JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything. Robert has been around long enough for us to anticipate what his answer to Belz would have been. Belz brings up a good point, a point many of us agree with. But Robert's response is almost always that his "forty-plus" witnesses outweigh any documentary evidence.
 
JayUtah:

A few pages back I asked you this...
Me said:
As a layman I'm fairly impressed with the work of Dale Meyers with regard to his assassination animation. Best I can tell by the details he provides, the reconstruction seems rigorous and thorough. Am I right to consider it worthwhile? In other words, do you have any thoughts?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed the post, an easy oversight. Still, I'm curious to read your thoughts so I bring it up again..
 
JayUtah said:
I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything. Robert has been around long enough for us to anticipate what his answer to Belz would have been. Belz brings up a good point, a point many of us agree with. But Robert's response is almost always that his "forty-plus" witnesses outweigh any documentary evidence.
Click to expand...
I know you're not, Jay; my inference is that Belz arguably is, albeit inadvertently (being very late to the party). His point, whilst valid, has been done to death. The last thing we want, seriously, is to allow Rude Robert the luxury of lowering the bar for the substantiation of his claims to where he first set it. We all know he has a tendency to do that, whether invited or not.
 
Southwind17 said:
I know you're not, Jay; my inference is that Belz arguably is, albeit inadvertently (being very late to the party).
Click to expand...

Agreed. And being new to the party, he asked a legitimate question out of innocent curiosity -- a point which I agree has been done to death and beyond, the corpse regularly receiving a thorough beating from our resident conspiracy theorist's hand. The question nevertheless deserves an answer, having been asked in innocence and likely out of an abundance of reluctance to read 160 pages of cyclical drivel. I therefore cut to the chase.

Belz got his answer, so I assume he's happy. I'm happy because the answer, while summarizing Robert's well-established (though indefensible) position, has the virtue of not having been given by him. If Robert chooses to follow up, he does so only from the position of sloppy seconds.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
A few pages back I asked you this...Perhaps you missed the post, an easy oversight. Still, I'm curious to read your thoughts so I bring it up again..
Click to expand...

Thanks for the bump; indeed I missed your earlier post and I apologize.

I've seen Meyers' video only in the context of its reproduction in "Beyond Conspiracy." What I saw seemed solid and reliable enough, although I haven't delved into his full work or spent much time looking at the criticisms and responses about it. It seems Meyers has been fairly meticulous in his modeling of the relevant geometry, and has been fairly open about his methods.
 
Robert Prey said:
According to the Willis interview on TMWKK, there was no "favored" position of the fatal shot -- only that it came from the Grassy Knoll. And don't confuse what others may have interpreted as the location of the Knoll shooter. In fact, there may have been more than one Knoll shooter, and in separate locations.
Click to expand...


Been away, just getting back. I see Robert has been away too. Maybe we're the same person and just having a bit of fun, eh?

Nah, I would remember being Robert [shudder]

In any case, Robert avoids all the points I made and his rebuttal only raises further issues. Maybe this response is too late, if Robert is gone. We'll see.

I asked Robert where on the knoll the shooter was as it has a direct bearing on Robert's interpretation that the knoll shooter was to the right of Willis.

Robert fails to say, and then says there may have been more than one shooter. But that is problematic for a number of reasons; not least of all because, of course, as you add shooters, the chances of discovery goes up incrementally, if not exponentially.

Moreover, as you add shooters, you have more alterations to the evidence and more alterations to the body to make, and more changes to cover up. What if all three shooters hit JFK separately, but each in the trunk, for example? You'd have an entry wound in the right front with an exit in the left rear of the body, another entry from the right rear (at ground level) with an exit in the left front, and yet a third entry in the right rear of the body (from above and behind, [the TSBD] with an exit somewhere on the front of the body.

What if bullets were found in the body or the limo not traceable to Oswald's weapon?

And let's not forget the sewer shot Robert told us was the judgment of his expert a few weeks ago. So that's four shooters! With four separate wounds of entry (assuming one hit from each); of course, the shooters might have fired (and struck JFK) more than once - so the number of hits JFK took in Robert's purported scenario might be even higher.

And of course, we have that issue of the vast majority of witnesses only hearing three shots. Robert leaves that unexplained while he favors a mimimum of four shots.

Robert ignores all the while the only conspiracy scenario that makes a lick of sense: shoot JFK from the TSBD (and only the TSBD) with Oswald's rifle, while keeping Oswald busy elsewhere. That way, all the evidence points to one shooter in the TSBD, no evidence has to be forged, no body alterations, no witnesses need to be eliminated, etc. etc.

It could be a small conspiracy of two or three people who knew Oswald and knew he owned a weapon. One to keep him busy at the appropriate time, and one to fire the weapon.

All you need is self-contained and since it's Oswald's rifle and he has no alibi, he's still going to look guilty as sin.

But no conspiracy theorist has ever alleged that, to my knowledge. Why not? It's not sexy, it doesn't sell, and it doesn't fit the CT agenda of blaming everything on the U.S. government.

Remember who first claimed it was a conspiracy and Oswald was being framed within 24 hours of the shooting?

It was Tass, the official newspaper of the Soviet Union. Since Oswald was a communist, their agenda was clear, deflect the blame away from Oswald, who had defected to the Soviet Union and blame it on the right wing elements within the U.S.

Hank
 
Last edited:
BazBear said:
Maybe the CIA, FBI, NSA, MIB, or DEVGRU finally got him? I'm surprised it's taken this long, what with all the government-shattering evidence of a massive conspiracy he's presented. ;)
Click to expand...


To use a turn of phrase first applied to Mark Lane and Jim Garrison, if a hit squad of conspirators is going around eliminating people with knowledge of the assassination, then Robert has nothing to worry about.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Show me the "record' of his testimony in the closed, unrecorded W/C interview.
Click to expand...


No, Robert.

The burden of proof is on you.

You need to supply the evidence that anything said off the record during that interview is contrary to his statements while on the record. You are, quite simply, assuming what you have to prove -- that in the first 20 years after the assassination, Willis gave any statement that he believed the shots came from the knoll.

It's not in his WC testimony -- he says in there the shots came from the TSBD, and he is pretty emphatic about it.

It's not in his testimony at the Shaw trial -- the prosecution didn't even bother to ask that question. Perhaps you would care to suggest why they didn't ask, especially since their whole case was built around shots from the knoll?

It's nowhere to be found, until after more than 20 years have elapsed.

Science has a name for this occurrence.

It's not alterations of the record. It's not anything that points to a conspiracy. It's called a bad memory.

And quite simply, you ignore the all the earlier statements and stick with the one the furtherest from the event. That's your evidence of conspiracy - bad memory and quotes out of context.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
The point is, you are happy to point to the HSCA as experts on the subject matter you happen to agree with such as the validity of the B/Y photos, but you cherry pick other "experts" when the HSCA 'experts" have a conclusion contrary to your pre-conceived WC dogma.
Click to expand...


No, Robert, I'm happy to stick with the experts when it can be shown that their judgments and conclusions are justified.

The conclusions of BB&N and W&A (a shot from the knoll *that missed*, based on a study of the police dictabelt recording the radio transmissions over the police radio back at police headquarters purportedly recorded during the assassination) have been shown to be incorrect for the following simple reasons that require no mastery of the arcane subject matter of studying the echo patterns supposed imprinted on the dictabelt:

1. The portion of the dictabelt studied was actually recorded approximately one minute after the assassination due to the occurrence of the phrase 'Hold everything secure'. Any sounds on the dictabelt at that time would have nothing to do with the assassination.

2. No open microphone was established to be in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting, in the location(s) the microphone had to be (the motorcycle was assumed to be moving along with the motorcade, so its location was supposedly moving along Houston and Elm during the shooting sequence. But the films don't show the motorcycle where it had to be when it had to be there.

3. The sounds on the tape surrounding the impulses studied don't match up with what motorcycle officer J.B.McClain (named as the motorcycle cop with the stuck microphone in Dealey Plaza) would have been doing after the event (for example, someone walking by and whistling can be heard - that alone is evidence the open microphone was not J.B.McClain's - but is rather a parked motorcycle, most likely one that was stationed at the Trade Mart and awaiting the President's arrival).

4. J.B.McClain denied his motorcycle had a stuck microphone during the assassination, and affirmed in his testimony to the HSCA that the sounds heard on the tape did not match his recollection of events.

__________

Hank
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
I've seen Meyers' video only in the context of its reproduction in "Beyond Conspiracy." What I saw seemed solid and reliable enough, although I haven't delved into his full work or spent much time looking at the criticisms and responses about it. It seems Meyers has been fairly meticulous in his modeling of the relevant geometry, and has been fairly open about his methods.
Click to expand...
That was my impression as well, and I appreciate the reinforcement you give.
 
Since Robert isn't here at the moment, I'll save him the trouble of having to respond.
HSienzant said:
No, Robert, I'm happy to stick with the experts when it can be shown that their judgments and conclusions are justified.

The conclusions of BB&N and W&A (a shot from the knoll *that missed*, based on a study of the police dictabelt recording the radio transmissions over the police radio back at police headquarters purportedly recorded during the assassination) have been shown to be incorrect for the following simple reasons that require no mastery of the arcane subject matter of studying the echo patterns supposed imprinted on the dictabelt:

1. The portion of the dictabelt studied was actually recorded approximately one minute after the assassination due to the occurrence of the phrase 'Hold everything secure'. Any sounds on the dictabelt at that time would have nothing to do with the assassination.

2. No open microphone was established to be in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting, in the location(s) the microphone had to be (the motorcycle was assumed to be moving along with the motorcade, so its location was supposedly moving along Houston and Elm during the shooting sequence. But the films don't show the motorcycle where it had to be when it had to be there.

3. The sounds on the tape surrounding the impulses studied don't match up with what motorcycle officer J.B.McClain (named as the motorcycle cop with the stuck microphone in Dealey Plaza) would have been doing after the event (for example, someone walking by and whistling can be heard - that alone is evidence the open microphone was not J.B.McClain's - but is rather a parked motorcycle, most likely one that was stationed at the Trade Mart and awaiting the President's arrival).

4. J.B.McClain denied his motorcycle had a stuck microphone during the assassination, and affirmed in his testimony to the HSCA that the sounds heard on the tape did not match his recollection of events.

__________

Hank
Click to expand...
Baloney

Did I get that right?
 
LSSBB said:
Wait, while he has been gone WTC Dust has been posting a lot... hmmm...
Click to expand...
Not one and the same, I don't think, if that's what you're suggesting. Clear inherent writing style differences, and WTC Dust has patently better comprehension and writing skills than Rude Robert. Unless RR is a master of disguise ... I don't think so.
 
BazBear said:
Perfect! You're doing a fine job of keeping Robert's tin foil hat seat warm for him while he's away ;)
Click to expand...


That tin - foil hat remark takes me back to a simpler time, when I used to listen to talk radio as a youngster, specifically the Long John Nebel show, and he would sometimes feature guests who claimed (this was back in the 1960's) to have visited Venus or Mars or both, and claimed to have conversed with the natives there.

Some of them invariably wore tin foil on their heads (which Long John Nebel would invariably describe) to either (I forget which):

a) protect their heads from solar radiation
b) better enable them to pick up transmissions from Venus or Mars.

(Or maybe it was both, depending on the featured guest).

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
That tin - foil hat remark takes me back to a simpler time, when I used to listen to talk radio as a youngster, specifically the Long John Nebel show, and he would sometimes feature guests who claimed (this was back in the 1960's) to have visited Venus or Mars or both, and claimed to have conversed with the natives there.

Some of them invariably wore tin foil on their heads (which Long John Nebel would invariably describe) to either (I forget which):

a) protect their heads from solar radiation
b) better enable them to pick up transmissions from Venus or Mars.

(Or maybe it was both, depending on the featured guest).

Hank
Click to expand...
So in Rude Robert's case it could be to protect him from a hail of bullets, maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom