JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Then you skirted over my points about Holland entirely.

How do you put this together, Robert?

You claim Bill Newman is a grassy knoll witness as is Sam Holland as is Lee Bowers as is Ed Hoffman.

But you gloss over the differences.

Bill Newman's source of the shots was behind the pergola, toward the TSBD-end of the pergola. His source of the shots doesn't jibe with Ed Hoffman's. Which of these two men were mistaken?

Lee Bowers saw nobody with a rifle behind the fence, yet he had almost a perfect view of the back of the fence and was a heck of a lot closer to the fence than Ed Hoffman says he was. Which of these two men were mistaken?

Sam Holland ran around the corner to the knoll and saw nobody with a rifle. From his perch on top of the overpass, if a rifle had been tossed to another man as described by Ed Hoffman, Holland could not have missed it. Which of these two men were mistaken?

These three men (Bowers, Newman, and Holland) came forward on 11/22/63.

There's no evidence Hoffman came forward before 1967 at the earliest. Yet you believe Hoffman's more detailed account, despite the fact that verifiable witnesses dispute large portions of it?

Hank

NO. I never said I believed Hoffman. Nor that I dis-believe him. Fact is all three saw suspicious activity in the general area. And there may well have been more than one shot from the Grassy Knoll, in more than one location. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the shot or shots made a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front and conspiracy.

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, you are right, those would not be admissable.

But as you have yet to prove any photograph,or film to be altered or forged I have no reason to discount those submitted.

None of which answers the question I asked. I know you are having a hard time grasping this Robert, and it is ever so boithersome to have to keep repeating it, but never mind. See if you can understand it this time:

Making further unsubstantiated assertions that evidence you don't agree with is fake is not the same as supplying physical evidence to support your views.

If you want to call something altered, faked or forged, prove it with more than "my witness disagrees".

In the meantime try supplying actual physical evidence to support your claims instead of trying to dismiss that which opposes you.

You could even supply physical evidence for the assertions you just made. Show me evidence of a frame of the Z film being changed. Show me a sign of the polaroid being tampered with. Or stop making claims you can't back up.

None of your so-called physical evidence could survive the chain of evidence requirement. All would be dis-allowed. Nuff said. Eyewitnesses in the case are the best evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

None of your so-called physical evidence could survive the chain of evidence requirement. All would be dis-allowed. Nuff said. Eyewitnesses in the case are the best evidence.

Believe what ever you want.

You have failed to discredit any physical evidence. You have failed to offer any legal grounds that would discredit the evidence, and you have failed to supply any physical evidence yourself.

Believe what you want, because the evidence proves you wrong.

Untill you actually stump up physical evidence of photographic or film tampering, there is no reason to dismiss them. Oh and the chain of CUSTODY is well established and none of your claimed "holes" have devalued the evidence.

Want to try and explain why you dont have any physical evidence yet?

 

[HSienzant]

Perhaps because that fool rifle man didn't want to get caught, so he calmly walked away. Or perhaps hid in a car trunk. Or maybe rushed to the spot and became part of the crowd just like dozens of others. Or maybe, because he WAS the police.

What happened to the rifle, Robert? Why didn't Sam Holland and the others tackle the rifleman?

NO. I never said I believed Hoffman. Nor that I dis-believe him. Fact is all three saw suspicious activity in the general area. And there may well have been more than one shot from the Grassy Knoll, in more than one location. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the shot or shots made a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front and conspiracy.

You are starting to see the problem, so you are now distancing yourself from Ed Hoffman. Hoffman says the gunman walked toward the overpass from the knoll, and tossed the rifle to another man, who dismantled the rifle and put it in a tool case and walked off. But that action would have been in full view of Sam Holland and the others on the overpass. It was, and is, a story that is clearly false. Which is what I have been telling you from the moment you brought it up.

But you brought him up, and defended his story on a number of occasions. If you neither believe, nor disbelieve him, why'd you bring him up to start? Why'd you defend him? Do you remember posting this:

...And then there is the witness who actually saw two men with the rifle, a puff of smoke, and dis-assemble the rifle, place in a tool box, and casually walk away toward the railroad tracks. That's why there was no rifle found. That witness being Ed Hoffman who claims the FBI tried to shut him up with bribery...

Or this:

... According to Jim Mars, the man was sincere and credible:

As the one who first brought Ed Hoffman and even
walked the Grassy Knoll with Ed, I can assure you he was a credible and
sincere witness. No one who knew Ed has expressed serious doubts about
his veracity. His family early on tried to downplay Ed's testimony but
only out of love. They did not want him subjected to public ridicule.
With his death we lost a valuable witness. --Jim Marrs

http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=153.60

But there are still other witnesses that corroborate Ed Hoffman and the Grassy Knoll shot: Lee Bowers who saw two men, a flash of light and smoke.

His interview with Mark Lane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izqYhSV9AtY&feature=fvst
Now find some mud to throw at him.

Now, you're saying there's maybe more than one gunman, in more than one position --- and these particulars don't matter???

We're talking about the assassination of a President here. Get your facts straight. You owe JFK that much, don't you think?

Aside to others reading this: Robert is starting to learn that not every conspiracy 'fact' makes sense. In fact, most don't. He'll learn it eventually.


Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

NO. I never said I believed Hoffman. Nor that I dis-believe him. Fact is all three saw suspicious activity in the general area. And there may well have been more than one shot from the Grassy Knoll, in more than one location. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the shot or shots made a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front and conspiracy.

No the CLAIM is a shot or shots came from the front.

The fact is no blow out on the back of the head is visible on any film or photo of jfk leaving the plaza. The fact is the autopsy recorded the only visible exit wound on the front of the head. The fact is that eyewitness testemony is unreliable at best. The fact is nobody at bethesda lifted the head of Jfk to be ABLE to see the exit wound IF it were on the back of the head. The fact is all shots fired that day are accounted for, from LHOs rifle.

"Fact" is not a word you seem to understand.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Perhaps because that fool rifle man didn't want to get caught, so he calmly walked away. Or perhaps hid in a car trunk. Or maybe rushed to the spot and became part of the crowd just like dozens of others. Or maybe, because he WAS the police.

Bolding mine.

Also lol-ing.

 

[HSienzant]

No the CLAIM is a shot or shots came from the front.

The fact is no blow out on the back of the head is visible on any film or photo of jfk leaving the plaza. The fact is the autopsy recorded the only visible exit wound on the front of the head. The fact is that eyewitness testemony is unreliable at best. The fact is nobody at bethesda lifted the head of Jfk to be ABLE to see the exit wound IF it were on the back of the head. The fact is all shots fired that day are accounted for, from LHOs rifle.

"Fact" is not a word you seem to understand.

You mean Parkland Hospital.
Bethesda was where the autopsy was, of course.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

So when is Robert going to show us the photographic artefacts that prove the autopsy and other photographs to be faked? When will he show us the alterations made to the z film? Or explain how the polaroid was faked?

He keeps asserting these are forged or faked. Why can he not prove it? Surely nobody would say a photo was faked if they couldn't show the evidence of manipulation?

Oh he did? Well in that case I can say "no they aint, your witnesses are conspiring to make you think LHO was innocent!" Thats how it works right?

 

[HSienzant]

He keeps asserting these are forged or faked. Why can he not prove it? Surely nobody would say a photo was faked if they couldn't show the evidence of manipulation?...

The problem these guys have is they are stuck defending the nonsense Oswald spewed in custody. Of course Oswald denied the photo of him with the rifle was valid, and claimed it was faked. He had previously denied in custody that he ever owned a rifle, so what was he supposed to say?

But by declaring Oswald an innocent victim, they have to buy into the nonsense Oswald said, because, after all, an innocent man has no reason to lie, right?

So they declare the backyard photos to be forgeries, and offer all sorts of silly reasons that are easily disproved (like the shadows are wrong), and then, they have to go to the silly length of arguing everything else that implicates Oswald is likewise falsified, planted, or altered.

Robert is stuck in this place, with his head in the sand, not seeing the problems with the conspiracy authors' nonsense. Once in a while, he'll pop his head out of the sand (we saw one such instance when he backed off Hoffman's story after pushing it hard for a week or so), only to pop his head back into the sand.

Eventually, he'll pop his head out and keep it out. But his eyes may need time to adjust to the light.

Hank

 

[JohnG]

By discussing the comments made so far?

A tenuous claim. Feel free to ask a mod.

It's cool; my post was largely off-topic to be honest, aside from calling him on the "one question at a time thing". Like I said I really wasn't expecting a response. I was just hoping Robert might read it and at least think about it.

 

[EventHorizon]

It's cool; my post was largely off-topic to be honest, aside from calling him on the "one question at a time thing". Like I said I really wasn't expecting a response. I was just hoping Robert might read it and at least think about it.

What have you seen in 87 pages now of posts that makes you think the part in bold is even remotely likely?

 

[HSienzant]

NO. I never said I believed Hoffman. Nor that I dis-believe him. Fact is all three saw suspicious activity in the general area. And there may well have been more than one shot from the Grassy Knoll, in more than one location. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the shot or shots made a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front and conspiracy.

Oh, just by way of reminder, the grassy knoll fence (where Holland put the smoke, where Hoffman supposedly saw the rifleman, and where Bowers put two men, about 15 feet apart), isn't to the front of JFK at the time of the head shot, it's almost to JFK's immediate right, considering his head was canted 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo.

A shot from the front would have come from the overpass, where Holland was.

A shot from the right would have exited - not the back of the head - but the left side of the head.

Your supposed trajectory for a Grassy Knoll gunshot doesn't make sense, Robert. That's some magic bullet you got there.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...And there may well have been more than one shot from the Grassy Knoll, in more than one location...

Sure, Robert.

These brilliant conspirators came up with a plan to frame a *Lone Nut* patsy shooting from behind by putting multiple shooters to the right of Kennedy. And somehow those shooters make an exit wound in the back of the head?

That theory makes a ton of sense.

I asked before, but you glossed right over it, why plan to do it in public, in a motorcade, where multiple cameras from multiple angles might capture the gunmen on film?

Why not crash the plane, for example?

The conspirators really planned to shoot JFK in broad daylight with multiple shooters and then planned to frame a patsy shooting from behind? And this theory makes sense to you?

Hank

 

[JohnG]

The conspirators really planned to shoot JFK in broad daylight with multiple shooters and then planned to frame a patsy shooting from behind? And this theory makes sense to you?

Hank

Hi Robert, John here. You know how much I admire your strong moral stance regarding multiple questions within a single post, so I'll field this one, using your reply to a similar question I posed to you in this very thread about, oh...37 years ago (well it feels that long ago):

I just don't know how you can logically argue with success.

And I just don't know how you can logically argue with someone who comes up with such an obliviously illogical cognitive dissonance-induced post hoc rationalization that sounds more like the punch-line to a joke than a substantive response.

 

[Southwind17]

Eyewitnesses in the case are the best evidence.

They might be the best for suiting your purpose, essentially because they're the least reliable.

 

[Tomtomkent]

They might be the best for suiting your purpose, essentially because they're the least reliable.

And despite what Robert claims, the testemony of a witness is often disproven by physical evidence. He has imself suggested OJ was guilty and somebody from his defense has to be of compromised morals. Hmmm. Odd then that he does not assume OJ, as a key witness disproves all those pesky (and possibly forged) gloves, photos, and other evidence by saying he was innocent. Surely if eye witness testemony is the best evidence it is always the best evidence?

In the real world this is not the case. Time and again criminals have been proven guilty, and a witness proven to be wrong by physical evidence. Saying physical evidence disagrees with a witness is not enough, by any measure, to invalidate the evidence.

The only way Robert can prove physical evidence to be flawed is to show where the photos or film have been altered. He has yet to do this. He assumes it must be because it disagrees with him. Yet he, like the witnesses he relies on are only human.

Look at the sheer nonsense he has spouted. That the z film can not be expected to show everything? Yet he wont state what the framerate is, or how quickly the ejecta of the exit wound would have to travel just to avoid being seen in any frames. Or why the exit wound is invisible in all films and photos. Or why those claiming to show the wounds he described had to be cropped and rotated to resemble the wounds he describes, yet show entirely different wounds in the unaltered originals.

 

[HSienzant]

And despite what Robert claims, the testemony of a witness is often disproven by physical evidence. He has imself suggested OJ was guilty and somebody from his defense has to be of compromised morals. Hmmm. Odd then that he does not assume OJ, as a key witness disproves all those pesky (and possibly forged) gloves, photos, and other evidence by saying he was innocent.

The jails are full of innocent people. That's what they all say, so it must be true.

Oswald said he didn't do it, so we really should have let him go the first day.

Right, Robert?

 

[HSienzant]

...Under testimony in 1978, one of the HSCA weapons expert Monty Lutz, stated that in this particular case, the cartridge got hung up in the rifle due to the lips opening up on the clip causing it to stick in the rifle. This would explain why the cartridge stayed in the rifle but Commission Evidences 574 and 575 show a perfectly formed cartridge not a bent one(lips were not opened). A photgrapher took a picture of the cartridge with no damage {17H (CE 574) 258, (CE 575) 259. Life magazine, November 1983, pp. 16-17}

See my original response as well as the addendum below.

Addendum: You appear to be quoting Lutz saying the clip lips were opened, causing the clip to stick in the rifle. But then you contrast that by citing photos of a cartridge, not the clip. Not sure how photos of an undamaged cartridge establish that the clip lips weren't opened, as Monty Lutz said.

 

[Robert Prey]

The jails are full of innocent people. That's what they all say, so it must be true.

Oswald said he didn't do it, so we really should have let him go the first day.

Right, Robert?

Yes, indeed. The jails really are full of innocent people. Just check out The Innocence Project.
From the Innocence Project

Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations
[Print Version]

There have been 289 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 35 states; since 2000, there have been 222 exonerations.

• 17 of the 289 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.5 years. The total number of years served is approximately 3,800.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php


So what would you call these people besides innocent????

Why, of course. Just like Oswald they are

PATSIES!!!​

 

[Robert Prey]

And despite what Robert claims, the testemony of a witness is often disproven by physical evidence. He has imself suggested OJ was guilty and somebody from his defense has to be of compromised morals. Hmmm. Odd then that he does not assume OJ, as a key witness disproves all those pesky (and possibly forged) gloves, photos, and other evidence by saying he was innocent. Surely if eye witness testemony is the best evidence it is always the best evidence?

In the real world this is not the case. Time and again criminals have been proven guilty, and a witness proven to be wrong by physical evidence. Saying physical evidence disagrees with a witness is not enough, by any measure, to invalidate the evidence.

The only way Robert can prove physical evidence to be flawed is to show where the photos or film have been altered. He has yet to do this. He assumes it must be because it disagrees with him. Yet he, like the witnesses he relies on are only human.

Look at the sheer nonsense he has spouted. That the z film can not be expected to show everything? Yet he wont state what the framerate is, or how quickly the ejecta of the exit wound would have to travel just to avoid being seen in any frames. Or why the exit wound is invisible in all films and photos. Or why those claiming to show the wounds he described had to be cropped and rotated to resemble the wounds he describes, yet show entirely different wounds in the unaltered originals.

None of that is necessary. 40 plus on the scene witnesses prove the Z film to be a fraud.