• 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:
Comment:
MOre baloney.EVerything you have posted has been thoroughly covered in previous posts and shown to be false. No Tippet Killer ID, No prints on rifle, no palm print except after one had been taken at the funeral home and backyard photos I have personally proved to be fake.
Click to expand...

I have hilighted the only factually correct part of this post.

The issues you claim to have "debunked" have been covered at length. Your dishonesty about the "Palm Print being taken at the funeral home" alone has been proven false to such a degree it must take an amazing feat of self delusion for you to think we will ever accept your assertion.

There is simply no way on earth a LATENT print in magnezium powder could be taken from a body. You even posted a description of how to take an ink print for identification, and have never been able to reconcile the fact these are two entirely different things.

Your outright lie about proving the backyard photos fake is laughable. Please explain how standing in an entirely different pose and holding the rifle analogue in a different vector proves the photo fake Robert? At best you could prove that shadows MAY form differently.

Unfortunately for you the backyard photos have been replicated twice here in this very thread. Proving the thing you claimed to "prove" them fake IS NOT impossible.

Even worse, you have FAILED utterly to show me, despite many attempts, to provide the evidence that would, beyond any doubt whatsoever prove your assetion correct. You have FAILED to show me where the marks and seams in the emulsion of the photograph, or disjoint in the image are, that would prove ampering to the photo or negative. Why have you not been able to do that Robert?

Why have you yet to even explain WHY the photo would have to be tamoered when you conceded that there were OTHER GENUINE PHOTOS OF LHO HOLDING THE SAME WEAPONS? Why in the name of dixie would people smart enough to produce a tampered photo with no visible artefacts of tampering on, not just use one of the other photos that already existed?

The lunacy of your claims is now beyond pathetic. Do you honestly, in your heart, think that if you keep telling us you have "proven" something we will believe you? You know we can read past posts here, and see how completely and utterly all your assertions were destroyed? You do understand that you witing something and believing it is NOT the same as proving it to somebody else?
 
Robert Prey said:
Comment:
MOre baloney.EVerything you have posted has been thoroughly covered in previous posts and shown to be false. No Tippet Killer ID, No prints on rifle, no palm print except after one had been taken at the funeral home and backyard photos I have personally proved to be fake.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven anything.... you've alleged. two different things.


On that note, I'm bailing on this thread. I can get all the crazy I need from the truthers. I don't need to double or triple up on it.




P.S. for goodness sake please touch a woman soon Robert. It'll help, it really will.
 
Robert Prey said:
Baloney. All of it is fact. Also, the fact is I asked for witnesses who you claim do not agree with me, but we were discussing K's wounds.
Click to expand...

And what is the point of repeating the discussion? Go back and read all 99 pages of this thread. Witnesses have been described who saw LHO in the window. You dismissed them. Zapruder and other witnesses saw the shot (and support their claims with physical evidence), you dismiss them.
Witnesses at the autopsy disagree with your medical witnesses? You claim they are part of a whitewash, etc.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

"Doesn't matter who it was a witness for. The fact of the matter is you said it would take somebody vouching for the film to get it admitted into evidence, and that is exactly what happened in 1969. It was admitted into evidence and viewed by the jury. It is valid evidence you are trying to exclude simply because you don't like what it shows."

Comment:
And nobody objected, but they could have, but the prosecution believed the movie was in their favor, showing a shot from the right front. And it does show a shot from the right front. The wounds were not in dispute by the defense. Fact is, your contention that an eye-witness as the worst evidence still required an eye-witness to get the movie admitted. You denigrate the 50 plus eye-witnesses I submit as evidence, but place complete faith in one eyewitness who happened to be the shooter of the home movie -- a man too far away to see what the close-up witnesses saw; namely, -- blood, brains, hair and scalp shooting out from the back of K's head.
Click to expand...


No, the court system allowed that film into *EVIDENCE*, not I, Robert.You need to understand what evidence is, and what it is not. That film is acceptable evidence in a court of law. It was accepted in 1969. It would be accepted today.

And you allege it is altered, but you still draw conclusions from it above ("...it does show a shot from the right front..."). That is nonsense. You cannot claim the film is both phony and that you can draw conclusions from it. It's one or the other. Pick one.

You haven't shown the Z-film is altered in any way. When did you submit 50+ witnesses? It was originally 20+, then 30+, then 40+, and now 50+? You can make it an even million, and it would not prove the Z-film is altered. The z-film shows no damage to the back of the head.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

"I never said that Holland said anything about the back of the head."

Comment:
Yes you did. You said they claimed there was no damage to the back of the head. In fact, they didn't address the back of the head.
Click to expand...


Another straw argument by you. Apparently this is all you have left.

I never said anything about whether HOLLAND saw the back of the head. If you disagree, please quote me saying otherwise. Here is what I wrote about Holland (and what you continue to ignore):
HSienzant said:
Sam Holland and the seven men on the overpass dispute entirely the story as told by Ed Hoffman that you introduced here...
Click to expand...


I did say that NEWMAN and ZAPRUDER put the damage they saw on the side of the head, and contrary to your false assertions, they could see the back of the head, and never described any damage there:
HSienzant said:
Bill Newman saw a large wound in the temple and described no damage to the back of the head. Ditto with Abraham Zapruder. We've covered this all extensively. You were never able to disprove those first day accounts....
Click to expand...


What I said about Holland bears no resemblance to your claim above.

What I said about Newman and Zapruder is similar, but not identical to, your assertion above. You are apparently mis-reading it (or pretending to mis-read it). For further detail on Newman and Zapruder, see the link below, all of which you ignored and failed to rebut when I first posted it.

Robert, I know why you are introducing these bogus straw arguments. You cannot argue what I actually said, so in the interest of making it seem like you are rebutting my points, you pretend to misunderstand my points, and throw out nonsense like the above straw arguments.

See the below. Rebut this:

HSienzant said:
Neither? Zapruder failed to mention a blowout in the back of the head, as did Newman and many other witnesses on Elm Street that day.

If Zapruder was neither mistaken nor lying, please explain why he said the large blowout he saw (the only blowout he saw) was on the right side of the head.

Ditto with Newman.

Neither man mentioned a blowout in the back of the head.

Here's what Zapruder saw as he looked through his viewfinder. Please point out the large blowout in the back of the head in this loop:
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo103/bmjfk63/spatteronJackiesface-1.gif

Here's where Zapruder said he saw the large blowout:
http://simfootball.net/JFK/Zapruder.jpg

As he held his hand to his head to explain where he saw the damage as you see in the frame capture above, he said "...then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say if it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up," (motions with his hand away from his head to mimic an explosion outward from the right side of the head) "all blood and everything and I kept on shooting [my camera]. That's about all. I'm just sick."

You can see him here, starting about 1:06 into this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpicOfFajNE

Pretty much looks like Zapruder is an accurate witness on this point about where the damage to the head was. Right side of the head, no damage to the back of the head.
"Neither" as an answer doesn't cut it. Because he didn't describe anything that could be interpreted as anything except a large exit wound on the right side of the head.

So was he lying or mistaken, Robert?

Please advise. Thanks a bunch.

Hank
Click to expand...

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
No, the court system allowed that film into *EVIDENCE*, not I, Robert.You need to understand what evidence is, and what it is not. That film is acceptable evidence in a court of law. It was accepted in 1969. It would be accepted today.

And you allege it is altered, but you still draw conclusions from it above ("...it does show a shot from the right front..."). That is nonsense. You cannot claim the film is both phony and that you can draw conclusions from it. It's one or the other. Pick one.

You haven't shown the Z-film is altered in any way. When did you submit 50+ witnesses? It was originally 20+, then 30+, then 40+, and now 50+? You can make it an even million, and it would not prove the Z-film is altered. The z-film shows no damage to the back of the head.

Hank
Click to expand...

Yeah, the film was altered, But they could hardly alter everything. The shot hits the right temple and sends him reeling backwards. That much is enough to conclude a shot from the front. Now the wounds, the blood-tissue spray, the missing brains, etc., that's a different story.
 
Tomtomkent said:
And what is the point of repeating the discussion? Go back and read all 99 pages of this thread. Witnesses have been described who saw LHO in the window. You dismissed them. Zapruder and other witnesses saw the shot (and support their claims with physical evidence), you dismiss them.
Click to expand...

I do not dismiss them. I debunk them because they are all bunk. Nobody saw LHO in the window.Nobody has even been able to place him on the 6th floor. Zabpruder was too far away and too busy filming to really "see" everything. And that still avoids the issue -- the wounds. What witness disagrees?????
 
TomTom wrote:

The issues you claim to have "debunked" have been covered at length. Your dishonesty about the "Palm Print being taken at the funeral home" alone has been proven false to such a degree it must take an amazing feat of self delusion for you to think we will ever accept your assertion.

There is simply no way on earth a LATENT print in magnezium powder could be taken from a body. You even posted a description of how to take an ink print for identification, and have never been able to reconcile the fact these are two entirely different things."

Comment:

The Funeral director said his palms and his fingers were covered with ink. That's how the print was taken.
 
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, the film was altered, But they could hardly alter everything. The shot hits the right temple and sends him reeling backwards. That much is enough to conclude a shot from the front. Now the wounds, the blood-tissue spray, the missing brains, etc., that's a different story.
Click to expand...

If you're wondering why you're holding your ass in your hands, it's because it's been handed to you so many times.
 
Tom Tom wrote:

Your outright lie about proving the backyard photos fake is laughable. Please explain how standing in an entirely different pose and holding the rifle analogue in a different vector proves the photo fake Robert? At best you could prove that shadows MAY form differently."

Comment:

The pose was almost exact and verified by the angle of the shadow of the two persons -- almost exact, the but rifle as versus the stick -- very different.
 
Robert Prey said:
TomTom wrote:

The issues you claim to have "debunked" have been covered at length. Your dishonesty about the "Palm Print being taken at the funeral home" alone has been proven false to such a degree it must take an amazing feat of self delusion for you to think we will ever accept your assertion.

There is simply no way on earth a LATENT print in magnezium powder could be taken from a body. You even posted a description of how to take an ink print for identification, and have never been able to reconcile the fact these are two entirely different things."

Comment:

The Funeral director said his palms and his fingers were covered with ink. That's how the print was taken.
Click to expand...

And yet the prints we are discussing are still formed from magnezium powder.

You do know the difference between a silver grey powder and ink?
 
Tom Tom wrote:

"Even worse, you have FAILED utterly to show me, despite many attempts, to provide the evidence that would, beyond any doubt whatsoever prove your assetion correct. You have FAILED to show me where the marks and seams in the emulsion of the photograph, or disjoint in the image are, that would prove ampering to the photo or negative. Why have you not been able to do that Robert?"

Comment:
It was not necessary to show any of that, the medical evidence being the Best Evidence. But stay tuned for more evidence of Z film forgery.
 
TomTom wrote:

"Why have you yet to even explain WHY the photo would have to be tamoered when you conceded that there were OTHER GENUINE PHOTOS OF LHO HOLDING THE SAME WEAPONS? Why in the name of dixie would people smart enough to produce a tampered photo with no visible artefacts of tampering on, not just use one of the other photos that already existed?"

Comment:
I've never claimed any of that -- never claimed there were any genuine photos.
 
TomTomwrote:

"The lunacy of your claims is now beyond pathetic. Do you honestly, in your heart, think that if you keep telling us you have "proven" something we will believe you? You know we can read past posts here, and see how completely and utterly all your assertions were destroyed? You do understand that you witing something and believing it is NOT the same as proving it to somebody else?"

Comment:
My assertions were never destroyed. A totally brain washed Lone Nutter will never see or agree to anything that exposes his naivete to 50 years of government brainwash.

Still waiting for witnesses that do not agree with my assertions regarding the head wounds. You don't cite a Parkland witness? Nor even a Bethesda witness??? I can understand why.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The pose was almost exact and verified by the angle of the shadow of the two persons -- almost exact, the but rifle as versus the stick -- very different.
Click to expand...

Almost exact? Except in one the object being held points TOWARDS the camera, and in the other it POINTS AWAY. You do realise that makes the possition of the rifle / stick OPPOSITE?

Hmmm.... I wonder if tht might alter the shadow.

Why yes. It does.

But wait! Let's assume you were right and got a different shadow. Would that "prove" the back yard photos faked?

NO!

We still have the shadows you claim to be impossible recreated twice. So all you would have proven was the possibility of more than one outcome, not that the alternative was impossible.

But feel free to pretend that holding the stick the opposite way to the rifle and twisting your body the wrong way, is somehow "almost exact" when any rational person would say "different". As verified by the POSE THE MODEL CAN BE SEEN TO HAVE ASSUMED BEING DIFFERENT.
 
Robert Prey said:
My assertions were never destroyed. A totally brain washed Lone Nutter will never see or agree to anything that exposes his naivete to 50 years of government brainwash.
Click to expand...

The fact none of your assertions have stood scrutiny, are unsupported by evidence and directly contradicted by the evidence denies this.

Oh, and by the way, I would ask how I was exposed to brainwash, but I honestly don't care. Im not American, Im under no influence from the American Government or their "brainwash". My opinions are formed by looking at the evidence and reading the piffle you supply in lieu of evidence.

Each and every one of your claims is consistantly rebutted, by evidence. You claim over and again that films are altered, photos forged, that there were no prints on items. Consistantly the evidence is shown to be against you.

You can claim your assetions were not destroyed. They were. Repeatedly. All those times your quotes were shown to be out of context, or to have an entirely different meaning to the ones you try to place on them, or it is simply pointed out that your failure to understand the autopsy is not enough for it to be ambiguous, that is your assertion being destroyed.

For the love of Bod man, you even claimed that the written word could never be fraudulant, despite the EXISTANCE OF FICTION SINCE TIME IMMERMORIAL.
 
Robert Prey said:
The Palm Print was taken in INK and sent to the FBI in INK on a 3 x 5 card.
Click to expand...

ANd yet the print lifted from the rifle is, and always was, a latent print in the form of magnezium powder. You can claim differently all you like Robert, but we have a photographic record of the prints taken, and the FBI has the prints themselves.
 
Robert, do you understand the difference between the prints you take from a person for comparison, by means of ink, and LATENT prints lifted by a medium such as fingerprint dust?

Do you have any PHYSICAL evidence the prints the FBI produced for examination, those produced by Lt Day, etc were forged?

Do you have ANY physical evidence for any assertion?

No.

Ergo, you assertions are destroyed. Again. Bravo!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom