JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Nellie is irrelevant. She didn't get shot.

Where did Governor Connally say he was hit by a separate shot, as opposed to the second shot?

You said his statement in this regard proves the conspiracy, but you haven't quoted that statement yet.

Hank

 

[jargon buster]

Nellie is irrelevant.

Was that because she packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus?

 

[JohnG]

Truth only needs a majority of one. And most of those who lurk on this board are dumbfounded Lone Nutters who just cant' accept proof that they've been duped and snookered for over 50 years and desperately seeking justification for their naive belief in government sponsored brainwash.

How do you know this?

In internet parlance a lurker is someone who reads a thread without contributing to it, either because they aren't a member of the forum or they are a member but they simply choose not to contribute to the conversation. How can you possibly know what these lurkers are thinking?

 

[HSienzant]

For Hank:

There just isn't any question about the separate shot if you see this video at approx 2:55, Gov.C says he heard a shot, thougt it was a shot, turned around to his right, and at that instant on the video you can see JFK with his arms up from the shot to the throat. Then Gov. C. began to turn to his left and was slammed with a shot. That's two shots. Then he heard the third and K's head exploded. That's 3 shots. The Tague shot makes at least four and equals conspiracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4svgOqQmS3o

Now if you can't see all this clearly on the video as the Gov. relates it, then I can't help you any further.

You just moved the goalposts! Again!

You originally said Governor Connallly himself said he was hit by a separate shot. Challenged to back up that claim with an actual quote, you quoted the Governor saying he was hit by the second shot, which isn't in dispute. Challenged again, you brought up James Tague, but that went nowhere fast. Challenged again to back up your claim about what the GOVERNOR ACTUALLY SAID, you now tell me what YOU SEE and what you expect ME TO SEE.

None of which backs up your original claim that "Gov.Connelly.. insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet."

The takeaway here is : You cannot back up your original claim that the Governor ever said he was struck by a separate shot. Please withdraw it.

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

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

And of course, if the Tague shot was actually a fragment from the head shot, which has been shown to be entirely plausible, then there is no evidence of a fourth shot, so that argument is going nowhere for you either.

 

[LSSBB]

Truth only needs a majority of one. And most of those who lurk on this board are dumbfounded Lone Nutters who just cant' accept proof that they've been duped and snookered for over 50 years and desperately seeking justification for their naive belief in government sponsored brainwash.

Instead of blaming the listeners for not believing you because they are "sheeple", maybe the problem is YOU are not proving YOUR case, eh? To be honest, before reading this thread I was not sure one way or the other. So far in the debate the way I have seen your case demolished has shown to me that their is very little proof of a conspiracy and a whole lot of conjecture.

 

[HSienzant]

Was that because she packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus?

I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.

 

[HSienzant]

Excellent. So it appears to me that the chin is fake and it appears to you it may not be fake, but you admit that it just might be fake. so both of us agree, the chin just might be fake. End of story.

Congratulations, Robert. You just admitted the conspiracy books have been lying to you. And that you were wrong to proclaim the backyard photos fakes initially.

You are now reduced to proclaiming only that they MIGHT BE fakes, and only that it APPEARS TO YOU the chin is fake. We are getting through to you, and you are making real progress on your path to recovery. (That's also an admission, whether you realize it or not, that you cannot prove they are fakes - only that, to you, they give the appearance of being fakes).

The next step is for you to admit they MIGHT ALSO BE REAL, which should not be too hard as it is implied in the MIGHT BE FAKE statement.

The final step is to admit there is no evidence of forgery. This is the biggest step, and admittedly, many people recoil at first from taking this step. You might approach it several times, then fall back away in fear of the outcome. Let me assure you the world will not end when you admit it, it just seems that way.

As a recovering conspiracy theorist myself, I wish you all the best in your journey out of conspiracy-ville.

Aside to everyone else: I think Robert will probably recoil from admitting they might be real, and instead insist they have already been proven fake - despite the fact that every expert who has ever examined the first-generation materials has concluded there is no evidence of forgery to be found in the backyard photos. I think an admission they might be fakes (and ergo, might be real) is probably as far as Robert is willing to go at this time, and as much of a concession as we can realistically expect). The whole belief system of many conspiracy theorists hinges on the backyard photos being fakes. See, Oswald himself asserted in custody that they were fakes, and if he was lying about the photos, then he could be lying about other stuff, like not owning a rifle, or not bringing his rifle to work, or not shooting the president. So they must believe Oswald was being truthful in custody and the photos are fakes as the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Congratulations, Robert. You just admitted the conspiracy books have been lying to you. And that you were wrong to proclaim the backyard photos fakes initially.

You are now reduced to proclaiming only that they MIGHT BE fakes, and only that it appears to you the chin is fake. We are getting through to you, and you are making real progress on your path to recovery.

The next step is for you to admit they MIGHT ALSO BE REAL, which should not be too hard as it is implied in the MIGHT BE FAKE statement.

The final step is to admit there is no evidence of forgery. This is the biggest step, and admittedly, many people recoil at first from taking this step. You might approach it several times, then fall back away in fear of the outcome. Let me assure you the world will not end when you admit it, it just seems that way.

As a recovering conspiracy theorist myself, I wish you all the best in your journey out of conspiracy-ville.

Aside to everyone else: I think Robert will probably recoil from admitting they might be real, and instead insist they have already been proven fake - despite the fact that every expert who has ever examined the first-generation materials has concluded there is no evidence of forgery to be found in the backyard photos. The whole belief system of many conspiracy theorists hinges on the backyard photos being fakes. See, Oswald himself asserted in custody that they were fakes, and if he was lying about the photos, then he could be lying about other stuff, like not owning a rifle, or not bringing his rifle to work, or not shooting the president. So they must believe Oswald was being truthful in custody and the photos are fakes as the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Hank

That the backyard photos are fake is an opinion I expressed from the very beginning and proved it with 133B. As far as the originals, none of the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board have seen them, and so by their own admission,they are not qualified to even assert a critical opinion. But the B/Y photos only prove cover-up conspiracy. They do not directly prove assassination conspiracy. That is proven by the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head pointing to a shot from the front. And there are other proofs of conspiracy as well, including the separate shot to Connally and the numerous grassy knoll witnesses who heard and saw a shot or flash from the grassy knoll. There is also the Odio incident as well as the fingerprint taken from the 6th floor belonging to LBJ soldier and convicted murderer, Malcomb Wallace.
Nor is there any evidence that the alleged perp, LhO, even fired a rifle shot. With all that, Lone Nutters have a very steep mountain to climb in order to cling to their Lone Nutter fable.

 

[Robert Prey]

Instead of blaming the listeners for not believing you because they are "sheeple", maybe the problem is YOU are not proving YOUR case, eh? To be honest, before reading this thread I was not sure one way or the other. So far in the debate the way I have seen your case demolished has shown to me that their is very little proof of a conspiracy and a whole lot of conjecture.

NO. It is the Lone Nutters who have not proved their case. Not even able to prove their designated Perp, Patsy LHO even fired a single rifle shot. And try to explain the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head, the only response is they were either all mistaken or all lying.

Good Night.

 

[Robert Prey]

You just moved the goalposts! Again!

You originally said Governor Connallly himself said he was hit by a separate shot. Challenged to back up that claim with an actual quote, you quoted the Governor saying he was hit by the second shot, which isn't in dispute. Challenged again, you brought up James Tague, but that went nowhere fast. Challenged again to back up your claim about what the GOVERNOR ACTUALLY SAID, you now tell me what YOU SEE and what you expect ME TO SEE.

None of which backs up your original claim that "Gov.Connelly.. insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet."

The takeaway here is : You cannot back up your original claim that the Governor ever said he was struck by a separate shot. Please withdraw it.






And of course, if the Tague shot was actually a fragment from the head shot, which has been shown to be entirely plausible, then there is no evidence of a fourth shot, so that argument is going nowhere for you either.

The WC places the Tague shot as the missed, first shot. And on the video provided, Connally clearly states he was hit by a separate shot after Kennedy was hit.

 

[Robert Prey]

How do you know this?

In internet parlance a lurker is someone who reads a thread without contributing to it, either because they aren't a member of the forum or they are a member but they simply choose not to contribute to the conversation. How can you possibly know what these lurkers are thinking?

It's written all over their ridiculous, defensive, uninformed posts.

 

[jargon buster]

As far as the originals, none of the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board have seen them, and so by their own admission,they are not qualified to even assert a critical opinion.

So if you have not seen them then neither can you, thats your own argument?

That is proven by the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head pointing to a shot from the front.

FYI Robert, the grassy knoll was to the right

 

[Garrison]

It's written all over their ridiculous, defensive, uninformed posts.

The post you are quoting asked how you could know what a lurker; i.e. someone who doesn't post on the thread, was thinking. That may not be what you meant by lurking but it does read as if you didn't bother to read the content of the actual post. If you can't read a simple post on the forum properly how in the world do you expect people to believe your unsupported claims about what witnesses are supposed to have said?

 

[Robert Prey]

Y
Now, I have spent the last 30+ years of my working life doing Advertising photography. I've made countless film based composite photos and the same using digital techniques. Can you say that for your "expert" Thompson? Of course not. He tells us "It's not difficult."

Sorry but he is incorrect. Convincing composites are very difficult.

Now if you want to try and defend the rest of the silly claims of anomalies in the backyard photos, please continue to parrot them. I'll be quite happy to take them all on.

Deal with it Robert. Your game is over.

And I have spent 25 years in publishing and advertising and i know very well that the task of making a composite montage, even before the digital age, is baby simple. Deal with it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow, is that the best you have? Really?

You have attempted and failed toy deal with the gravity of your problem.

You claim the square chin eliminates Oswald as the person seen in the BY photos.

Sadly, for you, there is an alternative explanation that puts YOUR claim in jeopardy.

Since its YOUR claim its' incumbent upon you to show that the chin is in fact really SQUARE and not just appears square from the low camera angle.

As a CT I fully expect you will shuck and jive, and given your posting history in this thread, its a fair bet you will continue.

However that will not mitigate the fact that the fatal flaw in your theory has been exposed.

Your so called "proof" is nothing of the sort. It's just you parroting a false claim made by other and doing so in a state of ignorance of the basic principles of photography.

Clearly this is well beyond your ken. I've debated and destroyed your pals White and Costella many times. As bad as they, you are not even close to being in the same league.

So here is your problem. Either you can prove the chin is really square and not an artifact of camera angle, or your "proof" dies.

Deal with it.

Either you can prove the photo in question is genuine, or you have nothing to critique as to its alleged anomalies. I say it is not genuine. You say, what???? Nothing.

 

[jargon buster]

No Robert, the burden of proof is on you, it is you who claim the photos are fake.
You cant prove the photos are not fake, thats trying to prove a negative.

 

[Garrison]

And I have spent 25 years in publishing and advertising and i know very well that the task of making a composite montage, even before the digital age, is baby simple. Deal with it.

No Robert you need to deal with the fact that your theory has been thoroughly disproven; you have offered not one shred of evidence for the photo being doctored that hasn't proven to be flawed on the most basic level. Now a simple question for you; have you eve actually made such a montage that you claim is so simple yourself?

 

[Garrison]

Either you can prove the photo in question is genuine, or you have nothing to critique as to its alleged anomalies. I say it is not genuine. You say, what???? Nothing.

We have plenty to critique your alleged anomalies, its been shown to you in post after post. Denying it while offering no contrary evidence does nothing to raise your already threadbare credibility.

 

[EventHorizon]

Either you can prove the photo in question is genuine, or you have nothing to critique as to its alleged anomalies. I say it is not genuine. You say, what???? Nothing.

You can say it all you want. Until you prove it, that statement is irrelevant.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You've proven you don't understand the concept of more than outcome being viable.
And the second matter was "dealt with": you have proven you don't understand the difference between "towards lens" and "away from lens".

Claims you have proven anything else are dishonest.

It's like he's plugged 2 into the equation (x-2)(x-5) = 0 and announced "x = 2, so I've conclusively proven that x <> 5."