JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

"we've already seen you admit that the Z-film, if admissible, would take precedence over eyewitness testimony."


Comment:
I've never wrote nor "admitted" any such thing. A retraction, please.

 

[Robert Prey]

How do you know they didn't alter the shot direction and change the direction he fell? You have only your opinion. You want to retain what you conclude from the Z-film while discarding everything that contradicts your conclusions. But it doesn't work that way.

You ignored my point entirely.

Either the film is legit or it is not. *IF* you can show it is not (and haven't even tried thus far), then you cannot use anything you see in the film to draw conclusions about anything. Because the film would not be admissible as evidence.

Now, show it is altered. Got any evidence of that? -- and don't tell me the witnesses... we've already seen you admit that the Z-film, if admissible, would take precedence over eyewitness testimony.

And remember, the Z-film was considered admissible in the Clay Shaw trial, and was admitted as valid evidence. You've produced nothing to overturn that ruling.

Hank

The evidence that the Z film was altered is revealed by what you can see and by what you can't see. What you can't see (the blowout of brains, blood, scalp and hair) in the back of the head can only be refuted by live witnesses who saw that event as described. But what can be proved by what you actuallyl see in the Z film is provable by anomalies that cannot be explained which are numerous in the Z film. One such anomaly is the spray of blood and tissue which begins at frame 313 and ends at frame 315. There is no spray to be seen at frame 316. Thus, the film running at 18.3 frames per second shows the blood spray at only one sixth of a second, then it magically disappears -- an unreal happening that the forgers did not take into account.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

What witnesses at the autopsy disagree with the medical witnesses???

 

[Robert Prey]

TomTom wrote:

Witnesses have been described who saw LHO in the window.

Comment: That is false. No witness could ID Oswald. In fact, no one can even place him on the 6th floor. Just a few minutes before the shots, Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor by Carolyn Arnald. But the parade was 5 minutes late. If Oswald intended to to shoot the President, it would be expected that he would be up there 15 minutes prior. But when the parade was supposed to pass the TSBD, Oswald wasn't even up there.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, that is correct. Now, explain why they both put the large wound they saw in the right side of the head and failed to mention any wound in the back of the head. We've already seen your bogus claim that they could not see the back of the head of JFK exposed as nonsense, so we know that's not why the failed to see any damage to the back of the head. We've also see the Moorman photo and the Z-film show no damage to the back of the head. You've alleged the Z-film is altered (mostly because you don't like what it shows, and no other reason) and suggested the Moorman photo could have been as well. But as we saw, the photo is a polaroid, and self-develops within a few minutes of being exposed. There is absolutely no way that photo was altered to conceal damage to the head of JFK. So you then retreated to claiming it was taken before the head shot, although almost everyone else on the planet (including most critics) concede it was taken about three Zapruder frames after the head shot.





Yes, you allege that now, but your original position on the Z-film a few months ago was that it wasn't altered, just too fuzzy to understand. You then went into the "I don't allege it is or allege it is not altered", only to land on the altered state when you found that it doesn't show what you need it to show. But you have failed to show how and when it was altered, and ignore entirely that the frames reproduced in LIFE magazine less than a week after the assassination show exactly the same thing as the Zapruder film that has always been in evidence. That means the alleged alterations of this film had to have been done in less than a week, and probably in less than a day since copies of the film were distributed over the weekend of the assassination to the FBI, and the Secret Service, LIFE magazine, and Abraham Zapruder retained a copy. It was his copy that was sold back to the National Archives less than a decade ago. It agrees with the Z-film frames reproduced in the Warren Commission volumes and seen in countless programs on television over the years. You ignore all that and just allege "alterations" without showing one ounce of proof or even attempting to explain how and when it was done.

Your entire argument has no basis in fact.

Hank

Another fusillade of baloney. I only address one question at a time.

 

[Robert Prey]

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!

I have the same type of evidence that you have -- statements of witnesses. Have you got the rifle in hand?? If not, you have no physical evidence. Sophomoric arguments, all.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

The written word may be true or untrue, but once committed to paper and published, cannot be altered. Common sense 101.

 

[jargon buster]

The written word may be true or untrue, but once committed to paper and published, cannot be altered. Common sense 101.

Is it written down anywhere (be it true or untrue) the identity of the shooter on the grassy knoll?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The written word may be true or untrue, but once committed to paper and published, cannot be altered. Common sense 101.

Wow.

Robert has never heard of books with differing editions. Or forgeries. Or redactions.

Even when he changes his statement he remains wrong.

 

[jargon buster]

Actually I believe Roberts statement is gramatically correct, it cant be altered, but it can certainly be amended.

 

[HSienzant]

ONe question at a time. We can only know that when LhO said he was just a Patsy he believed he was just a Patsy. As to when prior to that announcement he realized he was just a Patsy is mindless speculation

Remember you initially wrote that he hadn't realized it yet.

If Oswald had lived, he would have soon been aware that his associates with the CIA, the Mafia and the FBI were not his friends, and he would have had additional information to prove his innocence.

I am trying to understand why you wrote what you wrote. You asked me what didn't I understand, I told you, and I am still waiting for an explanation. Why did you write that "if he had lived he would have soon been aware" that he was being framed, and "would have had additional info to prove his innocence"?

If, on the other hand, you think he realized that he was being framed prior to his death, it is incumbent upon you to explain why he hadn't started providing that additional info that would prove his innocence, as you initially proclaimed he would once he realized his associates were framing him. Instead of talking about a conspiracy to frame him, Oswald told provable lies in custody. A curious reaction by someone who believed he was being framed -- make yourself look more guilty by lying. However, that is certainly an understandable reaction by a guilty man.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Another fusillade of baloney. I only address one question at a time.

Translation: Robert doesn't have a clue.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The evidence that the Z film was altered is revealed by what you can see and by what you can't see. What you can't see (the blowout of brains, blood, scalp and hair) in the back of the head can only be refuted by live witnesses who saw that event as described. But what can be proved by what you actuallyl see in the Z film is provable by anomalies that cannot be explained which are numerous in the Z film. One such anomaly is the spray of blood and tissue which begins at frame 313 and ends at frame 315. There is no spray to be seen at frame 316. Thus, the film running at 18.3 frames per second shows the blood spray at only one sixth of a second, then it magically disappears -- an unreal happening that the forgers did not take into account.

No, Robert, you are ignoring the point entirely. You don't get to pick and choose out of the z-film what little bits you like. If the z-film is altered, it is inadmissable as evidence. All of it. Your conclusions of what you see are meaningless if the film is altered evidence, as you don't know what was altered and what was not.

But, of course, the z-film isn't altered, that is mere pretense on your part that you've proven that, and the film shows no damage to the back of the head - consistent with the witnesses in Dealey Plaza like Bill Newman and Abraham Zapruder, and consistent with the autopsy doctors at the autopsy, and consistent with the autopsy photos and autopsy x-rays. Those were verified as legitimate by the HSCA medical panel, by the way.

You have no legitimate evidence, so you must pretend witnesses take priority over the films, photos and x-rays. But they do not.

You already admitted they do not.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

What witnesses at the autopsy disagree with the medical witnesses???

Your problem is that no witness at the autopsy seems to have disagreed with "the" medicalwitnesses. They heartily agreed JFK was shot from behind. I even asked to identify who lied in the autopsy, and you failed to name anybody.

They do however disagree with the witnesses you rely on. Medical staff who did not lift JFKshead to inspect the wounds you claim MUST have been there. That the autopsy, andmay other descriptions by medical personnel are misinterpreted by you has been addressed ad nauseum.

Your only claim to validity of the autopsy is that a photographer can not remembertaking thephotographs. That it is beyond doubt the photos show JFK, and that you can not prove they have been altered, and that you posted those same photos yourself as evidence suggess he is wrong.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"we've already seen you admit that the Z-film, if admissible, would take precedence over eyewitness testimony."


Comment:
I've never wrote nor "admitted" any such thing. A retraction, please.

Oh, you absolutely have admitted that. You wrote, less than a week ago,

IN a court of law, in order for a photograph or a motion picture video to be admitted as evidence, there must first be an eyewitness or witnesses who supports the claim that the photo or movie accurately portrays what it claims to portray. Thus, you need an eyewitnesses in order to lay a foundation for a photo or a movie which you claim is superior evidence to an eyewitness...

You really need to get those flip-flops you suffer from checked into. At this point I am suspecting a neurological condition.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

TomTom wrote:

Witnesses have been described who saw LHO in the window.

Comment: That is false. No witness could ID Oswald. In fact, no one can even place him on the 6th floor. Just a few minutes before the shots, Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor by Carolyn Arnald. But the parade was 5 minutes late. If Oswald intended to to shoot the President, it would be expected that he would be up there 15 minutes prior. But when the parade was supposed to pass the TSBD, Oswald wasn't even up there.

Carolyn Arnold did not mention Arnold in her earliest statements on the subject.

Her first statement says she saw Oswald on the first floor:

”As she was standing in front of the building she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor.” [CD5, p.41]

Her second statement does not mention seeing Oswald at any time. She was specifically asked about seeing Oswald at the time of the shooting, but it appears she did not volunteer she saw him at any time:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0333a.htm

Finally, in 1978, she claimed to the Dallas Morning News that she saw Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR. She gave two different times for this "vision", 12:15 and 12:25.

Years after the fact, she "remembered better". We've already seen how you got yourself into a corner accepting the years later recollections of Marina concerning the photos, do you really want us to believe Arnold's memory improved after 15 years?

Her earliest statements do not put Oswald anywhere at 12:25. Her earliest statements either don't mention Oswald, or say she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of him on the first floor. Quite frankly, she has been all over the map on this. Of course, you cite her last statement, the one least likely to be accurate, as it is the furthest removed from the day of the crime.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert repeatedly says there were not witnesses who saw LHO at the TSBD. Must come as a shock to the nice African American gent who gave repeated and consistant statements about how saw LHO at the window of the snipers nest, at the time right up to a recent National Geographic show.

Where his statements were coroborated by filmed evidence.

Robert not accepting or not being aware of something does not negate its existence. (Just ask anybody who learned the rules of inertia at school,or differentiates between chains of custody and chains of evidence).

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh, you absolutely have admitted that. You wrote, less than a week ago,



You really need to get those flip-flops you suffer from checked into. At this point I am suspecting a neurological condition.

Hank

Your mis-quotes are getting ridiculous. It is you who made the "claim," not me.

"Thus, you need an eyewitnesses in order to lay a foundation for a photo or a movie which you claim is superior evidence to an eyewitness..."

 

[Robert Prey]

Your problem is that no witness at the autopsy seems to have disagreed with "the" medicalwitnesses. They heartily agreed JFK was shot from behind. I even asked to identify who lied in the autopsy, and you failed to name anybody.

They do however disagree with the witnesses you rely on. Medical staff who did not lift JFKshead to inspect the wounds you claim MUST have been there. That the autopsy, andmay other descriptions by medical personnel are misinterpreted by you has been addressed ad nauseum.

Your only claim to validity of the autopsy is that a photographer can not remembertaking thephotographs. That it is beyond doubt the photos show JFK, and that you can not prove they have been altered, and that you posted those same photos yourself as evidence suggess he is wrong.

A statement that K was shot from the back is not a fact, but a conclusion. As to facts, what autopsy person disagrees with the Parkland docs. Name the person and provide the quote.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert, you are ignoring the point entirely. You don't get to pick and choose out of the z-film what little bits you like. If the z-film is altered, it is inadmissable as evidence. All of it. Your conclusions of what you see are meaningless if the film is altered evidence, as you don't know what was altered and what was not.

But, of course, the z-film isn't altered, that is mere pretense on your part that you've proven that, and the film shows no damage to the back of the head - consistent with the witnesses in Dealey Plaza like Bill Newman and Abraham Zapruder, and consistent with the autopsy doctors at the autopsy, and consistent with the autopsy photos and autopsy x-rays. Those were verified as legitimate by the HSCA medical panel, by the way.

You have no legitimate evidence, so you must pretend witnesses take priority over the films, photos and x-rays. But they do not.

You already admitted they do not.

Hank

You asked for specifics and I gave you one. Now you choose to ignore the answer and the evidence therein.