• 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.
Walter Ego said:
Bottom line: This thread which has gone on past the point of insanity with nothing new having been introduced for the past two months (at least) will continue with no end in sight as long as Robert's enablers keep responding to him. There's no longer anything to be seen or discussed here. Allow Robert his little victory and move on.
Click to expand...

And Walter Ego has yet to prove his alleged perp even fired a single shot.
 
Except with the rifle,bullets, shells, witnesses, ballistics, and dead body.

which is the weight of physical evidence robert can't discount.
 
Robert Prey said:
So!!! Now we have a credible Grassy Knoll Witness, but not for a flash of light, nor smoke. But in his interview, he clearly heard three shots!! But the last two shots he described as being right next to each other as in Bam,Bam. That would, of course, prove conspiracy for the alleged weapon is incapable of such a feat. So thanks for confirming a conspiracy based on your one Grassy Knoll Witness. As for Ed Hoffman, No, I have not abandoned him. I've yet to even read all your junk. But I do note that he was not called before the Warrren Commission, and as far as I know his accounts were interpreted by the most un-trustworthy of agencies in this case -- The FBI. And did he change his story, or did the FBI change his story? Stay tuned. If you want faster answers you really need to learn who to be more concise. A lot of your garbage is just that.
Click to expand...


lol. I noticed you skirted right over your false claim that Bowers saw a flash of light AND smoke. Interesting that you would make a false claim like that, then accept Hoffman's account. Not surprising, perhaps, but interesting.

You really need to understand how to read. I said Lee Bowers was a credible witness. That doesn't mean he got everything right. Just that he has not changed his story every day for the past ten years, unlike an Ed Hoffman. Calling him a grassy knoll witness is another falsehood by you, as he never mentioned seeing an assassin there, nor anyone with a weapon that day whatsoever. His "flash of light" (really the only statement of his that even points in that direction) has been interpreted by critics as a muzzle blast, but it really could be anything, and I gave a few more reasonable examples in my prior post.

How could the Warren Commission call Ed Hoffman as a witness when he didn't come forward for the first time until 1967? How would they know that he witnessed anything? That is an ultimately silly charge by you to level, that they didn't call him as a witness.

How do *you* know Hoffman witnessed anything? You have only his word and his story, which has changed on numerous occasions, yet you choose to believe him. I remind you there is no evidence he saw anything, nor any evidence he was even where he said he was on the day of the assassination. This is a credible witness to you? Not to me.

I am sorry you are still clinging to the belief that Hoffman is trustworthy. He is not. His story has changed time and again, as has Jean Hill's.

And I note you also failed to respond to my point about the FBI, which was ... I know you think there was a conspiracy, but do you really think that every FBI agent was in on it? If not, then please consider what the odds are that Hoffman would walk into the FBI office and just happen to talk to an agent who was in on the conspiracy, who then deliberately took down a false story about the Depository (remember Hoffman's initial story said nothing about seeing men on the knoll). If you understand anything about probability, you will understand that Hoffman's first FBI statement, as well as the followup FBI interviews a week later with Hoffman's father and brother, are most likely the closest thing to the truth you can find. Relying on his current story, with all its additions and permutations, is not the best approach.

How come you failed to respond, Robert? Do you really think every FBI agent was in on the conspiracy?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
lol. I noticed you skirted right over your false claim that Bowers saw a flash of light AND smoke. Interesting that you would make a false claim like that, then accept Hoffman's account. Not surprising, perhaps, but interesting.

You really need to understand how to read. I said Lee Bowers was a credible witness. That doesn't mean he got everything right. Just that he has not changed his story every day for the past ten years, unlike an Ed Hoffman. Calling him a grassy knoll witness is another falsehood by you, as he never mentioned seeing an assassin there, nor anyone with a weapon that day whatsoever. His "flash of light" (really the only statement of his that even points in that direction) has been interpreted by critics as a muzzle blast, but it really could be anything, and I gave a few more reasonable examples in my prior post.

How could the Warren Commission call Ed Hoffman as a witness when he didn't come forward for the first time until 1967? How would they know that he witnessed anything? That is an ultimately silly charge by you to level, that they didn't call him as a witness.

How do *you* know Hoffman witnessed anything? You have only his word and his story, which has changed on numerous occasions, yet you choose to believe him. I remind you there is no evidence he saw anything, nor any evidence he was even where he said he was on the day of the assassination. This is a credible witness to you? Not to me.

I am sorry you are still clinging to the belief that Hoffman is trustworthy. He is not. His story has changed time and again, as has Jean Hill's.

And I note you also failed to respond to my point about the FBI, which was ... I know you think there was a conspiracy, but do you really think that every FBI agent was in on it? If not, then please consider what the odds are that Hoffman would walk into the FBI office and just happen to talk to an agent who was in on the conspiracy, who then deliberately took down a false story about the Depository (remember Hoffman's initial story said nothing about seeing men on the knoll). If you understand anything about probability, you will understand that Hoffman's first FBI statement, as well as the followup FBI interviews a week later with Hoffman's father and brother, are most likely the closest thing to the truth you can find. Relying on his current story, with all its additions and permutations, is not the best approach.

How come you failed to respond, Robert? Do you really think every FBI agent was in on the conspiracy?

Hank
Click to expand...

Hoover was in on it. That's enough. One question at a time, please.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Except with the rifle,bullets, shells, witnesses, ballistics, and dead body.

which is the weight of physical evidence robert can't discount.
Click to expand...

If you add together rifle, bullets, shells, witnesses, ballistics and dead body, it spells

P A T S Y​
 
HSienzant said:
Feel free to check out at any time.

But I will continue to attempt to enlighten Robert.

I went through this with my brother about 20 years ago, who like Robert, was convinced of a conspiracy to kill JFK after reading four or five conspiracy books. It took about a year of constantly pointing out how many assumptions and suppositions are built into the conspiracy argument before he saw the light.

It may be that Robert won't take that long, but that remains to be seen.

Hank
Click to expand...

(bolding mine)
If you want to continue to respond to Robert, feel free. I enjoy your contributions and leaning so much more about the case that I had previously known; further cementing LHOs guilt.

That being said, I think the salient point is that you aren't telling Robert anything he doesn't already know; he doesn't believe a single word he spews, and is simply trolling for responses.
 
Robert Prey said:
If you add together rifle, bullets, shells, witnesses, ballistics and dead body, it spells

P A T S Y​
Click to expand...

Funny kind of patsy who bought a rifle. Held the rifle. Got photographed holding the rifle and the pistol. Then loaded the rifle with bullets. Got seen carrying it to work. Then happened to be the only person who can be proven to have been in the snipers nest at the time of the shooting.

If you add together all of the physical evidence you have provided. It spells Zero.

If you add together the photographic evidence YOU supplied it spells Oswald.

If you add together the film evidence it spells Oswald.

If you add together the evidence you have supplied that any photograph was faked it spells ALL GENUINE. (Or at least "had to hold the broom the wrong way to get the wrong shadow. Whoops.")

Any number of witnesses you want to supply will be proven wrong by the physical evidence. You have none. All you have are claims of physical evidence being faked, that you can not substantiate.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Funny kind of patsy who bought a rifle. Held the rifle. Got photographed holding the rifle and the pistol. Then loaded the rifle with bullets. Got seen carrying it to work. Then happened to be the only person who can be proven to have been in the snipers nest at the time of the shooting.

If you add together all of the physical evidence you have provided. It spells Zero.

If you add together the photographic evidence YOU supplied it spells Oswald.

If you add together the film evidence it spells Oswald.

If you add together the evidence you have supplied that any photograph was faked it spells ALL GENUINE. (Or at least "had to hold the broom the wrong way to get the wrong shadow. Whoops.")

Any number of witnesses you want to supply will be proven wrong by the physical evidence. You have none. All you have are claims of physical evidence being faked, that you can not substantiate.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Robert Prey said:
Baloney.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up your theories.

But feel free to disprove any point. Here you go, I will even show you how:

*Show evidence the photographic and film record was faked. It should be easy enough, you keep asserting the films, photos and polaroid were tampered with, show us a photographic artefact to prove this. Show us paint on the imulsion, signs of tampering, etc.

*Provide physical evidence beyond that you have so far submitted (all of which has COUNTERED your claims) to raise the sum total above zero.

It really is THAT simple. And yet all you can offer is your repeated "Baloney".

You have been exposed as a troll, yet out of sheer human decency I keep offering you an oppetunity to engage like an adult and repeatedly tell you all I would need to convince me. Yet still you fail to offer any physical evidence, or anything other than isrepresented quotes and unsupported stories.

One last try Robert. Can you manage to say "The Z film can be shown to be faked by [evidence showing aleteration]" or are you going to continue pretending, in ignorance, that physical evidence disagreeing with your favoured witnesses means the evidence, and not the witness must be wrong?
 
HSienzant said:
No, Lee Bowers is a credible witness. But his flash of light or something does not translate into an assassin,
Hank
Click to expand...

Bowers flash of light witness is corroborated by Sam Holland who saw and heard the shots. Bowers, Holland and Hoffman all saw suspicious activity. Hoffman, being deaf could not be expected to hear shots. As far as the rifle being dis-assembled, there was plenty of cover in the area, so that one witness might see something another could not. Bowers heard two shots right on top of each other in addition to a 3rd shot proving conspiracy. Holland heard 4 shots and saw the smoke emanating from where at least one shot came from behind the picket fence. Plus the fact that Holland points to six other witnesses that were with him who rushed to the same spot behind the picket fence who saw and heard the same as Holland. This corroborates the shots heard from the Grassy Knoll by Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell riding in the Limo behind JFK, and what the Newmans observed and heard as well, all of which corroborates the medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head, conclusively proving conspiracy. It's a slam dunk.
 
It certainly is a slam dunk. We have the impacts of the shots on film, and the wounds visible in photographs. All of which disproves your utter tripe. It doen't matter what falliable witnesses are mistaken about. We have physical evidence.

Untill you supply some Robert you have nothing.


Slam dunk! LHO did it!
 
Alright this is getting ridiculous. I dropped out of the conversation quite a awhile ago, but there's some things that have to be said.

Robert Prey said:
One question at a time, please.
Click to expand...


You mean like this?

Robert Prey said:
So is Lee Bowers lyiing too? Is there a single grassy knoll witness who in your opinion is not either mistaken or lying? Is Lee Bowers lying? Did Dave Powers lie when he stated the fatal shot came from the knoll? Was he lying when he said the FBI pressured him to keep quiet? Is the FBI more credible than Ed Hoffman? Do you understand sign language? Did the FBI understand sign language?
Click to expand...


What's the word for someone who demands others to hold to certain standards which they themselves do not hold to?

Robert, you are currently averaging 14.15 (sometimes lengthy) posts a day. Presumably those posts take time to put together and the time you spend on this forum not spent creating your own posts is presumably spent reading the posts of others. This means you spend a not inconsiderable portion of each day on this forum. That's nothing to be ashamed of, lots of us do. It's often a fun and thought-provoking place. Presumably though you aren't just here to blow off steam after a long day at work or school and perhaps sharpen your debating skills using some arbitrary topic drawn out of a hat. The JFK assassination is something you clearly feel strongly about and you've clearly studied and thought long and hard about, even if all that study and thinking has led (IMO) to completely erroneous conclusions. It appears then you here at least in part to convert other forum members to your beliefs, perhaps in hopes that such a conversion could lead to some eventual change in public opinion and perhaps even lead to a new investigation of the assassination. An investigation that could theoretically rewrite the history books and even lead to the prosecution of any conspirators still alive today.

