have to show us why you are right, before anybody bothers to prove you wrong.

Except I just like reminding you how dumb your ideas are and treating them like a chew toy. If we can't be bothered, don't complain.
 
Tomtomkent said:
The burden of proof is on your shoulders. You have to show us why you are right, before anybody bothers to prove you wrong.
Click to expand...

I showed you how Jackie's dress was inconsistent with the stains on the backseat. That's direct evidence of a conspiracy. And why it was done I have already explained.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I showed you how Jackie's dress was inconsistent with the stains on the backseat. That's direct evidence of a conspiracy. And why it was done I have already explained.
Click to expand...

No. You showed us how that was so in your opinion. And it isn't direct evidence of a conspiracy. Or bullets from with in the car. Or anything else. Because your assesmnet is ill informed and wrong.

When you have actual evidence, with citations and sources, and evidence of study beyond your own confirmation bias feel free to try again.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Correction: I said there were bullet holes in the bottom of the backseat: http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/ce353a.jpg

So wouldn't the leather have been ripped outwards if there was a gun mounted in the seat? Yes, but it's easy to push the leather back in, and then smear the backseat with stains to obscure the bullet holes: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9039/jfk18c.jpg
Click to expand...
Oh good, show me evidence this happened. Where are the bullet holes that were covered over? If it is "easy" to have possibly happened is not the same as having happened.

Anders Lindman said:
And Jackie's dress is inconsistent with those stains: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7015/jfk38c1.png
Click to expand...
In consistant how? In whose opinion? Yours?

Oh look, the stains are different because JFK was sat on the seat tilted forward. Jackie was in a considerably different possition, and did not remain still. I wonder if that may possibly explain transference of bodily fluids? You mean the part of her that was PRESSED ONTO THE SEAT WITH NO WAY FOR BLODD TO LAND ON IT was clean, while the bit IN THE PATH OF EJECTA had blood land on it? Really?

Why it must be a conspiracy! How else can we explain the parts of Jackies dress that were close to where JFK leant got dirty, but the bits of her that were not (and note she got out of the seat before pooling occured, as seen in the Z film) didn't get dirty?


YOu have a very strange idea of "evidence".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom