JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[RoboTimbo]

I will note in passing that the CIA employed a better class of shill back in the day. Robert is third rate in this department. I guess the budget for the JFK cover up has been cut back in this time of recession.

You get what you pay for:



Look at the pee-stained, pleather-wearing, Salvation Army Dockers hand-me-down janitor trying to fend Robert off with his broom handle.

7forever has cleaned Robert's clock and Robert is impotent to do anything about it.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote (again):

Dr. Jenkins mentioned a large wound to the right side of the head. None of those men mentioned that the wound was in the back of the head.

Comment:
Only all of the doctors, including Jenkins. Is there something about the location of Cerebellum and Occipital that you cannot grasp?
[emphasis added]

Is there something about the right side of the head *YOU* don't understand?

Dr. Jenkins put the damage to the right side of the head in the very quote you offered up on this forum to prove your case.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw put the wound on the right side of the head in numerous places in his book:
Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

You do understand that when you keep saying ALL the Parkland doctors, and I keep quoting from Parkland doctors who said something different, that disproves your contention, right?

 

[HSienzant]

The Jenkins statement (for the umteenth time):

"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...."

The word "occiptal" refers to the area of the head, not the occipital bone which may well have been blasted out (Harper Fragment).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f437d759307a.jpg[/qimg]

There was a wound on the right side of the head and some of the cerebellum was protruding from it? That's exactly what the z-film shows, isn't it?

Look at the Z-film again and tell me you don't see brain tissue being blasted out of the head and then, as JFK leans forward, falling out of the head. You see that?

That's exactly what the autopsy photos show, correct? Brain tissue herniated and extruding from the large gaping wound on the right side of the head?

What is the problem, except you keep wanting to move the documented wound from the right side of the head to the back of the head?

And the Harper fragment was found FORWARD of the limo, and can be seen in Z-frame 313 spiralling upward and forward.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/bone_frags.htm

Here's a map marked by Harper himself as to where he found the bone fragment:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/harpermap.gif

Although you claim the Harper fragment is occipital bone, you cannot produce any evidence that the Harper fragment was found behind the limo, where it would *of necessity have to have been found* if it was truly from the occipital bone and was blown out the back of the skull from a shot fired from the right front.

And ... There is no damage shown to the back of the head in any Dealey Plaza film or photos. Remember that.

 

[HSienzant]

The photographic evidence can be forged. The written word, once recorded, cannot.

What a bizarre contention. You are truly living in a the conspiracy theorist world, where black is white, and down is up. Through the looking glass indeed.

In 1963, the technology did not exist to fake the Zapruder film and get images from the fake film onto the street in less than a week. And then to fake all the other films from Dealey Plaza to agree with the Zapruder film? To what end?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just burn the films and then life for the conspirators would be so much simpler?

Any idea why they didn't go that route? Alleging alterations of the photographic evidence implies stupid conspirators with an unlimited budget and plenty of time on their hands with nothing better to do than alter the evidence instead of destroying it.

And of course, these stupid conspirators decided to assassinate JFK in public, in front of a large crowd, many of whom had cameras, instead of taking an easier route:

1. If they could control the autopsy as you also allege, why not poison JFK? The autopsists could then find JFK suffered a brain anerysm, or a stroke, or a heart attack, etc. No films to dispute them.

2. Drug the pilot of Air Force One. When the plan crashes, claim the pilot had a undetected drug habit and fell asleep at the helm (like the Exxon Valdez skipper, etc.). No films to dispute them.

3. Threaten to expose JFK's many affairs. Tell JFK he needs to announce his retirement "for health reasons" immediately or his affairs will be revealed and he will clearly lose in 1964.

4. There are any number of other scenarios that are more workable than shooting JFK in public and then altering the photographic evidence, killing witnesses, altering the body, controlling the autopsy, framing a patsy, etc. etc. ad nauseum.



PS: Whether you understand it or not, alleging the photographic evidence is forged is synonymous with saying the photographic evidence disputes your theories (if it agreed with your theories, you wouldn't be alleging it was altered). This is tantamount to admitting you have no evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The photographic evidence can be forged. The written word, once recorded, cannot.

So the Warren Commission, now it is recorded, can not possibly be a lie? It can not be in any way innaccurate because it was written down and recorded?

Wow.

Best debunking of your own claims EVER.

 

[Robert Prey]

So the Warren Commission, now it is recorded, can not possibly be a lie? It can not be in any way innaccurate because it was written down and recorded?

Wow.

Best debunking of your own claims EVER.

A ridiculous sophomoric statement. The Warren Commission is not a witness.

 

[Robert Prey]

What a bizarre contention. You are truly living in a the conspiracy theorist world, where black is white, and down is up. Through the looking glass indeed.

In 1963, the technology did not exist to fake the Zapruder film and get images from the fake film onto the street in less than a week./QUOTE]

Complete, total 100 % baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

Is there something about the right side of the head *YOU* don't understand?

