JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

I'm waiting Robert!

I gave you a visual explanation of how absurd an alternate interp would be. With a blow-out like this, there can hardly be much room for doubt about entrance as versus exit. .



Contrast that with with this -- what the WC was shown:

So which drawing is the Lie??? 40 plus on the scene witnesses indict the latter.

 

[Southwind17]

I gave you a visual explanation of how absurd an alternate interp would be. With a blow-out like this, there can hardly be much room for doubt about entrance as versus exit.

Notwithstanding your begging the question with use of the term 'blow-out', you first posted this in support of your claim about the exit wound:

From: Explore Forensics

The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound,

Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound.
​

​

I pointed out that said artice acknowledges exceptions. You'll note that US presidents are not normally assassinated, and usually die of natural causes. You haven't provided any evidence yet that rules out the head wound as an exception.

I then posted a link to a very amusing but scientifically experimental video contradicting your inference about jet effect. Indeed, it demonstrates the complete opposite of what you infer. You seem intent on ignoring it. Are you going to respond?

 

[Robert Prey]

Notwithstanding your begging the question with use of the term 'blow-out', you first posted this in support of your claim about the exit wound:

[/indent]

I pointed out that said artice acknowledges exceptions. You'll note that US presidents are not normally assassinated, and usually die of natural causes. You haven't provided any evidence yet that rules out the head wound as an exception.

I then posted a link to a very amusing but scientifically experimental video contradicting your inference about jet effect. Indeed, it demonstrates the complete opposite of what you infer. You seem intent on ignoring it. Are you going to respond?

As I recall, the question pertained to ejecta, not the direction of the head movement. As to ejecta, the Penn and Teller demonstration confirms it. A shot from the front might indeed project ejecta toward the direction of the shot. As to JFK head lurch to the back, that is a different question and a melon hardly being anything close to a human skull. If you are using melons, you can get just about whatever result you want depending on the multitude of variables involved. Here are two examples where the shot forces the melon away from the shooter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNGUgz2Llew&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCChBCw7AxQ&feature=related

Fact is, a human skull, unlike a melon, has resistance that would reasonably force the head in the direction of the shot, just as K's head snapped backwards from the shot to his head from the Grassy Knoll.

 

[Robert Prey]

Notwithstanding your begging the question with use of the term 'blow-out', you first posted this in support of your claim about the exit wound:

[/indent]

I pointed out that said artice acknowledges exceptions. You'll note that US presidents are not normally assassinated, and usually die of natural causes. You haven't provided any evidence yet that rules out the head wound as an exception.

The alleged history of assassinated US Presidents as contrasted with those who die of natural causes hardly has any rational basis for argument as to this assassination. You are free to rule in any exceptions you like, but to do so in the face of such striking examples and verbal observations of the head wound as well as the closest on the scene witnesses claiming the shot came from the Grassy Knoll, I find to be highly irrational.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And anyone sensible finds your claims that LHO was a hero irrational.

Or your claims of a shooter on the grassy knoll to be irrational as we have physical evidence that directly contradicts your claims.

Even the evidence you supply proves your assertions to be impossible. In violation of the laws of physics.

Do you not consider your assertions contradicting each other to be irrational? Was a frangible bullet used or were the descriptions of the head wound you base your theory on correct? Both cant be true Robert, they contradict each other.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"It wasn't that long ago that you told us there was problems with Newman's eyewitness testimony. "
Comment: A lie. I never said that.

Can you not remember that far back?

Here's what you wrote originally, complaining about the accuracy of Newman's testimony:

What is inconsistent is the fact that Newman said the shot was directly behind where he was standing, and the first shot he placed himself 50 feet before the Limo, the second shot, he placed himself still in front of the Limo. So something is wrong -- the placement of the limo, the shot or shots, and his position. One thing for sure, it's no where near the TSBD.

I do thank you for your latest innovation - starting your post with an explanation of what will follow. Keep it up.

 

[Robert Prey]

Can you not remember that far back?

Here's what you wrote originally, complaining about the accuracy of Newman's testimony:




I do thank you for your latest innovation - starting your post with an explanation of what will follow. Keep it up.

That quote had nothing to do with questioning the accuracy of Newman's testimony.

 

[HSienzant]

That quote had nothing to do with questioning the accuracy of Newman's testimony.

Prey tell, Robert, if you weren't questioning Newman's testimony, what were you questioning?

 

[Southwind17]

As I recall, the question pertained to ejecta, not the direction of the head movement.

Well your recollection is flawed (which, incidentally, aptly demonstrates the unreliability of witness statements, particularly those of decades past) - it pertained to neither. Allow me to remind you of what the question really pertained to:

What parts of the re-enactments and experiments that lead to the conclusions and theories contained therein do you disagree with, and why? Feel free to support your rebuttals.

Re-enactments that do not account for the large blow-out in the back of head observed by 40 plus witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza are obviously contrived. It certainly is ironic that none of the so-called JFK Assassination specials delve into the fact of the large blow out wound to the back of the head.

There, see? It pertained to the gun shot entry and exit wounds, not the ejecta. Now, you posted information in support of your contention that the wound to the back of the head was the exit wound. But the information clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that such conclusion cannot be drawn. You cannot selectively seek to apply only those parts of information provided that tend to support your claim and conveniently dismiss those that contradict it. The World doesn't work like that Robert.

As to ejecta, the Penn and Teller demonstration confirms it. A shot from the front might indeed project ejecta toward the direction of the shot. As to JFK head lurch to the back, that is a different question and a melon hardly being anything close to a human skull. If you are using melons, you can get just about whatever result you want depending on the multitude of variables involved.

There you go again - selectivity: on the one hand "the Penn and Teller demonstration confirms it" but on the other "if you are using melons, you can get just about whatever result you want". Please make up your mind Robert. But what, exactly, are you claiming that the Penn & Teller video confirms? Please tell me you're not placing more emphasis on the miniscule spray of ejecta that projected rearwards than the massive amount of ejecta that projected in the direction of the shot, consistent with the JFK video pointing towards the Grassy Knoll.

Here are two examples where the shot forces the melon away from the shooter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNGUgz2Llew&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCChBCw7AxQ&feature=related

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that those two videos are representative of the JFK shooting? In both cases the melons essentially disintegrate in all directions. Not surprising, given that the second video involves a musket/steel ball!

Fact is, a human skull, unlike a melon, has resistance that would reasonably force the head in the direction of the shot, just as K's head snapped backwards from the shot to his head from the Grassy Knoll.

So a melon has no resistance; is that what you're claiming? I suggest you re-watch the two videos you posted! I think you've been watching too many Holywood Westerns. How much energy do you suppose transferred from the bullet to the back of JFK's skull on entry, and subsequently to the rear side of the front of his skull on exit? If it helps you to answer this I'll afford you the liberty of assuming the bullet hit his head in the direction that you believe - the answer's essentially the same.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So melons aren't a good analogue for a human body and ballistic jelly is not a good analogue.

But Robert posted videos of steel plate being shot to prove jet effect.

Is the human skull more like steel plate than a melon?

 

[Robert Prey]

Southwind wrote:

"There you go again - selectivity: on the one hand "the Penn and Teller demonstration confirms it" but on the other "if you are using melons, you can get just about whatever result you want". Please make up your mind Robert. But what, exactly, are you claiming that the Penn & Teller video confirms? Please tell me you're not placing more emphasis on the miniscule spray of ejecta that projected rearwards than the massive amount of ejecta that projected in the direction of the shot, consistent with the JFK video pointing towards the Grassy Knoll."

Comment: The Penn and Teller demo attempting to denigrate the grassy knoll shot by showing a melon, representing a head shot from the back, explodes to the back actually demonstrates a jet effect of ejecta, a melon's outer skin in no way duplicating the skull of a human head. At the same time, the entire demonstration is flawed, whatever the conclusion, in that a melon is hardly the same as a human head, and many variables of the angel of entry, and the type of bullet also make the demo fallacious. The two videos I posted you may explain away as simply an exploding melon, but it does not explode to the back in the same way as Penn's melon. The entire demonstration by an obviously biased LN magician has no real value.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Do you actually believe any of your BS, Robert? The fact that you ignore this question every time suggests that you are simply trolling. You may answer it now that you are specifically challenged, but nothing you say will be believed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So does a human head impact the same way as Roberts steel plate?

No.

So does that make him selective of evidence and lumbered with a bias?

Yes.

Another mystery solved.

 

[HSienzant]

That quote had nothing to do with questioning the accuracy of Newman's testimony.

Second request Robert.
Please clarify what you were questioning if not Bill Newman's eyewitness testimony when you wrote the below:

What is inconsistent is the fact that Newman said the shot was directly behind where he was standing, and the first shot he placed himself 50 feet before the Limo, the second shot, he placed himself still in front of the Limo. So something is wrong -- the placement of the limo, the shot or shots, and his position. One thing for sure, it's no where near the TSBD.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Southwind wrote:

The entire demonstration by an obviously biased LN magician has no real value.

Yet you cited it as confirmation of...something.

 

[Southwind17]

Comment: The Penn and Teller demo attempting to denigrate the grassy knoll shot by showing a melon, representing a head shot from the back, explodes to the back ...

Are you watching the same video Robert? Pay attention to the slow-mo portion after the shot is fired. Please confirm what direction the melon predominantly explodes in, and please confirm what direction the ejecta predominantly travels in.

... a melon's outer skin in no way duplicating the skull of a human head.

You did pick up the treatment of the melon in the P&T video, didn't you - treatment that better represents containment by the skull, hence demonstrating the ejecta effect, and which was completely overlooked on the two videos that you posted?

At the same time, the entire demonstration is flawed, whatever the conclusion, in that a melon is hardly the same as a human head ...

Hardly the same? In what way is it fundamentally different (including the P&T treatment) for the purpose of the experiment?

... and many variables of the angel of entry, and the type of bullet also make the demo fallacious.

The angle of entry is irrelevant to what the experiment seeks to demonstrate. The rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano. Was the bullet fundamentally different from the JFK bullet?

The two videos I posted you may explain away as simply an exploding melon, but it does not explode to the back in the same way as Penn's melon. The entire demonstration by an obviously biased LN magician has no real value.

Per above, do you now appreciate why the melons in your videos reacted differently from that in the P&T video? Do you see which video better represents a human head, and why? And to be clear here, the P&T melon exploded to the front, not the rear. Why do you claim it exploded to the rear?!

 

[Robert Prey]

Are you watching the same video Robert? Pay attention to the slow-mo portion after the shot is fired. Please confirm what direction the melon predominantly explodes in, and please confirm what direction the ejecta predominantly travels in.


You did pick up the treatment of the melon in the P&T video, didn't you - treatment that better represents containment by the skull, hence demonstrating the ejecta effect, and which was completely overlooked on the two videos that you posted?


Hardly the same? In what way is it fundamentally different (including the P&T treatment) for the purpose of the experiment?


The angle of entry is irrelevant to what the experiment seeks to demonstrate. The rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano. Was the bullet fundamentally different from the JFK bullet?


Per above, do you now appreciate why the melons in your videos reacted differently from that in the P&T video? Do you see which video better represents a human head, and why? And to be clear here, the P&T melon exploded to the front, not the rear. Why do you claim it exploded to the rear?!

Let's take another look at the Penn and Teller Demo. After the magician, Penn tells us what we are going to see, what actually happens? There are two heads, the first head simply explodes, most of the debris exploding in the direction of the shot. Now you could argue, like Penn, that this proves a natural head snap in the direction of the shot, but does it? One could also argue that that first head explosion proves the jet effect of a mass of ejecta blasting in the direction of the shot. The second head shot is in slow motion. We can see the entry of the bullet and a jet effect spray in the direction of the shot. We also see a massive explosion on the front of the head which one might argue is a natural exit wound to the front of the head (which no doctor saw at Parkland). And then what happens? Why the head rolls over in the direction of the shot. But that roll over was not a head snap, it simply rolled over which might be due to any number of factors including a tilted table, an out of balance head, or whatever other magician's tricks might accomplish. The shots also appeared to hit directly in the middle of the heads. But what if the shots hit on the right temple? Would that not also make a difference in the way the head might react? The reaction of the head may also be due to reasons of Physics as explained by Penn. But one thing that head does not do -- it does not "snap" back in the direction of the shot from the back as Penn would argue K's did. It simply rolls over. Nor do we know how many tries Penn and Teller attempted before achieving the desired result. But we do know that the two heads in the demonstration, had two very different reactions. An observance of the Z film, and application of common sense shows that K's head snapped to the back because he was hit from the front -- from the Grassy Knoll. And the massive blow-out in the back of the head, observed by 40 plus on the scene witnesses, prove it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let's take another look at the Penn and Teller Demo. After the magician, Penn tells us what we are going to see, what actually happens? There are two heads, the first head simply explodes, most of the debris exploding in the direction of the shot. Now you could argue, like Penn, that this proves a natural head snap in the direction of the shot, but does it? One could also argue that that first head explosion proves the jet effect of a mass of ejecta blasting in the direction of the shot. The second head shot is in slow motion. We can see the entry of the bullet and a jet effect spray in the direction of the shot. We also see a massive explosion on the front of the head which one might argue is a natural exit wound to the front of the head (which no doctor saw at Parkland). And then what happens? Why the head rolls over in the direction of the shot. But that roll over was not a head snap, it simply rolled over which might be due to any number of factors including a tilted table, an out of balance head, or whatever other magician's tricks might accomplish. The shots also appeared to hit directly in the middle of the heads. But what if the shots hit on the right temple? Would that not also make a difference in the way the head might react? The reaction of the head may also be due to reasons of Physics as explained by Penn. But one thing that head does not do -- it does not "snap" back in the direction of the shot from the back as Penn would argue K's did. It simply rolls over. Nor do we know how many tries Penn and Teller attempted before achieving the desired result. But we do know that the two heads in the demonstration, had two very different reactions. An observance of the Z film, and application of common sense shows that K's head snapped to the back because he was hit from the front -- from the Grassy Knoll. And the massive blow-out in the back of the head, observed by 40 plus on the scene witnesses, prove it.

Nope. None of what you describe is "proof".

What does count as proof is the totality of evidence that shows the shots can only have come from behind:

The autopsy.
The Photographic record.
The filmed record.
The X-Rays.

Objective evidence none of which you have ever to be fraudulant. You think you have, because you are under the false illusion that "disagreeing with some eye witnesses" means "fraud".

But hey, let's assume you are right about the "jet effect". Why is there so little jet effect compared to the exit blow out? How does that compare to the volume (and trajectories) of the ejecta visible in the Z film? Gosh, if it isn't inconsistant. Why the ejecta we can see is consistant with the exit wound.

Why do we not see ANY ejecta consistant with the exit wound you describe in any of the films of the event? Why, in the photograph you claim to be consistant with your claim is there only one blob on the whole of the back of the limo?

Yep, that's ight: Because your theory is wrong. Because your theory would defy the laws of physics. It would require the ejecta from the "blow out" to somehow not splatter across the back of the car, be invisible to film, and travel on an impossible wound path as you described yourself with your red crayon.

So care to explain how a human skull is like that steel plate yet?

 

[Robert Prey]

Nope. None of what you describe is "proof".

What does count as proof is the totality of evidence that shows the shots can only have come from behind:

The autopsy.
The Photographic record.
The filmed record.
The X-Rays.

Objective evidence none of which you have ever to be fraudulant. You think you have, because you are under the false illusion that "disagreeing with some eye witnesses" means "fraud".

But hey, let's assume you are right about the "jet effect". Why is there so little jet effect compared to the exit blow out? How does that compare to the volume (and trajectories) of the ejecta visible in the Z film? Gosh, if it isn't inconsistant. Why the ejecta we can see is consistant with the exit wound.

Why do we not see ANY ejecta consistant with the exit wound you describe in any of the films of the event? Why, in the photograph you claim to be consistant with your claim is there only one blob on the whole of the back of the limo?

Yep, that's ight: Because your theory is wrong. Because your theory would defy the laws of physics. It would require the ejecta from the "blow out" to somehow not splatter across the back of the car, be invisible to film, and travel on an impossible wound path as you described yourself with your red crayon.

So care to explain how a human skull is like that steel plate yet?

Your entire argument rests on what you don't see on the Z film. I do not need absolute proof that the Z film was altered, because it is a home movie that cannot possibly record a spit second event accurately, but the evidence of fraud is strong. I suggest you check out the 7 part series on the fraud in the Z film on youtube as presented by David Lifton.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Your entire argument rests on what you don't see on the Z film. I do not need absolute proof that the Z film was altered, because it is a home movie that cannot possibly record a spit second event accurately, but the evidence of fraud is strong. I suggest you check out the 7 part series on the fraud in the Z film on youtube as presented by David Lifton.

Or, alternatively you can explain why there is no visible ejecta from the exit wound you claimed to be there. You say the Z film can't possibly record it? Why? What was the frame rate? How long was the ejecta in the air? Why is there no signs of splatter on the back of the car IN ANY OTHER PHOTO?

Surely you can at least understand that the only object in any photo or frame of film you claim to be proof of brain matter on the back of the car is inconsistant with the wound you describe. You claim there was a massive blow out that removed JFKs brain almost entirely. Yet you can point to a very small splot. Where did the rest of that matter go? Why was there no trace left?

And your excuse? Unsubstantiated claims about the Z film not being possible to show it all?

Ridiculous!

The volumous (and massive) ejecta from the front of the head being a "jet effect"? Nope, it isn't consistant with jet effect and CAN NOT POSSIBLY be consistant with the small hole your "inafaliable" witnesses describe.

And oh yes, by the way, if you make an assertion, you do need to prove it. Or are you expecting us to just believe your opinion? Despite the fact I can turn on a faucet right now and see what range of directions a fluid (under greater pressure than those in my skull) can travel on passing through a small hole. Do you see a cloud like the "jet effect" when you turn on your faucet Robert? No? Then please explain HOW IN THE NAME OF CODSWALLOP you think the ejecta that IS visible in the Z film can come out of a hole consistant with the witness claims.

It can't.