• 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.
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Robert - for somebody seeking to exhibit an authoritative position on the matter your powers of observation (or lack of) are astounding. Only one shot is fired in the P&T video. The hat-wearing melon plays no practical part in the experiment. That said, you're certainly correct about the direction of the vast majority of the ejecta - thanks.

Robert Prey said:
Now you could argue, like Penn, that this proves a natural head snap in the direction of the shot, but does it?
Click to expand...
The point is that the head moves towards the shooter, not away. I agree, I wouldn't describe it as a head snap as such, but let's not forget that it's just a melon sitting on a stand, not a head connected to a complex system of nerves and muscles! Regardless, pay attention to the real-time video, not the slow-mo. The movement backwards is, nonetheless, faster than I think you're seeking to make out.

Robert Prey said:
One could also argue that that first head explosion ...
Click to expand...
Again, Robert, there's only one shot in the video!

Robert Prey said:
... proves the jet effect of a mass of ejecta blasting in the direction of the shot.
Click to expand...
It's not an argument, Robert, it's fact, and you've acknowledged it as such above in your commentary on the video!

Robert Prey said:
The second head shot is in slow motion.
Click to expand...
Er ... only head shot! It's a slow-mo of the only head shot.

Robert Prey said:
We can see the entry of the bullet and a jet effect spray in the direction of the shot.
Click to expand...
Again, thanks.

Robert Prey said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
'Argue'? The video speaks for itself - it's fact, Robert, fact!

Robert Prey said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
The laws of physics, by any chance?!

Robert Prey said:
The shots ...
Click to expand...
'Shot', Robert, 'shot'!

Robert Prey said:
... also appeared to hit directly in the middle of the heads.
Click to expand...
'Head', Robert, 'head'!

Robert Prey said:
But what if the shots hit on the right temple? Would that not also make a difference in the way the head might react?
Click to expand...
The experiment is designed to demonstrate that the JFK shooting is consistent with a shot from the rear, and it does that admirably.

Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...
See above.

Robert Prey said:
Nor do we know how many tries Penn and Teller attempted before achieving the desired result.
Click to expand...
Can you post a link to a video showing something different?

Robert Prey said:
But we do know that the two heads in the demonstration, had two very different reactions.
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp Jeez, Robert, please clarify how you're interpreting a real-time shot followed by a slow-mo replay with two separate shots.

Robert Prey said:
An observance of the Z film, and application of common sense ...
Click to expand...
Common sense trumps experimental physics now, does it? Please explain exactly what 'common sense' you're relying on.

Robert Prey said:
... shows that K's head snapped to the back because he was hit from the front ...
Click to expand...
Begging the question, Robert; begging the question!

Robert Prey said:
And the massive blow-out in the back of the head, observed by 40 plus on the scene witnesses, prove it.
Click to expand...
Except that what you posted earlier in and of itself clearly demonstrates that wound characteristics are not necessarily demonstrative of bullet direction.

But let's stick with one question, Robert: how do you account for the massive ejecta in the P&T experiment mimicing very accurately the ejecta behaviour that was captured on the JFK shooting videos, and which is demonstrative of a shot from the rear? Can you offer up some compelling evidence that displays such ejecta behaviour demonstrable of a shot from the front/side? Can you, Robert?
 
Southwind17 said:
Robert - for somebody seeking to exhibit an authoritative position on the matter your powers of observation (or lack of) are astounding. Only one shot is fired in the P&T video. The hat-wearing melon plays no practical part in the experiment. That said, you're certainly correct about the direction of the vast majority of the ejecta - thanks.


The point is that the head moves towards the shooter, not away. I agree, I wouldn't describe it as a head snap as such, but let's not forget that it's just a melon sitting on a stand, not a head connected to a complex system of nerves and muscles! Regardless, pay attention to the real-time video, not the slow-mo. The movement backwards is, nonetheless, faster than I think you're seeking to make out.


Again, Robert, there's only one shot in the video!


It's not an argument, Robert, it's fact, and you've acknowledged it as such above in your commentary on the video!


Er ... only head shot! It's a slow-mo of the only head shot.


Again, thanks.


'Argue'? The video speaks for itself - it's fact, Robert, fact!


The laws of physics, by any chance?!


'Shot', Robert, 'shot'!


'Head', Robert, 'head'!


The experiment is designed to demonstrate that the JFK shooting is consistent with a shot from the rear, and it does that admirably.


See above.


Can you post a link to a video showing something different?


:jaw-dropp Jeez, Robert, please clarify how you're interpreting a real-time shot followed by a slow-mo replay with two separate shots.


Common sense trumps experimental physics now, does it? Please explain exactly what 'common sense' you're relying on.


Begging the question, Robert; begging the question!


Except that what you posted earlier in and of itself clearly demonstrates that wound characteristics are not necessarily demonstrative of bullet direction.

But let's stick with one question, Robert: how do you account for the massive ejecta in the P&T experiment mimicing very accurately the ejecta behaviour that was captured on the JFK shooting videos, and which is demonstrative of a shot from the rear? Can you offer up some compelling evidence that displays such ejecta behaviour demonstrable of a shot from the front/side? Can you, Robert?
Click to expand...

Yes. 1.) A frangible bullet. 2.) 2 shots to the head, one from the right front, one from the back. 3.) Z film alteration. 4. Other variables.