Dr. Jenkins put the damage to the right side of the head in the very quote you offered up on this forum to prove your case.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw put the wound on the right side of the head in numerous places in his book:
Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

You do understand that when you keep saying ALL the Parkland doctors, and I keep quoting from Parkland doctors who said something different, that disproves your contention, right?

Baloney.

 

[Tomtomkent]

A ridiculous sophomoric statement. The Warren Commission is not a witness.

The Warren commission is the written word. Let's see what you said:

The photographic evidence can be forged. The written word, once recorded, cannot.

Well, obviously as you did not specify "witness statement" (which can very easily be forged by the way, "Robert Prey is dashing, handsome and utterly convincing", see?) but "written word" I have no idea why you feel the need to say that.

Was it a sophmoric mistake of yours to claim that the written word, once recorded, can not possibly be fraudulant? Surely as a written word, now recorded this MUST mean you believe and accept the conclusions of the WC report?

Was it a sophmoric mistake to not state that you believe (wrongly) that witness statements are impossible to forge?

Please, do continue....

 

[Tomtomkent]

Baloney.

No, witness statements. Surely they can't be baloney? Don't you remember what you said:

The photographic evidence can be forged. The written word, once recorded, cannot.

Again with debunking your own argument! Clearly those quotes can ONLY be correct and true!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Complete, total 100 % baloney.

So, instead of providing evidence against this statement you call it baloney?

Meh.

Shame you have never been able to identify a single frame of the Z film with a photo-artefact to prove any kind of fakery.

Guess all you have is baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

I know you will claim the Z-film was altered. I trust you aren't foolish enough to claim the Moorman photo was altered (it was a Polaroid, and self-developing after it was pulled from the camera). It was viewed in Dealey Plaza within a minute of the assassination. Very few conspiracy theorists go so far as to claim the Moorman photo was altered. None go as far as suggesting how it was done.

Hank

But are you foolish enough to claim that the chain of evidence in the Moorman photo bypassed the FBI and the Secret Service?????

Here is her testimony from the Clay Shaw Trial:

Q: Did this photograph remain in your possession from the time you took it until today?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Whose possession other than yourself has this photograph been?

A: A reporter and the Secret Service and the FBI that I know of.

http://www.jfk-online.com/moormanshaw.html

So could the Moorman photo have been altered? Is the Pope Catholic?

 

[RoboTimbo]

A ridiculous sophomoric statement. The Warren Commission is not a witness.

BANG!

LOL

 

[Tomtomkent]

But are you foolish enough to claim that the chain of evidence in the Moorman photo bypassed the FBI and the Secret Service?????

Here is her testimony from the Clay Shaw Trial:

Q: Did this photograph remain in your possession from the time you took it until today?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Whose possession other than yourself has this photograph been?

A: A reporter and the Secret Service and the FBI that I know of.

http://www.jfk-online.com/moormanshaw.html

So could the Moorman photo have been altered? Is the Pope Catholic?

You know, showing there was a time when maybe, by a stretch of the imagination, a photo COULD have been altered is not the same as showin g IT WAS?

Let's play your own game:

Q: Is there any photographic artefact in the photo to show it was altered?
A: No.
Q: Is there any evidence of the matte being tampered with?
A: No.
Q: Is there any evidence the photo WAS altered?
A: No.

See. Saying "COULD" it have been altered in no way offers evidence to support your claim.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and also answering WHEN it might have been done in no way suggests the HOW. Robert was commenting a post that stated no CTer can offer an explanation of HOW the photo could be faked. Instead he asnwers WHEN he thought it might have been.

How was the Moorman photo faked Robert?
How was the Z film faked?
How do you intend to prove they were faked?

 

[HSienzant]

What a bizarre contention. You are truly living in a the conspiracy theorist world, where black is white, and down is up. Through the looking glass indeed.

In 1963, the technology did not exist to fake the Zapruder film and get images from the fake film onto the street in less than a week.

Complete, total 100 % baloney.

Which part is baloney? Can you cite ONE example of a film being faked in a week or less back in 1963?

Bet you cannot.

Reminder that calling something baloney doesn't mean it is. You need to specify why, what, and how it is baloney. Backed up with verifiable evidence. You, unfortunately, have nothing along those lines, so when stuck, simply resort to one-sentence (or one word) retorts like the above.

I will repeat, not only was there no way it could be done, there was no opportunity for it to be done, as Zapruder was with his film until he got the developed original and the copies made from the original. The developing of the film was completed on the afternoon of 11/22/63, and the original film has been the same since (outside of a gross tear on the original that happened when the film was in the possession of Life magazine a few years later that eliminated a few frames when JFK was behind the sign). But other copies of that film made on 11/22/63 have always had those supposed "missing" frames. That didn't stop conspiracy theorists from conjecturing that the frames were suppressed because they revealed something sinister, like an unaccounted for bullet striking the sign. You don't hear much about that nonsense nowadays, but it still pops up from time to time.

And curious just why you didn't respond to any of these points, eliminating them completely from your quote, without adding so much as an ellipsis to show you deleted material:

... And then to fake all the other films from Dealey Plaza to agree with the Zapruder film? To what end?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just burn the films and then life for the conspirators would be so much simpler?

Any idea why they didn't go that route? Alleging alterations of the photographic evidence implies stupid conspirators with an unlimited budget and plenty of time on their hands with nothing better to do than alter the evidence instead of destroying it.

And of course, these stupid conspirators decided to assassinate JFK in public, in front of a large crowd, many of whom had cameras, instead of taking an easier route:

1. If they could control the autopsy as you also allege, why not poison JFK? The autopsists could then find JFK suffered a brain anerysm, or a stroke, or a heart attack, etc. No films to dispute them.

2. Drug the pilot of Air Force One. When the plan crashes, claim the pilot had a undetected drug habit and fell asleep at the helm (like the Exxon Valdez skipper, etc.). No films to dispute them.

3. Threaten to expose JFK's many affairs. Tell JFK he needs to announce his retirement "for health reasons" immediately or his affairs will be revealed and he will clearly lose in 1964.

4. There are any number of other scenarios that are more workable than shooting JFK in public and then altering the photographic evidence, killing witnesses, altering the body, controlling the autopsy, framing a patsy, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

PS: Whether you understand it or not, alleging the photographic evidence is forged is synonymous with saying the photographic evidence disputes your theories (if it agreed with your theories, you wouldn't be alleging it was altered). This is tantamount to admitting you have no evidence. "

On second thought, I have a pretty good idea why you eliminated all that without rebuttal.

 

[HSienzant]

But are you foolish enough to claim that the chain of evidence in the Moorman photo bypassed the FBI and the Secret Service?????

Here is her testimony from the Clay Shaw Trial:

Q: Did this photograph remain in your possession from the time you took it until today?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Whose possession other than yourself has this photograph been?

A: A reporter and the Secret Service and the FBI that I know of.

http://www.jfk-online.com/moormanshaw.html

So could the Moorman photo have been altered? Is the Pope Catholic?

Robert, the ORIGINAL POLAROID still exists. It has NOT been tampered with. If you believe differently please document when it was altered and what was changed, and your evidence for same. Also tell us the mechanism for HOW it was altered.

Your claim that it could have been altered simply because it was in the hands of the FBI is nonsense and shows you don't know a thing about photography.

Please do tell us, Robert, how one could alter a Polaroid photo. You do not understand apparently, that a Polaroid is developed on the spot, takes no more than a minute or so to reveal the image, no negative exists, and the photo is fixed forever once it is developed. Your claim that it could have been altered is nonsense.

The Moorman photo is a Polaroid. It was taken about 1/5th of a second AFTER the shot that struck JFK in the head. It shows NO massive blowout to the back of JFK's head. It is unaltered.

Ergo, JFK had no massive wound in the back of his head from the head shot, despite what some [not all] of the doctors at Parkland allege.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote (again):

Dr. Jenkins mentioned a large wound to the right side of the head. None of those men mentioned that the wound was in the back of the head.

Comment:
Only all of the doctors, including Jenkins. Is there something about the location of Cerebellum and Occipital that you cannot grasp? [emphasis added]

Is there something about the right side of the head *YOU* don't understand?

Dr. Jenkins put the damage to the right side of the head in the very quote you offered up on this forum to prove your case.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw put the wound on the right side of the head in numerous places in his book:
Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

You do understand that when you keep saying ALL the Parkland doctors, and I keep quoting from Parkland doctors who said something different, that disproves your contention, right?

Baloney.

What's Baloney, Robert?

Crenshaw's claim's? They are directly from his book. You can verify the quotes easily enough. He was a Parkland doctor on 11/22/63, and was in the emergency room and did get a look at JFK.

Jenkins claim about the damage to the right side of the head? You should remember that *YOU* were the first one to offer up that quote here in this thread. It says what it says - the great laceration was on the right side of the head.

What's baloney is your failure to document any of your claims, and then to dismiss any and all counter-evidence with a wave of the hand and the utterance
of a one-word retort like "Baloney'.

Your claim was ALL the doctors mentioned the back of the head wound. That sir, has been disproven. Crenshaw and Jenkins are two counter-examples.

Hank

 

[Wolrab]

There is no such a thing as "the brain lobe."

What an imbecilic statement.


http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/lobe.html

 

[Southwind17]

No. Only acknowledgement of the claim of a single shot. The first rendition looks nothing like the third rendition in slo mo.

Er ... because the first is filmed from the front and the slow-mo from the side? Could that be what's confusing you, Robert? Please point out where they differ, other than the obvious filming angle.

Please point to anything in the "photographic record" as to the back of the head. There is no photographic record of the back of the head for the obvious reason that such record would impeach the pre-determined script.

Others here have done that admirably. It needs nothing more from me.

The photographic evidence can be forged. The written word, once recorded, cannot.

Again, others here have pointed out the ludicrousness of this statement.