JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[BazBear]

Baloney

Well said!

 

[Robert Prey]

Where, in all of that, does Connally specifically reject the shots from the back? Or are you now inferring that LHO was, indeed, standing at the TSBD window at the time of the shooting, but wasn't, in fact, the shooter?!

He rejects three shots from the back by rejecting the WC fable. LHO may indeed have been a shooter, but there is no proof that he was.

 

[Border Reiver]

Except his prints on the weapon ballistically shown to have made the shots.

 

[Robert Prey]

Exactly. The most relevant 'action' in determining the location of the shooter would be the bolt-action of the rifle, in this case, not the re-action of the President.

Tell me, Rude Robert, who scored this goal, and from where?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f9e04b979e5b.jpg[/qimg]

You don't know; I don't know. Why? Because we can't see the shooter.

The direction of a shot can be deduced by the direction of the sound, or the sight of smoke, or the nature of the wound or the reaction of the victim or all of the above. Unlike a soccer goal. Obviously..

 

[RoboTimbo]

The direction of a shot can be deduced by the direction of the sound, or the sight of smoke, or the nature of the wound or the reaction of the victim or all of the above. Unlike a soccer goal. Obviously..

Ah good! You're acknowledging that the shots came from the TSBD then. Well done! Obviously.

 

[JayUtah]

He rejects three shots from the back by rejecting the WC fable.

So that conclusion is yours, not Connally's. Part of the problem you have with interpreting witness testimony is your propensity to put words in their mouths. Don't do that.

LHO may indeed have been a shooter, but there is no proof that he was.

Except, of course, all the proof that you've frantically tried to explain away for six months and counting.

 

[JayUtah]

The direction of a shot can be deduced by the direction of the sound, or the sight of smoke, or the nature of the wound or the reaction of the victim or all of the above. Unlike a soccer goal. Obviously..

When did you become such an expert in interpreting crime scene evidence and testimony regarding gunshots?

 

[Walter Ego]

Or maybe the people are engaging him are just having a laugh at his expense.
All his waffling and hand waiving have done nothing to enable him to prove anything he claims.
If you cant just ignore a thread rather than having to put it on ignore then that maybe says a lot about your lack of willpower and that Robert has actually got to you.
I can assuse you he will never make me ignore a thread.

I wouldn't say Robert has "got to me" but rather that I don't care to let him set the agenda for this discussion. This thread is about Robert, not the topic of the OP, and if you don't think he is in control and that by responding to him you are granting him that control then you are seriously deluded.

 

[JayUtah]

I wouldn't say Robert has "got to me" but rather that I don't care to let him set the agenda for this discussion.

Would you care to set a different agenda, then?

 

[Ranb]

The direction of a shot can be deduced by the direction of the sound.....

It is possible, but not easy. A firearm makes sounds, not just one sound. There is action noise, impact noise, muzzle blast and with high speed bullets, a sonic boom.

Echos can make identifying the source of the noise difficult. This is especially true with a bullet moving faster than the speed of sound. The bullet makes a shock wave that sounds like a cracking whip when it passes the observer. This shock wave bounces off of objects near its path further confusing the observer.

It would be unusual for multiple observers to agree on the location of shots from a high powered rifle, especially a place like Dealey Plaza.

Ranb

 

[abaddon]

He rejects three shots from the back by rejecting the WC fable. LHO may indeed have been a shooter, but there is no proof that he was.

Baloney.

 

[abaddon]

The direction of a shot can be deduced by the direction of the sound, or the sight of smoke, or the nature of the wound or the reaction of the victim or all of the above. Unlike a soccer goal. Obviously..

Baloney.

 

[HSienzant]

"I am absolutely certain, that at least one shot -- the one that blew his head off -- came from the right front. And I will believe that till the day I die -- on my mother's grave." -- Phil Willis

-- Inteview from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"

Great, Robert.

Now contrast that with what he told the Warren Commission and testified to at the Shaw trial, that all the shots came from his right - from the Texas School Book Depository.

Which statement was within a year of the shooting?
Which statement was next?
Which statement came about 20 years after the shooting?

Now, does memory improve due to the passage of time where you are from?
Do outside influences - like what a person has read or seen on TV sometimes have a deleterious effect on a person's memory?

If so, which of these is *least likely* to be accurate? -- The one you cite.
Which of these are more likely to be accurate - The two I cite.

Especially since the two I cite are supported by physical evidence.

Can you explain why we should believe a statement 20 or more years after the event when it conflicts with earlier statements made by the same witness and all the physical evidence?

Please respond to this question, as it is at the heart of the matter here.

You consistently base your conclusions on the weakest evidence, and ignore far stronger evidence. This goes right down the line in terms of the witness statements you cite, more often than not citing a statement 20, 30, 40 years after the assassination, and ignoring the more contemporaneous ones.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Robt. McClelland:
"I think he was shot from the front...I think the rifle bullet hit him in the side of the head and blew out the back of the head...I certainly think that's what happened and that probably somewhere in the front part of the head, in the front part of the scalp, there probably was an entry wound which -- among all the blood and the laceration there, and everything, was not seen by us, or by anyone else perhaps... and it blew out the the back part of his head."

"The cause of death...[was] massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss."

"As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open." (Robert N. McClelland, Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VI, page 33

Aha...

Again you ignore the earlier statement and accept the latter one as more accurate. His statement from the weekend of the assassination says there was a massive wound of the temple (he wrote left, but we both previously agreed he meant right*):

"Cause of death was due to massive brain and head injury from a gunshot wound of the RIGHT* temple."

Again, we have conflicting statements, and you choose the latter one as more accurate.

Why is that?

 

[HSienzant]

Floyd Riebe, one of the official autopsy photographers, testified that "less than half the brain was there." Shown the official autopsy photographs of the brain that are currently at the National Archives, FBI agent Francis O'Neill, who witnessed the autopsy, claimed that the photogrpahs were inaccurate... "The official autopsy report documents the weight of the president's brain to be fifteen hundred grams, which is heavier than the average, complete human brain.

John stringer, the lead autopsy photographer, examined the autopsy photographs of the President's brain. He told the the Washington Post that the current pictures of the brain are not his and do not resemble anything he saw the night of the autopsy...

All of these quotes are from more than three decades after the event. They are meaningless recollections, with nothing to support them but other meaningless recollections. All the hard evidence supports the conclusion that Oswald fired all the shots during the assassination.

Why is this important? It shows that the Kennedy assassination evidence has been tampered with. Someone does not want the truth to be known.. -- Dr. Cyril Wecht in "Tales from the Morgue", p. 241

* * *

At every turn, the evidence ... simply does not add up to a lone gunman...Evidence is missing. Witnesses were asked to falsify affidavits. Testimony is dramatically altered. Documents are manipulated. What happend in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22nd, 1963 was an effort by two or more people to kill the president of the United States. What has happened since has been a conspiracy to hide the truth. -- Dr. Cyril Wecht in "Tales from the Morgue" Page. 243.[/I]

If the data used to support the conclusion is erroneous, the conclusion will be erroneous. The data cited by Wecht above is erroneous, in that he is relying on decades-after-the-fact recollections when he writes the above to sell his book.

Instead, what was Cyril Wecht's own conclusion to the HSCA in his testimony after he examined the extant autopsy materials?

Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there. I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm

Wecht's conclusion was there was no evidence of a shot hitting the President from the side.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You keep saying that, but the fact is, there have been just four challenges (Crenshaw, Akin, Newman, Willis) , all unsuccessful.

Respectfully, you ignored the majority of the challenges, and your responses to the above were all woefully inadequate.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If one were to try to enter the alleged autopsy photos into evidence in a criminal trail, such evidence would not be allowed unless a foundation were first laid as to the validity of the photos. How could that be possible when the creators of the originals deny that the ones in evidence are the ones they took. Thus, there is no way such photographic evidence would be allowed without such validation. So how do you know the photos are valid???

Easy answer:

The HSCA forensic panel authenticated the x-rays and photos as of JFK by examining the material itself, and using data within the evidence (like the sinus passages) to determine they were authentic.

What do you got to contradict this besides some recollections -- many of them more than three decades after the fact.

And your claim above is more than a little contradictory. When it was pointed out that Abraham Zapruder authenticated his film at the trial of Clay Shaw, you ignored that and continued to claim the Zapruder film was possibly faked. So while you claim above that the testimony is necessary and sufficient to establish it is legit, your actions previously tell us that if it was produced, you would ignore it as you did Zapruder's testimony at the criminal trial of Clay Shaw.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

"The photos are fake."

-- Photographer John Stringer

-- Photographer Floyde Reibe

-- Developer Sandra Spencer

-- FBI Agent Francis O'Neill

So why does this man say he can't see the evidence???

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5920[/qimg]

He's looking in the wrong place -- at the more than three-decades-after-the-fact recollections you keep citing?

 

[HSienzant]

1. You are assuming that the bootleg photos in the public domain are the ones that were allegedly "examined".

and

2. You are also forgetting that while a photo may or may not be valid, it is the corpse itself that may be the object of fakery.

You keep jumping from the photos being faked to the body being faked, but you never support either one with evidence.

There is no reason to fake the photos if the body was already altered to support a fictitious shooter from a fictitious location.
Ditto the other way - there is no reason to alter the body if the conspirators already planned to alter the photos. It's overkill and totally unnecessary.

You are offering up two mutually exclusive explanations as if they support each other. They don't. They are mutually exclusive.

So which is it? Pick one. Or don't you know? If you continue to flitter back and forth between these two arguments, you are admitting you don't have sufficient evidence for either.

Are you waiting for more evidence to decide? If so, you're saying the evidence is insufficient either way to convince you. If that's the case, why should it convince anyone?

Or are you saying that *something* must be faked, because you see, these 40+ medical witnesses... (we know that argument goes nowhere).

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

"The photos are fake."
-- Photographer John Stringer
-- Photographer Floyde Reibe
-- Developer Sandra Spencer
-- FBI Agent Francis O'Neill

No. Stringer and Riebe said they had no reason to believe that the photos they were shown had been faked. Stringer said he didn't recognize some of the photos, but did not say they were faked; Stringer had a hard time remembering many of the details of the autopsy photography.

Spencer was involved with other photos and did not say the autopsy photos were fake.

O'Neill never saw the photos originally. He's comparing photos against his 30-year old memory. He never said they were fake. He said they had been "doctored," and then corrected himself and said that elements of skin and bone had been positioned differently by the doctors for different shot.

Your "quote" is not a quote from any of the people you named. Nor is it an accurate conclusion drawn on the basis of their testimony. In a number of instances, the witnesses themselves explicitly repudiate your characterization of their testimony.