JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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

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

 

[Robert Prey]

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

And the most "reliable" is????

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Correction: Right front. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?


Hank

According to the PSE lie test performed by George O'Tool, when Oswald exclaimed he was just a Patsy, he was telling the truth.

 

[Robert Prey]

And when they got to that spot, they tackled the rifleman and subdued him and held him for the police, right?

If not, why not?

Hank

Have a look at the pic you provided and the distance involved. Does that answer your question?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

No.

The Z film proves your witnesses to be mistaken. You can repeat your fallacy all you like, it wont magically become true.

The Z film shows what happened. You have not shown any evidence it has been altered and faked. Ergo, it is the benchmark against which we judge your witnesses, not the other way around.

40 plus witnesses are wrong. This is not unexpected, as the falliability of eye witnesses is well established. Humkan memory is deeply flawed, to the extent that something as simple as the manner in which a question is asked can change the way that even the most reliable witness recalls events. The Z film is not subject, and is unchanging.

Untill you PROVE the film has been altered, by SHOWING THE ALTERATIONS your assertion is false.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Here's a hypothetical question: If a bunch of conspirators sought to assassinate the President, would they be fair about it? Or would they instead set up a Patsy, then kill him, to avoid a trial and a public outcry for a further investigation? A simple yes or no answer is requested, if you have the courage to provide it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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!!!​

Why do you need physical evidence like DNA? Why not trust the witnesses who "saw" them commit the crime? Or trust the witness who said "I didn't do it!"?

A little hypocritical that you post this immediately after stating evidence is forged or faked if witnesses say they remembered events differently...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Here's a hypothetical question: If a bunch of conspirators sought to assassinate the President, would they be fair about it? .

Would they be competant about it? Would they use shooters from the same direction as the "Patsy"? Or would they avoid an investigation altogether by disguising the assassination as a natural or accidental death?

Would they use shooters who are dumb enough to be SEEN in other places?
Then INCLUDE conflicting testemony in the "whitewash" used to deflect investigation?
Would they then go out of their way to ensure even YOU know about it?

Anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY who wanted to frame Oswald, would shoot JFK from the TSBD. If they wanted to shoot him from the grassy knoll, they would frame somebody who was stood on the grassy knoll.

No.

They would not be fair about it, and they would not use the Scooby-Doo methods you describe that defy the laws of physics, by having these "real" killers shoot bullets on trajectories that are impossible from the possitions you place them in.

Now, why not make a change from wild assertions and just supply actual physical evidence to support ANY of your claims?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Have a look at the pic you provided and the distance involved. Does that answer your question?

No. It makes the question more relevant: Why did they not hustle down a relatively short distance? Or just scream "Hey look! The guy who shot the president!" Or both.

 

[Tomtomkent]

According to the PSE lie test performed by George O'Tool, when Oswald exclaimed he was just a Patsy, he was telling the truth.

Assuming PSE is a valid and accurate technique:
That proves Oswald believed he was a patsy. It does not prove he WAS a patsy.

In the real world however we know that PSE is deeply flawed. It is ONLY as accurate as polygraph, which means it is far from perfect. Oswald may have believed he was a patsy, but that in itself proves nothing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

By arguing the EXISTENCE you have yet to prove.

How can you argue against the success of LHO to have killed the President?

 

[BravesFan]

Would they be competant about it? Would they use shooters from the same direction as the "Patsy"? Or would they avoid an investigation altogether by disguising the assassination as a natural or accidental death?

Would they use shooters who are dumb enough to be SEEN in other places?
Then INCLUDE conflicting testemony in the "whitewash" used to deflect investigation?
Would they then go out of their way to ensure even YOU know about it?

Anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY who wanted to frame Oswald, would shoot JFK from the TSBD. If they wanted to shoot him from the grassy knoll, they would frame somebody who was stood on the grassy knoll.

No.

They would not be fair about it, and they would not use the Scooby-Doo methods you describe that defy the laws of physics, by having these "real" killers shoot bullets on trajectories that are impossible from the possitions you place them in.

Now, why not make a change from wild assertions and just supply actual physical evidence to support ANY of your claims?

I had never considered this before. It's so absolutely on the money as to pretty much dismiss any claims to the contrary. Pro hitmen (be they govt or mob or whomever) wouldn't take any silly chances nor set themselves up in a spot for discovery. If they wanted to take out the prez, they would most likely do it in private and attempt to disguise it as an accident. If they planned to frame a former refugee to the USSR as a "patsy" then they would match their trajectories with his position. Or knock him out, shot from his location themselves, and then split, leaving him to take the fall.

None of these things occurred.

 

[Robert Prey]

By arguing the EXISTENCE you have yet to prove.

How can you argue against the success of LHO to have killed the President?

I have proven the conspiracy -- b the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses that observed a large blow-out in the back of the head proving a shot from the grassy knoll. That they must all be mistaken or lying defies common sense. On the other hand, you can't even prove that LHO even fired a single shot or was even on the 6th flloor window at the time.

 

[Robert Prey]

I had never considered this before. It's so absolutely on the money as to pretty much dismiss any claims to the contrary. Pro hitmen (be they govt or mob or whomever) wouldn't take any silly chances nor set themselves up in a spot for discovery. If they wanted to take out the prez, they would most likely do it in private and attempt to disguise it as an accident. If they planned to frame a former refugee to the USSR as a "patsy" then they would match their trajectories with his position. Or knock him out, shot from his location themselves, and then split, leaving him to take the fall.

None of these things occurred.

Baloney. It's not that easy to kill President and make it look like an accident.

 

[Robert Prey]

Assuming PSE is a valid and accurate technique:
That proves Oswald believed he was a patsy. It does not prove he WAS a patsy.

In the real world however we know that PSE is deeply flawed. It is ONLY as accurate as polygraph, which means it is far from perfect. Oswald may have believed he was a patsy, but that in itself proves nothing.

Was Oswald just a little man, a crazy man, looking to do something big to be remembered by? Then why the denials? Makes absolutely no sense.
"I didn't shoot anybody...I'm just a Patsy."

 

[Robert Prey]

No. It makes the question more relevant: Why did they not hustle down a relatively short distance? Or just scream "Hey look! The guy who shot the president!" Or both.

That "short distance" was about a hundred yards, traversing a waste high steam pipe which men were tripping over and cars parked bumper to bumper so that, in the words of Holland, "you could hardly get through them."

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Here's a hypothetical question: If a bunch of conspirators sought to assassinate the President, would they be fair about it? .

Would they be competant about it? Would they use shooters from the same direction as the "Patsy"? Or would they avoid an investigation altogether by disguising the assassination as a natural or accidental death?

And so, like Hank, you choose to duck the hypothetical question. Would the conspirators be better off with or without a set up Patsy?

 

[Robert Prey]

No.

The Z film proves your witnesses to be mistaken. You can repeat your fallacy all you like, it wont magically become true.

The Z film shows what happened. You have not shown any evidence it has been altered and faked. Ergo, it is the benchmark against which we judge your witnesses, not the other way around.

40 plus witnesses are wrong. This is not unexpected, as the falliability of eye witnesses is well established. Humkan memory is deeply flawed, to the extent that something as simple as the manner in which a question is asked can change the way that even the most reliable witness recalls events. The Z film is not subject, and is unchanging.

Untill you PROVE the film has been altered, by SHOWING THE ALTERATIONS your assertion is false.

David Lifton's frame by frame analysis shows the back of K's head was painted in. Others have shown film anomalies. And the 40 plus Medical witnesses prove Z film fakery.

 

[Robert Prey]

Would they use shooters who are dumb enough to be SEEN in other places?
Then INCLUDE conflicting testemony in the "whitewash" used to deflect investigation?
Would they then go out of their way to ensure even YOU know about it?

Anybody, and I do mean ANYBODY who wanted to frame Oswald, would shoot JFK from the TSBD. If they wanted to shoot him from the grassy knoll, they would frame somebody who was stood on the grassy knoll.

Oh, but there may have indeed been a shooter or shooters from the TSBD. But none of them nor the Grassy Knoll shooters were seen. The idea is to commit the crime and then get away quickly. And the idea is if you want to make sure the assassination is successful you have shooters in more than one location.