JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

You really have no conception of evidence works do you? If there is a physical evidence that contradicts eye witness accounts then you have to discount the eye witnesses, unless you can provide evidence other than the eyewitness claims to support the notion the the physical evidence has been altered. That's the way it work Robert, and no amount of foot stamping or hand waving on you part is going to change it.

Thus, all the cover-uppers have to do is fake the material evidence and that negates everything else. Excellent reasoning.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nonsense.

What is a nonsense? That if, as you stated, all of Crenshaws varying accounts should be discounted that you should remove him from your list? Or that you made the statement at all?

You seem very confused. Perhaps you can tell us why you suggested "all of the above" should be discounted if you do not want to amend your list to reflect this?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Thus, all the cover-uppers have to do is fake the material evidence and that negates everything else. Excellent reasoning.

As opposed to your idea that all anybody else has to do to make false claims is disagree with evidence.

SO, apart from the unvalidated methodology of Wilson, who fits your own description of a shaman, do you have any PHYSICAL evidence to show the autopsy photos were faked?


If so, why have you not prodiced it in the last 150+ pages?

 

[Robert Prey]

So he's not a medical witness, he didn't observe a blowout in the back of the head, and he's on your list of 40+ medical witnesses who observed a blowout in the back of the head falsely?

Thank you, Robert. That's only what we've been saying all along.

Create another list for guys like Newman who you believe gave testimony consistent with a Grassy Knoll shot.

He doesn't belong on the list of medical witnesses who observed a blowout in the back of the head. You just admitted that.

And Newman pointed to an area about 90 degrees from the the grassy knoll fence where a shooter is typically placed. Newman's source, then, would place a shooter BEHIND and to the right of JFK, not to his right FRONT. You can only get away with claiming Newman's testimony is consistent with a grassy knoll shooter by defining the area of the grassy knoll as the large expanse of grass to his left, to his right, and behind him, and everything behind that grass.

By your definition, the TSBD shooter was a grassy knoll shooter. Your definition is too broad if you're going to encompass everything to the left, right, or anywhere behind Newman as the grassy knoll.

Thanks again!

Hank

Newman said the shot came from behind him. That would be the Grassy Knoll. As for the original list, try to read the heading again carefully:

O Ye Of Little Faith (and even less scholarship)
Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:

Note, that the list only claims 40 plus On the Scene witnesses without qualification. Most, however, happen to be medical witnesses. The exceptions like Newman only confirm the observations of those medical witnesses that the fatal shot to the President's head did indeed come from the Grassy Knoll -- 40 plus witnesses, the strongest possible evidence for conspiracy.

 

[Robert Prey]

The same way we always do.
The original source materials are still the best.

Like the 40 plus immediate, on the scene witnesses who confirm a shot from the grassy knoll.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is a perfect example (albeit 20 yrs old) of why the JFK assassination will never be resolved in the court of public opinion. Even the surgeons at Parkland Memorial who played minor roles in treating JFK and/or Oswald, or no role whatsoever, are inflating their roles for ego, profit, or a place in history.

Is that so? Can you name just one such Parkland surgeon who has been so dishonest with proof of such???

 

[RoboTimbo]

Newman said the shot came from behind him. That would be the Grassy Knoll. As for the original list, try to read the heading again carefully:

O Ye Of Little Faith (and even less scholarship)
Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:

Note, that the list only claims 40 plus On the Scene witnesses without qualification. Most, however, happen to be medical witnesses. The exceptions like Newman only confirm the observations of those medical witnesses that the fatal shot to the President's head did indeed come from the Grassy Knoll -- 40 plus witnesses, the strongest possible evidence for conspiracy.

One witness at a time, please. LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nonsense.

Did the store run out of baloney?

 

[Robert Prey]

Except claims of a blow out to the back of the head are disproven by the photos.
Obviously.

Ironically the point your interpretation of those witnessess misrepresents their statements is confirmed. Obviously.

Still, you are making the assertion. I set the minimum standard of evidence to convince me. Repeating your flawed logic wont make me change my mind. The witnessess are discredited by material evidence. Your opinion of what should convince me matters as muchas the colour of my socks.

No. YOu, sir, are discredited by a head in sand deaf ear refusal to acknowledge that even the photographers of the original autopsy photos say they are fake. Where is your integrity?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Note, that the list only claims 40 plus On the Scene witnesses without qualification.

You mean you think we might not have noticed you have NOW dropped the qualifier? Let's check what you said before...

The physical evidence, other than the worm food, you claim still stands is locked away in the cover-uppers closet. You don't get to trump 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses with photographs hidden away in a locked closet.

Wait a second... Let me bold the relevant word:

The physical evidence, other than the worm food, you claim still stands is locked away in the cover-uppers closet. You don't get to trump 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses with photographs hidden away in a locked closet.

SO why did you drop the word "Medical"?

 

[Robert Prey]

What is a nonsense? That if, as you stated, all of Crenshaws varying accounts should be discounted that you should remove him from your list? Or that you made the statement at all?

You seem very confused. Perhaps you can tell us why you suggested "all of the above" should be discounted if you do not want to amend your list to reflect this?

Crenshaw gave no "varying" accounts. That is an interpolation and a lie.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Thus, all the cover-uppers have to do is fake the material evidence and that negates everything else. Excellent reasoning.

As opposed to your reasoning, in which any Tom, Jack, or Bobby can cast doubt on material evidence by claiming that they have a "magic process", regardless of whether that process is proven to work or if the person in question has expertise applicable to the subject matter. Right.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. YOu, sir, are discredited by a head in sand deaf ear refusal to acknowledge that even the photographers of the original autopsy photos say they are fake. Where is your integrity?

Exactly where it always was. Right here. Asking for physical material evidence.

You want to witnessess disagree with a photot. That is one thing. Concluding it proves the photos are faked is not the same thing.

The original photographers don't even claim what you say.

Even if they did, it does not mean these photographs are faked.

If you want to show the photographs are fake, you do so by showing us evidence, in the photographs of being fake.

In critical thinking material evidence takes priority. Sticking with that base requirement for evidence? That's called integrity.

Claiming others have their heads in the sand? That is not integrity.

 

[EventHorizon]

Like the 40 plus immediate, on the scene witnesses who confirm a shot from the grassy knoll.

It's been pointed out to you numerous times now that many people on your list don't say what you think they say. Your list is nowhere near 40+.

 

[JayUtah]

Thus, all the cover-uppers have to do is fake the material evidence and that negates everything else. Excellent reasoning.

Now if only you had some way to prove the material evidence is fake. Oh that's right, it "must" be fake because disputes your belief.

How close are we to your final disavowal of Jack White and Tom Wilson as would-be experts? Striking distance?

 

[HSienzant]

Like the 40 plus immediate, on the scene witnesses who confirm a shot from the grassy knoll.

No Robert. That's a lie. We've seen you admit it with Newman, putting him in a listing you originally classified as "40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of [JFK's] head". You admitted here he didn't belong in the listing as he was neither a medical witness, nor observed a blowout in the back of the head. Your listing was falsely inflated to make it appear stronger than it really was.

The purpose of listing 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, is to point out that logically the fatal shot came from the right front -- the grassy knoll. In the Case of Newman, while he did not say he observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, he is not a medical witness, but a Dealey Plaza witness who did not need to see the large blow-out in the back of the head to prove the shot came from the knoll, His testimony is that the shot did indeed come from the knoll, thus there is no need for him to have observed the back of the head.
...
From the mock trial:
BN: It would be somewhere back in this general area.
(Points to an area on the grassy knoll.)

You've now revised the listing to claim it's of "40+ immediate witnesses who confirm a shot from the Grassy Knoll." But even that is false. As we shall see with Newman, as you falsely categorize him as a grassy knoll witness, when he put the source of the shots about 90 degrees from the Grassy Knoll fence, where the Grassy Knoll shooter is typically located.

The listing below nicely dispatches with many of them.

You must agree, because you haven't tried to rebut them yet.

You've ignored it everytime I posted it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Crenshaw gave no "varying" accounts. That is an interpolation and a lie.

Really? Are you sure? You realise they have been quouted here several times...

So please, was there a wound on the temple?
A wound on the back of the head?
Was it the Oppitical bone or the right hemisphere that was blown out?
Or both?


Because you claim there are no varying accounts, and yet in the book you keep telling me to read there are clear and obvious variations to the description.


Lets start with an easy one: Assuming Crenshaw is describing multiple wounds. Does this not discredit the picture you keep citing as evidence that ONLY shows one wound?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So Robert, found any post where I claim to be a scholar on this subject yet?
I'm very interested when I said that.
You did, after all, assert I call myself one.

 

[HSienzant]

McCelland's dictated drawing is a 2 dimensional image which only purports to show the back, not the side. or the front. Obviously.

It's a two-dimensional image? Of course it is. All images are two dimensional.
But this is a two-dimensional drawing of a three-dimensional object that shows the back, and the right side of the head:

Saying it only purports to show the back is another falsehood by you. Anyone can see that the right side of the head is also shown in the image above.
As such, it shows none of the damage starting at the hairline and extending back behind the right ear that Crenshaw described here:
"Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."

But this photo does:

If you want to compare a drawing to a drawing, how about these two:

Now, which of these three images fits Crenshaw's description BEST?
"Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."

Still not satisfied?

Here's McClelland's contemporaneous statement on the wound, which conflicts with his later recollection that Josiah Thompson had converted into the image above showing damage to the back of the head:

"...massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." He says on page two that JFK's "Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Nothing in his contemporaneous notes about a massive gunshot wound in the back of the head.

Why is that, do you suppose? And why doesn't his drawing showing the massive wound in the left temple, or even the right temple? Instead, it's moved to the back of the head, where he didn't mention a wound on the weekend of the assassination.

Are you seriously going to argue that his memory improved between the weekend of the assassination when he wrote out his original notes and the time he gave the interview to Josiah Thompson in 1966 or 1967?

And oh, yeah, with the medical witnesses giving such divergent statements about the head wound, how can you just blindly accept the ones that you think confirm a shot from the knoll and disregard the rest? I would think the divergent statements would tend to impeach each other, calling into question the credibility of these witnesses.

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

From the mock trial...

The mock trial in which Vincent Bugliosi successfully proved LHO was guilty? Excellent.