JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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



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

Oh, how ridiculous. He tried to proclaim it to the world in the short time he
he was paraded before the media.


(From memory)

"I don't know what these people have told you, but I didn't shoot anybody. I do ask for some legal assistance....

I'm just a Patsy!!!!!"​

What else could he have possibly done or said before being hustled away??????

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Yes. But all anyone can say is the suspicion is reasonable based on the source or sources involved.

 

[HSienzant]

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..."

You told us how to get the film admitted immiediately before that.

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..

Clearly, once the film is admitted into evidence, it is certainly a better witness for the jurors than anything any witness says, as it doesn't forget, it doesn't garble stuff, it's recollection of the event isn't affected by what it hears later, etc...

If you don't understand that a film is better than an eyewitness, you are bound to be stuck in conspiracy-ville forever.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

You told us how to get the film admitted immiediately before that.



Clearly, once the film is admitted into evidence, it is certainly a better witness for the jurors than anything any witness says, as it doesn't forget, it doesn't garble stuff, it's recollection of the event isn't affected by what it hears later, etc...

If you don't understand that a film is better than an eyewitness, you are bound to be stuck in conspiracy-ville forever.

Hank

That is more nonsense. Just because a film is admitted doesn't mean what it alleges to show is true, nor does it mean the film is free from alteration.

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, how ridiculous. He tried to proclaim it to the world in the short time he was paraded before the media.

(From memory)

"I don't know what these people have told you, but I didn't shoot anybody. I do ask for some legal assistance....

I'm just a Patsy!!!!!"

What else could he have possibly done or said before being hustled away??????

lol.

I'm asking about what you wrote, not about what he said.
You haven't explained it yet.

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.

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, as you are apparently conceding now, he already realized all that while he was still alive?

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.

When do intend to start explaining your claims?

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]

That is more nonsense. Just because a film is admitted doesn't mean what it alleges to show is true, nor does it mean the film is free from alteration.

Please try to understand the law. You got it right the first time.

More in the following post.

 

[HSienzant]

That is more nonsense. Just because a film is admitted doesn't mean what it alleges to show is true, nor does it mean the film is free from alteration.

Please try to understand the law. You got it right the first time.

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...

Did you not read what you yourself wrote?

Now you are serial flip-flopping again, claiming it doesn't need to be accurate in what it portrays to be admitted, and can, in fact, be a complete fabrication. Let me ask you, if the film is a fabrication, why would it be admitted? It clearly wouldn't have any evidentiary value (a recreation is another story, and said recreation can be admitted as having evidentiary value to help explain either the prosecution or the defendant's side of the story). But that does not apply here. This is not alleged to be a recreation. This is an actual film from the assassination itself. If you want to allege it is altered to keep it out of evidence, you need to prove it is altered. Unless and until you do, it alone overrules the eyewitnesses in Parkland that you are fond of misquoting or mis-interpreting (like Pepper Jenkins, who put the wound on the right side of the head).

The whole point of an eyewitness testifying as to its accuracy (and the cameraman himself is in the best position to do so) is to establish this is an actual film of the event, and it portrays the scene as the cameraman saw it. This then allows the jury to see the event through the camera lens itself. Zapruder testified that it was accurate. It was admitted. It was therefore recognized by the court as not a fabrication. I think you want to appeal to a higher court to get this thrown out, but I guarantee you won't be appealing to the court of reason.


You really need to stop and think about your own points before you post and embarass yourself further.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow.

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

Even when he changes his statement he remains wrong.

A forger cannot get away with forging or altering a statement when the original exists. Logic 101.

 

[Robert Prey]

Please try to understand the law. You got it right the first time.



Did you not read what you yourself wrote?

Now you are serial flip-flopping again, claiming it doesn't need to be accurate in what it portrays to be admitted, and can, in fact, be a complete fabrication. Let me ask you, if the film is a fabrication, why would it be admitted? It clearly wouldn't have any evidentiary value (a recreation is another story, and said recreation can be admitted as having evidentiary value to help explain either the prosecution or the defendant's side of the story). But that does not apply here. This is not alleged to be a recreation. This is a actual film from the assassination itself. If you want to allege it is altered to keep it out of evidence, you need to prove it is altered. Unless and until you do, it alone overrules the eyewitnesses in Parkland that you are fond of misquoting or mis-interpreting (like Pepper Jenkins, who put the wound on the right side of the head).

You really need to stop and think about your own points before you post and embarass yourself further.

Hank

Admitting a film is one thing. Proving its veracity is another. Obviously. The standard for admitting a film is very much less than the standard for proving its veracity.

 

[HSienzant]

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

No, Robert, what I asked for was evidence of alteration. It is not what you cited, which is only your opinion. You are not a qualified person to determine anything was altered in that film. Your points are meaningless. Cite some expert like Zavada who will say the film is altered. Until you do, you have not complied with my request. I did not ask for your opinion. I asked for evidence.

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

 

[HSienzant]

No, Robert, what I asked for was evidence of alteration. It is not what you cited, which is only your opinion. You are not a qualified person to determine anything was altered in that film. Your points are meaningless. Cite some expert like Zavada who will say the film is altered. Until you do, you have not complied with my request. I did not ask for your opinion. I asked for evidence.

I referenced Roland Zavada but should also have cited his report.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm

Zavada is an expert on 8mm film and says the film is definitively not altered in any fashion. Against this, Robert will put who? His own opinion about what he thinks he sees and what he thinks was altered in the film.

But he cannot cite anyone with credentials to claim the film shows evidence of alteration. Because it doesn't.

Zavada was Kodak's own internal 8mm film expert.
http://www.jfk-info.com/zbio.pdf

Hank

 

[BazBear]

That is more nonsense. Just because a film is admitted doesn't mean what it alleges to show is true, nor does it mean the film is free from alteration.

You've shown us no credible evidence that the film was altered. None. You've shown us no credible evidence for any claim you've made in this thread. None.

You don't like what the real evidence shows, so you hand wave it away; yet you appear to latch on to any specious argument or "evidence" you can find, things that have virtually all been debunked long ago.

You're arguments are not even internally consistent regarding your "theory". That is if you had a theory, other than you don't believe LHO was JFK's lone killer.

Tell us what you believe happened, who, how, what and why, in a coherent narrative. Then give us some credible evidence for it. I'm very very certain you can't; in any case, until you do, why should anyone believe you?

 

[Robert Prey]

You've shown us no credible evidence that the film was altered. None. You've shown us no credible evidence for any claim you've made in this thread. None.

You don't like what the real evidence shows, so you hand wave it away; yet you appear to latch on to any specious argument or "evidence" you can find, things that have virtually all been debunked long ago.

You're arguments are not even internally consistent regarding your "theory". That is if you had a theory, other than you don't believe LHO was JFK's lone killer.

Tell us what you believe happened, who, how, what and why, in a coherent narrative. Then give us some credible evidence for it. I'm very very certain you can't; in any case, until you do, why should anyone believe you?

Baloney. You are obviously a late comer to the thread. I have already provided a mountain of evidence as well as a coherent narrative. Your only hope of not having to read over a hundred pages of evidence is to ask a specific question.
"When the student is ready, the teacher appears."

 

[Robert Prey]

I referenced Roland Zavada but should also have cited his report.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm

Zavada is an expert on 8mm film and says the film is definitively not altered in any fashion. Against this, Robert will put who? His own opinion about what he thinks he sees and what he thinks was altered in the film.

But he cannot cite anyone with credentials to claim the film shows evidence of alteration. Because it doesn't.

Zavada was Kodak's own internal 8mm film expert.
http://www.jfk-info.com/zbio.pdf

Hank

Oh, we could trade "experts". I could cite Mantik, Lifton, Whte, Costella, et al. But I believe it to be far more productive to simply use common sense and our own powers of observation. I gave you one of many examples of an anomaly in the film. You choose to ignore it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Why would i name individuals? You wont. I asked many times for you to list those involved in the autopsy who lied. You wouldn't.

Ergo all those involved in the autopsy must disagree with your claims. They compiled and. Validated documentary evidence that conflicts with the statements YOU rely on.

The wounds differ from those the Parkland doctors misremember. They are supported by a photographic evidence and testemony to the WC. Oh, and unlike the Parkland Doctors they lifted JFKs head, and were able to see if it was still there. It was, with a small entry wound behind the ear.


That all disagrees with the claims you support.

By being supported by physical evidence, and based upon pathological measurements they are FACTS. But feel free to downgrade your own assertions to "opinion". Based on the word of trauma surgeons, not pathologists, unable to carry out an autopsy.

Oh, and by they way, because a human body obeys the laws of physics, and the trauma path of the wounds can be established from the autopsy i think we can safely considerthe shot coming behind as a fact, given the entry wound was from behind and the exit consistant with a shot from behind. Unless you are able to rewrite the laws of inertia? Was Isaac Newton wrong Robert, but every high school physics tutor since the Enlightenment in on the. Conspiracy so this one shooter could be from the front?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Robert, you have been supplied an eyewitness (me) who actually observed LHO shoot JFK. Why do you still pretend to believe in this conspiracy crap?

 

[Tomtomkent]

A forger cannot get away with forging or altering a statement when the original exists. Logic 101.

You are travelling ever further from your original point Robert.

The written word can be forges hoaxes and lies. You claimed it was not so, andwritten statements are more reliable than photographic evidence, which could be forged.

But lets assume you are right. You have argued that at least one witness lied to the WC. His original statement can not, by your logic be false, it is the truth and no later redaction or change of heart can stand.

Even your new statements are a change on the stundie worthy statement made previously in this thread, and they apparently can not stand while we can all read your original post.

Apparently the written word is only sacred when it suits you.

Of course to alter a film or photograph you would need the original negatives. Hmmm.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Baloney. You are obviously a late comer to the thread. I have already provided a mountain of evidence as well as a coherent narrative. Your only hope of not having to read over a hundred pages of evidence is to ask a specific question.
"When the student is ready, the teacher appears."

When will you be ready?

 

[HSienzant]

Baloney. You are obviously a late comer to the thread. I have already provided a mountain of evidence as well as a coherent narrative. Your only hope of not having to read over a hundred pages of evidence is to ask a specific question.
"When the student is ready, the teacher appears."

That coherent narrative appears where, Robert?

Remember the key word is coherent. It's not simply a listing of a bunch of people you believe to be conspirators. You've thrown such a list out more than once (and it has varied each time).

Cite this coherent narrative for us, or provide it now.

I'll be willing to bet you do neither.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, we could trade "experts". I could cite Mantik, Lifton, Whte, Costella, et al. But I believe it to be far more productive to simply use common sense and our own powers of observation. I gave you one of many examples of an anomaly in the film. You choose to ignore it.

None of the above are 8mm film or camera experts.

Mantik is a x-ray technician. He has no training in photography or film (other than x-ray film).

Lifton was trained in physics. He has no training in photography or film.

White is just a regular guy who spends his time looking at photos and imagines all sorts of things therein. He has no training in photography or film. He has a history of misinterpreting photos. I couldn't think of a worse guy to cite as an photographic expert, unless it was Robert Groden. Lately Jack White was been finding fault with the moon landing photos of 1969.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#JWHITE
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm

Costella has a degree in physics. He has no training in photography or film.
Here's someone (Craig Lamson) who disagrees with Costella, and has training in photography:
http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
http://www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

That's why you'd prefer not to trade expert opinions. Because you don't have one legitimate film expert who studied the Zapruder film who declared it a forgery.

You gave me many examples of what your opinion was, none of them are proven to be anything anomalous.

You seem to be under the impression that if you declare something an anomaly with no evidence other than your opinion, we have to rebut that.

No, you need to prove it is an anomaly. Your opinion is not proof.

Hank