Fact is, if there is an allegation that last night it snowed, but no film footage, if there is snow on the ground, it is reasonable evidence to assume that it snowed. Similarly, if there is a large blow-out in the back of the head, it is reasonable to assume a shot from the front.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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?
Click to expand...

Where did it go? Onto the face and the uniform of Bobby Hargis, to the feet of Charles Brehme, on the street (Harper Fragment), and on the trunk of the car as well as the back seat.
 
Southwind wrote:


Again, Robert, there's only one shot in the video! "

Comment:
Really strange. Are you on the same planet? Funny, you see and hear only one shot. Really strange. In this obviously edited video, there is not one shot heard but 3 shots. And at the beginning of the demonstration, the head with the red beret is on the left, but at the end, it is on the right. I don't know if Penn is an 'honest" magician or another David Blaine, but this video seems just like the stuff David Blaine calls "Magic." But his stuff is not "magic" but Fraud, just like this Penn video. Highly untrustworthy.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Second request Robert.
Please clarify what you were questioning if not Bill Newman's eyewitness testimony when you wrote the below:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
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.
__________________
Click to expand...

What is questioned are the actual facts. What is not questioned is the honesty of Mr. Newman.
 
Robert Prey said:
Where did it go? Onto the face and the uniform of Bobby Hargis, to the feet of Charles Brehme, on the street (Harper Fragment), and on the trunk of the car as well as the back seat.
Click to expand...

So why is there no splatter pattern in any photograph or film to correlate with a blow out? None of the evidence you claim to have shown us is consistant. None of it is consistant with the wounds described.

You do understand that? That if what you claim is true the photos and films would show a distinctive pattern of ejecta landing across the boot. All you have shown is a single blob that is consistant with the WC narrative.

And yet again, you have yet to show ANY photographic atrefact in any frame of the Z film to either suggest or in any way prove tampering. None.

Neither have you explained how the ejecta that IS visisble can possibly be consistant with the wound you describe.

Oh, and by the way, your "frangible bullet" theory also conflicts directly with the wounds your witnesses claim to have seen.

Please choose a single coherent narrative. It is annoying how you keep conflicting with your own ideas.
 
Robert Prey said:
Southwind wrote:

Can you post a link to a video showing something different?

Comment:
Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M2GFA0ypTs

Note the second shot mimics the shot from the grassy knoll, hits the lady in the right temple and her head snaps back.
Click to expand...
Somebody shoots various stuff with a spud gun to a dolls head and this would proof anything?

Oh and by the way the second shot in the video misses.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
So why is there no splatter pattern in any photograph or film to correlate with a blow out? None of the evidence you claim to have shown us is consistant. None of it is consistant with the wounds described.

You do understand that? That if what you claim is true the photos and films would show a distinctive pattern of ejecta landing across the boot. All you have shown is a single blob that is consistant with the WC narrative.

And yet again, you have yet to show ANY photographic atrefact in any frame of the Z film to either suggest or in any way prove tampering. None.

Neither have you explained how the ejecta that IS visisble can possibly be consistant with the wound you describe.

Oh, and by the way, your "frangible bullet" theory also conflicts directly with the wounds your witnesses claim to have seen.

Please choose a single coherent narrative. It is annoying how you keep conflicting with your own ideas.
Click to expand...

A frangible bullet is consistent with an exploding head and a snowstorm of debris seen on x-rays. And here is some debris, perhaps scalp or brains, on the limo's trunk.


 
You seem to persist in ignorance. Frangible bullets are not consistant with the wound you infaliable witness describes and "some" debris does not make a consistant pattern.
 
I love how the Zapruder film is perfectly clear when Robert wants it to show pieces of brain on the back of the car (as if that would prove anything anyway, the spray brain matter was forward and upward and the car was moving forward. What goes up...) but it's not clear at all when he doesn't want to see that the front of the head explodes. Oh crap, I just used the word explodes, that must mean there were explosives. JFK'S HEAD HAD THERMITE IN IT!!!! There is no other explanation! (Am I doing it right?)
 
I hate to tell you this, Robert, but your "brain matter" on the trunk are actually part of the limo. Google "JFK limo" and check out pictures of the car.

If fact, if you look at the picture you posted there, the two "brain matter" objects pointed out with arrows are in perfect alignment across the trunk lid. the outer one marked is the antenna on the far side that matches the one visible on the near side.

Sorry, Robert. No brains for you.
 
Even if it had been true, the distance from the seats, and the lack of splatter makes this inconsistant. Still.
 
Robert Prey said:
Yes, I think that is correct for two of the 3 blemishes.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the 3rd is the other far side antenna.

And having found pictures of the car with the top attached, I'll have to revise my previous statement about them being attachment points as they are not. Not sure what they are, but they certainly are a part of the car and not ejecta from the head wound.
 
RoboTimbo said:
At least you and the 7 year old are perfectly matched. He's proved you wrong so many ways from Sunday that it isn't likely you'll ever see the inside of a church again.
Click to expand...

The only real battle there could ever be is the truth about Greer against the grassy snow job. Oswald's impossible rear shot would be for laughs.:D
 
Tomtomkent said:
Robert, these are proven false by physical evidence. We have film and photographs of the shots hitting. There is no large blow out in the back of the head. Why can you not supply any physical evidence to prove the existence of the blow out at the back of the head?
Click to expand...

We have film and photographs of the shot hitting his right forehead. There is no large blow out anywhere but in the back of the head. You cannot supply any kind of evidence to prove the existence of some large wound besides the right rear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom