JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[RoboTimbo]

You are the only photo expert in the world. There is no other. We all know that because you have said so.

Posting lies like this means you are now in full retreat mode. Obviously. Since you have no arguments, running away is probably a wise move on your part.

 

[HSienzant]

Connoley's separate bullet assertion takes the magic out of the magic bullet.

Wow, Robert. I'm really impressed. Yes, you can argue yourself in a circle and get yourself dizzy in the process. And throw out non-sequitors with the best of them. But circular reasoning isn't the most impressive of talents.

Asked about Connally, you talk about Tague.
Asked about Tague, you talk about Connally.

The only magic bullet here is the one you keep dodging.

You really have no argument, do you? Or at least, none you can logically advance?

PS: You already admitted there was no separate bullet assertion, remember you modified your calim to "He heard a first shot, then he was hit, then came a 3rd shot." If you are trying to say JFK was hit by the first shot, Connally by the second, you cannot support that with Connally's statements. He was facing forward at the time of the shooting, and never saw the president. He was quite clear about that in both his testimony to the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

(more below)

... Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.

Another conspiracy myth you repeat here. Connally said he was hit by the second bullet. He had no way of knowing what happened with the first bullet, as he was facing forward at the time of the first shot. He said he was basing his *conclusion* that JFK was hit by the first shot on what his wife Nellie said, but he also was careful to point out that he couldn't speak to that of anything he personally saw.

NO. That piece of misinformation is refuted in the Governors' own words. He heard a first shot, then he was hit, then came a 3rd shot. We know of at least one more shot making 4 and conspiracy...

The Governor heard three shots, correct? The part I boldfaced is exactly what I am claiming. There's nothing in there that says JFK was hit by the first shot. I note you originally said the Governor's own words meant conspiracy. You are changing your story - and moving the goalposts. Another logical fallacy by you.

"We" don't know about a fourth shot. "We" know that the vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza who spoke of the number of shots reported hearing only three shots. You do think that witnesses are good sources of evidence, don't you -- what's that, only if they agree with you?

If you don't know about the 4th missed shot, you have missed something in your reading of your alleged 500 books on the assassination.

I know I haven't seen anything beyond allegations of a fourth shot. No evidence of a fourth shot to date.

Will you be posting that evidence anytime soon?

You originally said the Governor's testimony proved conspiracy because he said he was hit by a separate shot than hit JFK. I corrected that; you admitted the correction, but changed the subject away from Connally's testimony to 'evidence of a fourth shot'. But you have yet to introduce any into the record.
Hank

James "Jim" Thomas Tague (born October 17, 1936, Plainfield, Indiana) was a witness to the assassination....

...How is James Tague's wound evidence of a 4th shot? I'm counting one head shot, one "magic bullet" shot, one Tague shot. 1, 2, 3. I can count to three, can you?

Connoley's separate bullet assertion takes the magic out of the magic bullet.

Let's all contemplate that last response a bit.
You were asked: "How is Jame Tague's wound evidence of a fourth shot?"
You responded: "Connoley's [sic] separate bullet assertion takes the magic out of the magic bullet."

Yowza! There is no logical connective tissue between the question you were asked and your answer.
None whatsoever.

Care to explain your logic on that one? And provide some evidence to support it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You are the only photo expert in the world. There is no other. We all know that because you have said so.

Psst, Robert.

Just between you and me - when you have to lie to make a point, you're not making the point you think you're making.

Everyone here -- including you -- knows Jay Utah said no such thing, and you have really sunk to a new low in trying to defend your claims of photo alteration.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I am curious as to how Connoley could possibly know if he was hit by the same bullet as JFK.

Connally said no such thing either way. He said he heard a shot, then he was hit with the second shot (which he never heard), and then there was a third shot that scattered brain and blood all over the car.

It was his wife, Nellie Connally, who said she saw JFK get hit by the first shot, then her husband was hit, then the shot hit JFK in the head.

But she wasn't facing backward to look at JFK until after JFK started to react to the wound (the same one Connally is reacting to in the Z224 range).

So Robert can't use Nellie to support the claim of separate bullets hitting both men and causing their non-fatal wounds either, because it's clear she didn't look at JFK until after both men were already shot. That means she looked first at JFK and saw he was wounded, then at her husband, and saw he was wounded, and assumed they were wounded in that order by separate bullets. It was her best reconstruction of the event that happened quite quickly.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...Robert, re. the part I've emboldened, how would you describe the thoroughness of the investigation and analysis, and the qualifications of the investigator(s) and analyst(s) that led Walthers and Tague to draw the conclusion that they did? How many other instances of bullets taking chips out of curbs do you suspect Walthers and Tague paid reference to in concluding that that must be the actual scenario witnessed?!

Robert, you are SO gullible!

The Warren Commission concluded James Tague was struck during the shooting.

Some evidence suggested that a third shot may have entirely missed and hit the turf or street by the Triple Underpass. ... At a different location in Dealey Plaza, the evidence indicated that a bullet fragment did hit the street. James T. Tague, who got out of his car to watch the motorcade from a position between Commerce and Main Streets near the Triple Underpass, was hit on the cheek by an object during the shooting. Within a few minutes Tague reported this to Deputy Sheriff Eddy R. Walthers, who was examining the area to see if any bullets had struck the turf. Walthers immediately started to search where Tague had been standing and located a place on the south curb of Main Street where it appeared a bullet had hit the cement. According to Tague, "There was a mark quite obviously . that was a bullet, and it was very fresh." In Tague's opinion, it was the second shot which caused the mark, since he thinks he heard the third shot after he was hit in the face. This incident appears to have been recorded in the contemporaneous report of Dallas Patrolman L. L. Hill, who radioed in around 12:40 p.m.: "I have one guy that was possibly hit by a richochet from the bullet off the concrete." Scientific examination of the mark on the south curb of Main Street by FBI experts disclosed metal smears which, "were spectrographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony." The mark on the curb could have originated from the lead core of a bullet but the absence of copper precluded "the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher."

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page116.php


The bullets used by Oswald had a lead core (with a trace of antimony) and a copper coating. But no copper was found on the curb mark.

Ergo, most likely what struck Tague was a piece of the lead core of the bullet that struck JFK in the head and fragmented. If you line up Tague, the curb, the limo at the time of the head shot, and the window, it is almost a straight line that connects all four.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Warren Commission concluded James Tague was struck during the shooting.

[/I]

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page116.php


The bullets used by Oswald had a lead core (with a trace of antimony) and a copper coating. But no copper was found on the curb mark.

Ergo, most likely what struck Tague was a piece of the lead core of the bullet that struck JFK in the head and fragmented. If you line up Tague, the curb, the limo at the time of the head shot, and the window, it is almost a straight line that connects all four.

According to Tague, it was a missed bullet that went over the Limo and when Harold Weisberg, former Senate investigator asked to see the spectographic analysis, the FBI said it had been destroyed to save space (1/32nd of an inch of space). See the Men who Killed Kennedy, Episode One.
And when you see those phony WC drawings of the alleged head shot, nothing could possibly line up with that fictional shot moving downward and to the right.

 

[Robert Prey]

Connally said no such thing either way. He said he heard a shot, then he was hit with the second shot (which he never heard), and then there was a third shot that scattered brain and blood all over the car.

It was his wife, Nellie Connally, who said she saw JFK get hit by the first shot, then her husband was hit, then the shot hit JFK in the head.

But she wasn't facing backward to look at JFK until after JFK started to react to the wound (the same one Connally is reacting to in the Z224 range).

So Robert can't use Nellie to support the claim of separate bullets hitting both men and causing their non-fatal wounds either, because it's clear she didn't look at JFK until after both men were already shot. That means she looked first at JFK and saw he was wounded, then at her husband, and saw he was wounded, and assumed they were wounded in that order by separate bullets. It was her best reconstruction of the event that happened quite quickly.

Hank

No. He says it was definitely a separate shot from the one that hit Kennedy. And I don't need Nellie to affirm that, he affirms it himself. And that makes the "magic" bullet just another bullet.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

"It was his wife, Nellie Connally, who said she saw JFK get hit by the first shot, then her husband was hit, then the shot hit JFK in the head. "

Comment:
First shot equals ONE.
Nellie says Husband hit, makes TWO.
Then the Head shot makes Three.

3 shots to the Limo makes one more than the WC claims and no magic bullet necessary. The foruth shot misses, and hits the curb and Mr. Tague. And that spells Conspiracy.
So now you can go home.

 

[EventHorizon]

Hank wrote:

"It was his wife, Nellie Connally, who said she saw JFK get hit by the first shot, then her husband was hit, then the shot hit JFK in the head. "

Comment:
First shot equals ONE.
Nellie says Husband hit, makes TWO.
Then the Head shot makes Three.

3 shots to the Limo makes one more than the WC claims and no magic bullet necessary. The foruth shot misses, and hits the curb and Mr. Tague. And that spells Conspiracy.
So now you can go home.

I'm trying to figure out whether or not you are being intentionally obtuse here.

 

[infocusinc]

You are the only photo expert in the world. There is no other. We all know that because you have said so.

I'm quite adept with photography and I've asked you a few point blank questions. Is there a reason you keep deciding that not answering is ok?

 

[jaydeehess]

You would have a chance at getting people to believe this if you didn't respond to my detailed posts with one-word dismissals. When someone describes in great detail why your "anomaly" is really just an ordinary principal of photography that you nevertheless didn't understand, and when your only answer is "Baloney," you don't get to credibly accuse that person of having his head in the sand.

As I said: you're wrong and you know it. You've tried shifting the burden of proof. You've tried changing horses by claiming it's not about expertise but about some allegedly objective observation. Your sophomoric debate tricks have failed. Your evasion of the burden of proof has failed. Your naive expectations have been refuted.

There's a reason you're not credible, and it's not because there's something wrong with everyone else.

why does this come to mind? (rhetorical question)

".......your mission is a failure, your lifestyle too extreme. You are now my prisoner........."

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm quite adept with photography and I've asked you a few point blank questions. Is there a reason you keep deciding that not answering is ok?

,,, and I am not an expert in photography but have a background in physics and math, and use my own "objective observation" (that which RP says is more than enough) and come to the same conclusion that JU and you do.

 

[HSienzant]

No. He says it was definitely a separate shot from the one that hit Kennedy. And I don't need Nellie to affirm that, he affirms it himself. And that makes the "magic" bullet just another bullet.

Quote him saying that, Robert.
You know you can't.

 

[HSienzant]

According to Tague, it was a missed bullet that went over the Limo and when Harold Weisberg, former Senate investigator asked to see the spectographic analysis, the FBI said it had been destroyed to save space (1/32nd of an inch of space). See the Men who Killed Kennedy, Episode One.
And when you see those phony WC drawings of the alleged head shot, nothing could possibly line up with that fictional shot moving downward and to the right.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f737c663412f.jpg[/qimg]

lol - you are citing a drawing! That's your evidence? And you call it a fictional bullet path! And call it a phony WC drawing! Destroying your own argument! Why do you cite what you yourself called fictional and phony? Do you not know what evidence is? Hint - it's not something you should describing as fictional.

How about the windshield damage photo I cited? How about the damage to the chrome photo I cited? How about the Harper fragment that went forward and to the left of the limo (in the same direction as the Tague shot would have gone) and the large explosion of blood and brains seen blasting up and forward in the Zapruder film (including the Harper fragment)?

Didn't you yourself cite the statement of a motorcycle officer (Bobby Hargis) riding to the right of JFK who got hit with blood and brain matter? Didn't that go up from the head, not down into the car? Do you even know what your point is from week to week?

Nothing went that high? You ignore the evidence and cite a drawing you yourself call phony. Spectacular. Do you have anything left below the knee?

Can you cite Tague's opinion that it was a missed shot that went over the limo?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"It was his wife, Nellie Connally, who said she saw JFK get hit by the first shot, then her husband was hit, then the shot hit JFK in the head. "

Comment:
First shot equals ONE.
Nellie says Husband hit, makes TWO.
Then the Head shot makes Three.

3 shots to the Limo makes one more than the WC claims and no magic bullet necessary. The foruth shot misses, and hits the curb and Mr. Tague. And that spells Conspiracy.
So now you can go home.

Thanks, Robert, but I'm starting to enjoy this.

You're assuming what you have to prove - that the first shot hit JFK and the second hit Connally. Nellie's testimony isn't enough, as I pointed out, she didn't turn around to look at JFK until after he reacted (and by that time, so had her husband). So her testimony proves nothing. You are just quote-mining as you don't have any legitimate evidence nor any scenario that makes a lick of sense - but don't let that stop you.

And if you want to conjecture two shots hit the two men, what happened to the bullets? Where's the bullet that struck JFK? Did it get stuck in his body? Why didn't it show up on x-rays at the autopsy? Did it come out the neck and vanish? Where'd it go? And the separate bullet that struck Connally? Was that the one they found at Parkland or was the Parkland bullet a plant? If so, what happened to the real bullet?

Your theory imagines two magic bullets!
1. The first shot hits JFK and vanishes shortly thereafter without hitting anything else.
2. The second shot hit Connally and - surprise - vanishes!

You got a theory that makes any sense? You haven't advanced it yet.

And by the way, the Tague shot, since the curb smear is lead, is from the interior of a bullet, so whatever that bullet hit (most likely JFK's skull), it had to be hard enough to shred to copper jacket off it. Do you have a candidate for that shot that you conjecture didn't strike the skull?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I'm trying to figure out whether or not you are being intentionally obtuse here.

I don't think you're being fair to Robert. I personally haven't seen any evidence intent enters into it.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Thanks, Robert, but I'm starting to enjoy this.

You're assuming what you have to prove - that the first shot hit JFK and the second hit Connally. Nellie's testimony isn't enough, as I pointed out, she didn't turn around to look at JFK until after he reacted (and by that time, so had her husband). So her testimony proves nothing. You are just quote-mining as you don't have any legitimate evidence nor any scenario that makes a lick of sense - but don't let that stop you.

And if you want to conjecture two shots hit the two men, what happened to the bullets? Where's the bullet that struck JFK? Did it get stuck in his body? Why didn't it show up on x-rays at the autopsy? Did it come out the neck and vanish? Where'd it go? And the separate bullet that struck Connally? Was that the one they found at Parkland or was the Parkland bullet a plant? If so, what happened to the real bullet?

Your theory imagines two magic bullets!
1. The first shot hits JFK and vanishes shortly thereafter without hitting anything else.
2. The second shot hit Connally and - surprise - vanishes!

You got a theory that makes any sense? You haven't advanced it yet.

And by the way, the Tague shot, since the curb smear is lead, is from the interior of a bullet, so whatever that bullet hit (most likely JFK's skull), it had to be hard enough to shred to copper jacket off it. Do you have a candidate for that shot that you conjecture didn't strike the skull?

Hank

The first shot that hit JFK was not necessarily the first shot that was shot. And as to where the bullet ended up, you yourself are assuming what you have yet to prove, that the shot came from the back, yet all of the Parkland docs initially said the neck wound was a wound of entrance. Where did the bullet go? The autopsy docs didn't bother to look. Nor is it necessary to assume that the Tague bullet was shot by Oswald. That is more circular reasoning on your part. AS far as using the WC drawing, it is shown merely to prove how inconsistent the Warren conclusion is with their own fictional drawings.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

"How about the windshield damage photo I cited? How about the damage to the chrome photo I cited?"

Comment:
How about it? Several witnesses observed a bullet hole on the windshield, but the hole was described as inny, not an outy -- a shot from the front. Naturally the FBI did to this crucial piece of evidence what they did to all other crucial pieces of evidence --- they had it destroyed. Among those witnesses, Dr. Evangelea Glanges:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM

" Her description matches the Ford Manager who saw the limo glass with the bullet hole fired from the front. It also tends to confirm the medical observation at Parkland that JFK's neck wound was a shot from the front."

 

[jargon buster]

Robert, are you now switching horses to try and establish a shooter from the front as opposed to a grassy knoll shooter from the right?

 

[Southwind17]

Robert, at least have the decency to properly contemplate people's posts here and either respond constructively and courteously with something sensible that serves to further the debate in a mature manner, or politely and courageously acknowledge that you have no evidential basis for retort. You'll gain more respect from showing that you're capable of holding a respectful adult debate than behaving like a spoilt brat child, continually taking your ball home.

The LHO/Obama square chin comparison is arguably the best example of those assertions of yours that have convincingly been quashed, yet you choose to simply ignore the evidence presented here. I assure you, Robert, nothing would afford your position more credibility than to accept, and acknowledge, when demonstrated, that certain aspects of your argument are either flawed or plain false; at best highly questionable. Or are you afraid that your case will progressively and rapidly collapse like a house of cards, and the fantasy that you've held on to so desperately for so long will slip through your fingers, leaving an eerily silent void in your superficial, makebelieve mindset?

Is it the fear of loneliness that spurs you on blindly, Robert, and inhibits your capacity for objectivity, like that evoked by the prospective loss of a loved one?! As they say, Robert, all good things must come to an end, sadly.