Unlike many (most?) of the ephemeral and banal topics debated over on the internet, like say the relative merits of Kirk and Picard or who deserved to win on American Idol, the discussion of the murder of a real human being is serious business, especially when the victim was murdered within living memory of a large portion of the population and the discussion delves into questions of guilt and responsibility of people still alive today. Therefore I'd hope you'd agree that such discussions should be conducted with the utmost seriousness and sincerity. This isn't merely some intellectual parlor game we're playing to pass the time here.

The thing is though that if your mission is to get people to rally around your noble (if misguided IMO) cause, you chose an awfully peculiar place to spend your time. Surely it would be better to spend your time in a forum where the preponderance of people there are prone to believing in conspiracy theories and would accept your theory without months of debate?

But that's not entirely what you want, either, is it?

While I believe you sincerely believe everything you've written in your relatively short time here, I put it to you that you chose this specific forum because you knew going in that most if not all of the other forum members would be predisposed to doubt your theories. This doubt would almost inevitably lead to a lot of people spending a lot of time reading your posts and and responding directly to you. That too is nothing to be ashamed of; we all like seeing others repond to our posts even if (or in some cases especially if) those who respond disagree with us. In other words you are here primarily for the attention lavished on you on a daily basis. This desire for attention clearly trumps your other (no doubt sincere) mission to convince the world of your JFK theories. I won't embarrass him by naming names, but another forum member here who shares some of your beliefs recently attempted to engage me in conversation via private messaging. It was during a fairly fallow period where he wasn't getting a lot of attention in his own CT thread. Both you and the other person I'm alluding to are trolls but you are both (more or less) sincere, well meaning trolls, as far as I can tell. By that I mean you post to garner attention by agitating others but unlike many internet trolls you actually believe everything you post.

The final point which I and several others here have noted is your almost pathological inability to admit to being wr- wr- wrong, even when such admissions would lead others to take you more seriously, not less. You really need to address that. I used to work with a guy like that and not only did that fault make him infuriating to work with, it led to dangerous situations that literally put the lives of his co-workers at risk.

I'm not expecting a response but you might want to ask yourself why you are really here and what are actually trying to achieve. You might also want to ask yourself if you really believe that ignoring your own hypocrisy and errors is allowable if your cause is (in your opinion) sufficiently just. That's known as "the ends justify the means" and I'd hope that you would object to that sort of ruthlessly pragmatic view practiced by you or anyone else?

And yes, I'm aware that I've asked more than one question. To that point I'd refer you back to the top of this post. Have a nice day.
 
Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here...

This thread is no longer about the JFK assassination. It ceased to be about the JFK assassination months ago. This thread is about Robert and at least one other person's need to "prove" something or other. (To whom one might ask?)

I stated on this thread (back during the LBJ administration it seems at this point but it must have been sometime last year) that I have no emotional investment in the theory of LHO as the lone gunman and would suffer no loss of self-esteem if a convincing case could be made for a conspiracy. (Needless to say, Robert has failed spectacularly to present such a case.) Obviously, there are some participants on this thread who are emotionally invested in the lone gunman theory.

If this thread has come down to an issue of pride with two or three people willing to argue the same limited set of issues endlessly, the thread belongs in AAH.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Have you not seen the Zapruder film yet?

That film shows the back of the head intact. That was pointed out to you many times previously, including in this loop. Continue to ignore it.


Hank
Click to expand...

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. I captured the gape many months ago. The rear gapes at the moment front right impact, and the back of the head pops off. Totally simple and factual that Greer shot jfk in the right forehead resulting in the right rear blow out.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/back-exit_h_GIFSoupcom-1.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/backoff.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/335gape.jpg
 
7forever said:
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. I captured the gape many months ago. The rear gapes at the moment front right impact, and the back of the head pops off. Totally simple and factual that Greer shot jfk in the right forehead resulting in the right rear blow out.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/back-exit_h_GIFSoupcom-1.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/backoff.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/335gape.jpg
Click to expand...

Oops! Did you mean to post gifs of the right front of JFK's head blowing out, destroying your hypothesis?

Also, could you circle the gun in this higher res video which you keep scampering away from addressing?


Please don't cowardly avoid it again. Thanks in advance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom