JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Regnad Kcin]

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."

Salami. You got nothin'. But it's a case study in critical thinking to watch you make mistake after mistake in futile attempts to prove otherwise.

LHO. Alone. It was true 50 years ago, it's true today, and it'll be true forever.

 

[Southwind17]

Calculations are useless unless you account for all the variables such as type of weapon, distance, type of bullet, angle of entry, etc., etc,.

Then account for them. You sure seem to claim to know the data for all of the variables that you've listed above!

Just wondering when we might expect to see the calculation posted, Robert. Or is that too much like hard work? I guess we'll just have to rely on 'common sense', by which I mean the common view, i.e. the view held most commonly. Is that what you mean by 'common sense', or do you mean 'Robert sense'?!

 

[BazBear]

Extensive, coherent narrative in "The Final Nail" reprinted for those who "claim" they have already read the entire thread, but simply cannot recollect.

That's not a coherent narrative.

It's a hodgepodge of JFK conspiracy nonsense, combined with a few cherry picked and/or misrepresented bits of fact, thrown together into a couple of posts.

In other words, the same old song and dance you JFK CT believers have been peddling for decades...and just as (in)credible as it was when I read it the first time thru.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Salami. You got nothin'. But it's a case study in critical thinking to watch you make mistake after mistake in futile attempts to prove otherwise.

LHO. Alone. It was true 50 years ago, it's true today, and it'll be true forever.

For 102 pages all I and other posters have asked for, all we have needed for Robert to convince us is what I know as Material evidence, but he has a different use of the term, so I will call it physical evidence. Heck, some people would call it substantial, materia, etc. What ever.

He has failed to provide any, and dismissed any provided as fake with out convincing anybody but himself it was fake. Now that to me suggests we are not the ones with ourheads anywhere but held high. We have stated what is required to alter our opinion, Robert can not match it and refuses to contemplate that we should hold any opinion but our own.

This is true of every issue that has been raised. I told him what evidence would prove to me a picture or film was faked. He can not supply it. A man holding a stick a different way to oswald was not on the list of evidence that would immediately convince me, and it simply does not, by any viable standard, prove what robert claims.

His claims are directly disproven by two posters here having recreated "impossible" shadows.


Let Robert claim what he wants about us. It just shows he has an increasingly splendid view of his own sphincta.

 

[Robert Prey]

A man holding a stick a different way to oswald was not on the list of evidence that would immediately convince me, and it simply does not, by any viable standard, prove what robert claims.

Your claim is that the stick was tipped forward not consistent with the rifle. But the lower a stick is held, the lower, not the higher, the shadow -- the very opposite of what you have claimed. Your argument is not only false and contrary to the point you try to make, but abject silliness.

 

[Robert Prey]

That's not a coherent narrative.

It's a hodgepodge of JFK conspiracy nonsense, combined with a few cherry picked and/or misrepresented bits of fact, thrown together into a couple of posts.

In other words, the same old song and dance you JFK CT believers have been peddling for decades...and just as (in)credible as it was when I read it the first time thru.

"A hodgepodge of conspiracy nonsense" is a conclusion unsupported by any facts. And "misrepresented bits of fact"? Name one. This is the very kind of "argument" made by those who have no rational argument to make..

 

[Robert Prey]

Salami. You got nothin'. But it's a case study in critical thinking to watch you make mistake after mistake in futile attempts to prove otherwise.

Mistake after mistake??Name one.

 

[Robert Prey]

Salami. You got nothin'. But it's a case study in critical thinking to watch you make mistake after mistake in futile attempts to prove otherwise.

LHO. Alone. It was true 50 years ago, it's true today, and it'll be true forever.

Just like The Third Reich.

 

[Robert Prey]

Your source is Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment, P37.
Mark Lane is a conspiracy theorist, and his count is biased in that regard.

Another conspiracy theorist, Stewart Galanor, has his own count, and gets these numbers in his book, Cover-Up:

Not Asked: 32%
Grassy Knoll: 37%
Depository: 32%
Could Not Tell: 24%
TSBD & GK: 4%
Someplace Else: 3%

The HSCA in 1978, however, did an independent count of the witnesses, counted 178 witnesses, and categorized them this way:

Grassy Knoll : 11%
Depository: 27%
Unsure: 44%
Somewhere Else: 17%

While some of the witnesses we may wrangle with*, the HSCA count is the least biased in my opinion and the most thorough. Note the 'Somewhere Else' total is larger than the grassy knoll total.

Mark Lane's list is incomplete and clearly biased in favor of the Grassy Knoll (he was, after all, trying to sell a book).

Your point here is meaningless. Even one of your own witnesses (you brought up Lee Bowers a few weeks ago) admitted during his testimony he could not tell where the shots were coming from because of the reverberation.

Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

One more related point: The vast majority of witnesses (156 of 169 who reported a shot count, according to the HSCA) reported three shots or FEWER. That uniformity is hard to ignore. Unless your theory accounts for this by counting only three shots, the majority of the witnesses dispute your account.

Hank
_____________

* For example John McAdams - a 'lone-nutter' - counts James Crawford as a knoll witness because his impression of the first shot was it was a motorcycle backfire from down the hill, but Crawford started looking around, and by the third shot, starting looking up for the source of the sound. Just after the third shot, he caught a fleeting glimpse of movement in the sniper's nest window, and believed what he saw was a person moving away from that window. Still not certain he heard shots (as opposed to firecrackers, for example) he turned to his co-worker, Mary Ann Mitchell, and said, "If those were shots, they came from that window" (pointing at the sniper's nest window). I personally count Crawford as a TSBD witness because while his first impression was a backfire from 'down the hill', he concluded that was wrong during the shooting, and identified the Depository 6th floor window as the source of the shots within seconds of the final shot.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/crawford.htm

John McAdams list of witnesses and how he classifies them is here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

McAdams has once again led you down the path of his own crafted delusions. Quoting from the introduction to his shot(s) chart:

"Descriptions of the source of the shots have been assimiliated to "Knoll" or "Texas School Book Depository" where at all possible...'

But the question is not the source of the "shots" but the source of one particular shot -- the fatal one to the head. But McAdams mixes them all together. Very fallacious in that very few witnesses claim there were no shots from behind.

 

[Robert Prey]

I simply highlighted in the above the portions I wish to emphasize.

Here's the photo again I want you to compare the above to and tell me where you see discrepancies.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg

There is no dispute about the other areas of K's head that were damaged. But that is not an argument that negates every single doctor who cites a large blow-out in the back of the head -- the Occipital Lobe -- which for some reason you just don't want to see or hear.

 

[Robert Prey]

Even if they aren't the photos she took (though this is more likely explained by the faliability of memories) they are still photographs of JFK (as has been established beyond doubt) with head wounds that do not match the descriptions or drawings Robert relies on.

It is worth remembering he offered, or more than one occassion cropped and rotated versions of the autopsy photos as evidence, so he must consider them reliable himself. He has been shown unaltered versions and the series they come from and has not retracted his original claims (that have been written down on this forum and published so are beyond alteration anyway apparently).

More old ground:

"Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html

 

[Robert Prey]

Calling a man a physicist by education is not an ad hominem attack, Robert.

Hank

All of your attacks on White, Mantik, Lifton and Costella are ad hominems that attack the man without dealing with the evidence. I have offered a visual piece of evidence which neither you nor your 'expert" has addressed. Moreover, what is not seen in the film is also evidence -- the blow-out of blood, brains, scalp and hair described by witnesses behind K's head. A clear indication of forged, altered or more likely deleted frames.

 

[Robert Prey]

And I already listed them. Just tell me which ones you can prove to be liars, or assume they are known as single group: "those present at the autopsy". Proof supplied by you must be of both physical and documentary natures to stand.

Calling people "liars" does not address the evidence. You made the claim that autopsy doctors disagreed with my assertions which are the same as the Parkland personnel and most of the Bethesda personnel as well. You made the claim; you provide the evidence, if you can. If you can't, then why not say so?

 

[Robert Prey]

I'm not sure why you'd want to admit you have your head in the sand but at least you're finally being honest. Other appropriate pictures to describe you would be a hand caught in a cookie jar, someone with red hands, or....well actually I don't know if there is a visual representation of hypocrisy. But if there is one it could go there as well.


Anyone else not surprised that this "Final Nail" amounts to more speculation, no physical evidence and a bibliography?

A partial bibliography is provided leaving out perhaps 50 or so other sources. As to no 'physical" evidence, perhaps you could provide some yourself. I would suggest that the body has been buried. The autopsy pics have been forged by the declaration of those who took them, and the other "physical" evidence consists of statements of witnesses. So where is your physical evidence?

 

[jargon buster]

Calling people "liars" does not address the evidence.

Robert, you havent produced any evidence, you provided a tape that you claim was altered, that isnt evidence backing your grassy knoll shooter, its a claim that the tape was edited.
ITS YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS EDITED TO DISGUISE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A SECOND SHOOTER.

 

[Robert Prey]

I have read it. I recall nothing remotely resembling a narrative, coherent or not. Your mountain of "evidence" is actually a mountain of pure drivel.

The only question I have is why you seem so incapable of understanding that.

I call it a mountain of evidence and support that description point, by point, by point. You call pure drivel but are unable to cite anything.

 

[jargon buster]

You call pure drivel baloney but are unable to cite anything.

Pot/kettle/black

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, the autopsy is supported by physical and documentary evidence.

What you call "medical" evidence is unsupported claims and subjective memories.

All you have ever needed to do to gain any credence for your claims is to support them with physical and documentary evidence that we can objectively analyse and verify.

Untill you do this you will not convince us, and repeating your assertions over and again will earn a decreasing amount of credence.

Nothing you have supplied meets the objective criteria of evidence scepticism requires. That you consider it to be of the highest order is irrelevant. You are not meant to be convincing yourself.

 

[Robert Prey]

Does the same hold true for a film? How could a forger get away with forging a copy of a film, when the original exists?

From Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. Liebler: Now I understand that you, yourself, retained the original film?

Mr. Zapruder: No, I don't have that at all -- I don't have any at all. They were sold to Time and Life Magazines.

 

[Robert Prey]

Does the same hold true for a film? How could a forger get away with forging a copy of a film, when the original exists? Keep in mind that the first time any governement official came in contact with Abraham Zapruder was Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels about an hour after the assasination. The film wasn't processed until after 3pm, which was a good hour after Sorrels left Zapruder to go to the police station. Three copies were made at about 4pm and Zapruder had posession of them. He gave two copies to Sorrels later that day but kept the original himself. This was noted by the Secret Service. The next day the original was sent to Chicago so LIFE magazine could prepare prints. A copy of the film is sent to New York that same day.

In order to alter the film to disguise what really happened, a forger would have to first see the film. By the time anyone in the Secret Service saw the film, copies were already made and the original out of their hands (in fact, the original and one copy were never in their hands to begin with). A forger would also have to make sure his altered film did not conflict with any other films made that day, such as the Muchmore or Nix films. There were also a good 30+ people taking pictures, any one of which could easliy prove a forgery of the Zapruder film. Yet not one of these films or photos does so. They all are consistent with one another.

So when do you think the alteration was made, and to which copy? What does Logic 101 tell you?

Excerpts from an interview with Doug Horne of the AARB by Dick Russell in 'On the Trail of the JFK Assassins."

Re: the Z film:

"We asked Roland Zavada of Kodak, a retired film chemist and a self-taught home movie expert, to do a major authenticity study of the Zapruder film...My own conclusions today ...are in opposition to Zavada's: he thinks it is authentic and I do not. .. I just don't think his study is conclusive. All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas. Well, of course they are. Any conspirator who's going to change a movie and screw up that kind of stuff isn't worth two cents. But I don't think that's the end of the story, because we uncovered two crucial witnesses ( Morgan Bennett Hunter and Homer McMahon) from a CIA photo lab who cast serious doubt on the provenance of the film in the archives today.

...They said that (Secret Service) agent Bill Smith....brought what he represented to them as the original Zapruder film. He did not come from Dallas. He came from Rochester, NY where he said the film had been developed. And he used a code word for a classified film laboratory that the CIA had paid Kodak to set up and run in Rochester; their headquarters and main industrial facility.

The implictions of this are off-scale.This assertion by the Secret Service to two CIA film professionals that the original z film was developed in Rochester at a secret CIA sponsored facility, instead of in Dallas, run contrary to the paper trail that had traditionally been accepted as ground truth since 1967. We therefore now have an almost too good paper trail of typed and signed affidavits prepared by Abe Zapruder -- signed by all of the processing personel involved with the film on the day of the assassination -- which can no longer guarantee the authenticity of the film in the archives."

-- Doug Horne