JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
BStrong said:
No, I have a worse example than that:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/hunt/Chinn-Perjury-2001-03-30-ExhibitC+D.pdf

Other than his own name, this officer got every fact wrong, as noted by the judge.

ETA - I couldn't find a link to another case where Chinn arrested an individual for selling "Machinegun Receivers" at a gun show, and the case was later thrown out due to Chinn (while claiming he was an expert in the firearm type involved) mis-identifiing a trigger housing as a receiver - even in the face of refutation from the actual manufacturer of the firearm involved.

Like I said, mistakes are made wrt firearms, and cops are no exception, sometimes they're the worst source you could find.
Click to expand...

BStrong said:
Robert -

Any comment on the court papers I linked to?
Click to expand...



Robert Prey said:
No. What link?
Click to expand...

It would have been quicker to scroll back up the page than it was to post a reply asking...
 
Robert Prey said:
That documentary is a classic example of a Red Herring Diversion. An alleged proof of a single bullet theory has no relation to the fatal shot that blasted the President's head leaving a large blow-out in the back of his head as affirmed by 40 plus onthescene medical witnesses. I've seen a whole lot of documentaries on the subject with the possible exception of "TMWKK" none of them deal with The Very Best Evidence, namely the wound to the head.
Click to expand...

No fringe reset for you! This topic was done to death in the previous 100+ pages. You are unwilling to deal with the problems with your witnesses either individually or as a group. You are unwilling to discuss the actuality of cranial anatomy. Sorry, you don't get to start over again at Square One simply because you've neglected the debate for weeks. These are the same critics you've had for the past 100+ pages.
 
Here's a sporterized 7.65 Mauser w/ scope:

picture%20208.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg


And an Oswald Carcano clone:

IMGP4161.jpg


Easy mistake based on magazine housing profile, imo.
 
matt.tansy said:
How could someone see a wound in the back of JFK's head while he was laying on his back?
Click to expand...

The same way "all" the staff in a hospital can see it, except when "40 pluss" can see it, or those 40 transmute from being witnesses at the plaza to "medical" on a whim.

The same way the Z film can be both unreliable and blurry, but also absolute proof of a frangible bullet exploding (discrediting the above witnesses) and Jackie scooping up invisble brains.

The same way the autopsy photos are all fake (except the ones that have been cropped and rotated and claim to show wounds Robert likes).

The same way a woman stating that the photos in the archive are NOT the ones she took of the president AFTER the presidents headwounds had been sanitised and partially reconstructed with morticians wax (for reasons of taste not conspiracy) is apparently proof the photos must be faked. And not the obvious meaning that they were the more accurate photos taken before reconstruction. No way, it can ONLY mean a whole different set of photos..
 
matt.tansy said:
How could someone see a wound in the back of JFK's head while he was laying on his back?
Click to expand...

I like to think that they saw the wound on the top of the head and it's dripping and leaking in the direction of gravity and his wet hair is going the direction of gravity and the wound is obviously not in the front, that is, forehead region and so it has slowly migrated further and further back.
 
Robert Prey said:
If you want to make sure the President ends up dead, you do not leave the job to a lone nut shooter with a bad rifle and checkered accounts of his shooting expertise. You make sure the assassination is successful by having more than one shooter in diverse locations. And to make sure you throw the public off the track from demanding a thorough investigation,, by the frame up of a patsy and then make sure he quickly ends up dead before he has a chance to defend himself and shed light on the real perps.
Obviously.
Click to expand...

All predicated on your CT fantasy being true in the first place. None of that complex conspiracy is required via Occam's Razor.
 
Robrob said:
All predicated on your CT fantasy being true in the first place. None of that complex conspiracy is required via Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

I also notice that roberts reason for dismissing evidence tends to be that it does not match his conspiracy theory.

He hasn't shown any evidence the z film was tampered with, but it MUST have been as it doesn't match the conclusions he has reached from misunderstanding cherry picked outof context witness statements and the stories of a proven liar.

Ditto autopsy photos, the warren commission et al.

He has decided there is a conspiracy, any evidence counter to this is discarded as part of the cover up.
 
Robert Prey said:
That documentary is a classic example of a Red Herring Diversion. An alleged proof of a single bullet theory has no relation to the fatal shot that blasted the President's head leaving a large blow-out in the back of his head as affirmed by 40 plus onthescene medical witnesses. I've seen a whole lot of documentaries on the subject with the possible exception of "TMWKK" none of them deal with The Very Best Evidence, namely the wound to the head.
Click to expand...
Emphasis on the word "MEDICAL" Mine...

Robert Prey said:
Baloney.There were more than forty.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:
Click to expand...
What, no "Medical" Surely this means Robert is already shifting the goal posts from his earlier claim....
Robert Prey said:
l. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

2, ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD

5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine

15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern

16 PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse

17. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL18. NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON

Witnesses at Bethesda

19. GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid,

20. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

21. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

22. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

23. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

24. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

25. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle

26. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

27. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

28. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

29. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

30. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

31, SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER

32. FLOYD RIEBE

33. JAMES C. JENKINS

Dealey Plaza

34.Ken O'Donnell 35. DAVE POWERS 36. Gov. Connally 37. PHIL WILLIS 38. MARILYN WILLIS 39. LINDA WILLIS 40. ROSEMARY WILLIS41. BEVERLY OLIVER 42. ED HOFFMAN 43. BILL NEWMAN 44. GAYLE NEWMAN
Click to expand...

Would you care to offer any evidence for the medical qualifications for the names I have highlighted?

As far as I can find, they have none. Which is odd as you claimed there were 40+ MEDICAL witnesses, and when I called you on it you stated my call was baloney because there were more than 40. There are considerably fewer than 40 MEDICAL witnesses on that list, and that is giving you benefit of the doubt and including technicians and photographers as being medically qualified.
34 is not "More than 40".
 
Robert Prey said:
That documentary is a classic example of a Red Herring Diversion. An alleged proof of a single bullet theory has no relation to the fatal shot that blasted the President's head leaving a large blow-out in the back of his head as affirmed by 40 plus onthescene medical witnesses. I've seen a whole lot of documentaries on the subject with the possible exception of "TMWKK" none of them deal with The Very Best Evidence, namely the wound to the head.
Click to expand...

Pen & Teller's Bullsh:rule10t on conspiracy theories. Amongst others, deals with the JFK assassination and demonstrates that Oswald could take three shots and that the wound seen on Kennedy is consistent with a bullet entering the head on the back and exiting on the front.

 
Bell said:
Pen & Teller's Bullsh:rule10t on conspiracy theories. Amongst others, deals with the JFK assassination and demonstrates that Oswald could take three shots and that the wound seen on Kennedy is consistent with a bullet entering the head on the back and exiting on the front.

Click to expand...


But the head wound evidence of a large blow-out in the back of the head indicates a shot or shots from the front.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Emphasis on the word "MEDICAL" Mine...




What, no "Medical" Surely this means Robert is already shifting the goal posts from his earlier claim....


Would you care to offer any evidence for the medical qualifications for the names I have highlighted?

As far as I can find, they have none. Which is odd as you claimed there were 40+ MEDICAL witnesses, and when I called you on it you stated my call was baloney because there were more than 40. There are considerably fewer than 40 MEDICAL witnesses on that list, and that is giving you benefit of the doubt and including technicians and photographers as being medically qualified.
34 is not "More than 40".
Click to expand...

It's a mixed list. There are many more medical witnesses not on this list. Obviously. I previously attempted to post a more complete list but the moderator deleted it.
 
JayUtah said:
No fringe reset for you! This topic was done to death in the previous 100+ pages. You are unwilling to deal with the problems with your witnesses either individually or as a group. You are unwilling to discuss the actuality of cranial anatomy. Sorry, you don't get to start over again at Square One simply because you've neglected the debate for weeks. These are the same critics you've had for the past 100+ pages.
Click to expand...


I know you're dying to give a lecture on the "actuality" of cranial anatomy so why don't you just do it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom