JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

And by the way, I was referring to the Zapruder film, not the autopsy photos. That film exists. Everyone has seen it. But despite all that, you say it has to be fake.

But tell the story of another film that no one can produce, but which conspiracy theories say exists. The evidence? Two guys say they saw it. And whaddya know, it magically-allegedly contains smoking-gun evidence of a coverup. That film, according to you, is unquestionably real.

Sheesh.

So the Z film is real, but the autopsy photos, not so sure, eh? The Z film shows what the interpreter wants it to show. It may or may not be fake, but there surely is evidence of possible fakery. No matter. To most people, even if fake, it shows the fatal shot coming from the right front.
Sheesh, yourself.

 

[HSienzant]

Except that nobody who knew him believed it to be a suicide.

And often times that means they just didn't know him well enough. How many times does the 'perfect marriage' fail? How often does the quiet guy down the hall who wouldn't hurt a fly turn out to be the murderer?

The science tells a different story than the friends, Robert.

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/homicide.html
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/homrecon.html
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/WBP-Resolution/

Pitzer committed suicide. But it doesn't matter, really, since you've produced no evidence he was ever involved in the autopsy in any fashion, ever filmed the autopsy, or ever saw an autopsy film. Neither have you produced any evidence establishing any of the that for Dennis David. Both those names don't belong on any list of medical witnesses.

And Pitzer, who is on your list, never gave any statement about any autopsy film, or witnessing the autopsy, or seeing a back of head wound.

He does not belong on the list. Neither does David, as there's no evidence such a film existed, nor that either man ever saw such a film.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Asked and answered a hundred times. Burden of proof is always on the accusation of fraud. You were told why it has to be that way, but you don't care.

NO.The burden is first to authenticate the subject, which you cannot do.

 

[JayUtah]

So the Z film is real, but the autopsy photos, not so sure, eh?

Straw man.

The Z film shows what the interpreter wants it to show. It may or may not be fake, but there surely is evidence of possible fakery.

Asked and answered.

To most people, even if fake, it shows the fatal shot coming from the right front.

Begging the question.

 

[HSienzant]

NO.The burden is first to authenticate the subject, which you cannot do.

What part of the below did you not understand?

Except they were authenticated and identified by the HSCA panel as of the body of JFK. Have you even read the report?

There's no evidence the body was altered prior to the autopsy. That's a fantasy by David Lifton.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

NO.The burden is first to authenticate the subject, which you cannot do.

Asked and answered repeatedly, twice here and once more in your Birther thread.

 

[Robert Prey]

And often times that means they just didn't know him well enough. How many times does the 'perfect marriage' fail? How often does the quiet guy down the hall who wouldn't hurt a fly turn out to be the murderer?

The science tells a different story than the friends, Robert.

Pitzer committed suicide. But it doesn't matter, really, since you've produced no evidence he was ever involved in the autopsy in any fashion, ever filmed the autopsy, or ever saw an autopsy film. Nor did he ever give any statement to that end. Neither have you produced any evidence establishing any of the that for Dennis David. Both those names don't belong on any list of medical witnesses.

Hank

How many times does a criminal government murder it's own citizens? We have two witnesses that warrant reasonable suspicion--the petty officer associate of Pitzer and the guy who was asked to murder him. That carries weight in the Court of Common Sense. Probably would carry weight in a Grand Jury as well.

 

[JayUtah]

That carries weight in the Court of Common Sense.

What is this "court of common sense" you keep blabbering about? Your evidence is either credible or it's not. Foisting your own standard of proof is not going to convince people.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

He may have been, but there is more evidence that he was a set up Patsy.

"No sir, I didn't shoot anyone; I'm just a Patsy!!!!"-- Oswald

Funny, how this alleged "Lone Nutter" loser shoots the President in order to make a big name for himself, then denies he did it.

Do you ever listen to yourself? Are you even able? 'Cause that just may be part of the problem.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Billy Harper is better than an eye-witness statement. He brought in the back of k"s skull. That's evidence of the blow-out. As to the others, one question or challenge at a time, please.

Please provide a definition/descripton for the term "blow-out" [sic].

 

[BazBear]

Please provide a definition/descripton for the term "blow-out" [sic]

Zapruder frame 313 could arguably be said to show evidence of a "blow out"; but unfortunately for Robert it doesn't show the "blow out" he wishes it did.

 

[HSienzant]

How many times does a criminal government murder it's own citizens?

Begging the Question.

We have two witnesses that warrant reasonable suspicion--the petty officer associate of Pitzer and the guy who was asked to murder him.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please produce the evidence that there was any such film. Please produce the evidence anyone was asked to murder Pitzer. You have none.

That carries weight in the Court of Common Sense. Probably would carry weight in a Grand Jury as well.

No, it would not. You have one person asserting each 'fact' but no verification -- a second witness, physical evidence, a tape recording, a document -- nothing that proves this is anything more than a story made up for attention. In many instances where there should be verifiable evidence, the evidence soundly points to the story being false.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Shall we compare and contrast?

Robert wants defenite proof the Z film is "real". A film for which provenance has been proven from Zapruder, to being developed and copied, through a magazine and to authorities. Robert has identified no singklle frame that shows signs iof having been cut, painted, spliced, overlaid, altered in any meaningful way. He can provide no anomaly or feature inconsistant with the time and place it is known to have originated.

On the other hand a film we have not seen, and have only one witness to is to be considered real, accurate, and viable evidence.

Might it be fair to suggest that there is an inconsistent benchmark for validation in this court of Roberts opinion?

 

[BazBear]

NO.The burden is first to authenticate the subject, which you cannot do.

Actually the subject has been authenticated to any reasonable standard. Your standards are not reasonable, and in fact even calling them standards is stretching the definition of the word well past the breaking point.

You accept anything that seems to you to support a conspiracy, no matter how poorly substantiated it is. Frequently your supposed evidence contradicts other supposed evidence that you've put forward.

You discount any evidence, no matter how well substantiated, that doesn't support a conspiracy. Typically, you'll claim that the evidence is fabricated, no matter how well vetted that evidence is. Otherwise you'll usually ignore it, or maybe fling lunch meat at it.

Your court of common (non)sense seems to have a jury that is selectively deaf, dumb (and not in the mute sense), and blind.

 

[Tomtomkent]

But it sure plays a mean pinball.

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually the subject has been authenticated to any reasonable standard. Your standards are not reasonable, and in fact even calling them standards is stretching the definition of the word well past the breaking point.

You accept anything that seems to you to support a conspiracy, no matter how poorly substantiated it is. Frequently your supposed evidence contradicts other supposed evidence that you've put forward.

You discount any evidence, no matter how well substantiated, that doesn't support a conspiracy. Typically, you'll claim that the evidence is fabricated, no matter how well vetted that evidence is. Otherwise you'll usually ignore it, or maybe fling lunch meat at it.

Your court of common (non)sense seems to have a jury that is selectively deaf, dumb (and not in the mute sense), and blind.

Empty blather. Devoid of a single example.

 

[Robert Prey]

Begging the Question.





Assumes facts not in evidence. Please produce the evidence that there was any such film. Please produce the evidence anyone was asked to murder Pitzer. You have none.





No, it would not. You have one person asserting each 'fact' but no verification -- a second witness, physical evidence, a tape recording, a document -- nothing that proves this is anything more than a story made up for attention. In many instances where there should be verifiable evidence, the evidence soundly points to the story being false.

Hank

The witnesses are evidence and add up to Reasonable Suspicion.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Your "reliable" autopsy photo evidence cannot be authenticated or even identified as being the body of JFK much less the unaltered body or unaltered photo of the body of JFK.

Except they were authenticated and identified by the HSCA panel as of the body of JFK. Have you even read the report?
Hank

Frank Scott, who prepared the autopsy report for the HSCA wrote: "I conclude that these pictures are authentic photographs. In forming this conclusion, I assume that the object photographed is, indeed, the body of President Kennedy."

Thus, the authentication based on an assumption.

"None of the photographs contains information identifying the victim, such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and the place of examination."
-- HSCA 7, 46

Have you even read the Report???

 

[Robert Prey]

Shall we compare and contrast?

Robert wants defenite proof the Z film is "real". A film for which provenance has been proven from Zapruder, to being developed and copied, through a magazine and to authorities. Robert has identified no singklle frame that shows signs iof having been cut, painted, spliced, overlaid, altered in any meaningful way. He can provide no anomaly or feature inconsistant with the time and place it is known to have originated.

Plenty of indications of fakery. Doug Horne of the ARRB explains it all for you here:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html

Includes Chain of Custody questions and

Imagery

"Dino Brugioni opined during his July 9, 2011 interview with the author that the head explosion seen today in the extant Zapruder film is markedly different from what he saw on 11/23/63, when he worked with what he is certain was the camera-original film. The head explosion he recalls was much bigger than the one seen today in frame 313 of the extant film (going “three or four feet into the air”); was a “white cloud” that did not exhibit any of the pink or red color seen in frame 313 today; and was of such a duration that he is quite sure that in the film he viewed in 1963, there were many more frames than just one graphically depicting the fatal head shot on the film he viewed in 1963. Mr. Brugioni cannot, and does not, accept frame 313 of the extant Zapruder film as an accurate or complete representation of the fatal head shot he saw in the camera-original Zapruder film on the Saturday evening following President Kennedy’s assassination."

"Erwin Schwartz, Abraham Zapruder’s business partner, told interviewer Noel Twyman on November 21, 1994 that when he viewed the original film on Friday, November 22, 1963, he saw biological debris from the head explosion propelled to the left rear of the President when he viewed the film. This debris pattern is not visible on the film today, but dovetails with the consistent recollections of motorcycle officer Bobby W. Hargis, who was hit with great force at the time of the head shot by debris travelling to the left rear. "

"The extant Zapruder film also depicts a large head wound in the top and right side of President Kennedy’s skull – most notably in frames 335 and 337 – that was not seen by any of the treatment staff at Parkand Hospital. "

 

[Tomtomkent]

The witnesses are evidence and add up to Reasonable Suspicion.

You keep using a plural to describe one person describing others.

Also witnesses are not evidence, their statements are only evidence when certain criteria are met..

The quote by one person describing a situation in which he and others saw a film for example, has which qualifications of evidence. Was it a statement made under oath? Or under caution in an official investigation? Have the others who saw the film offered testimony to this in a court of law?

Or is it just quote from some book?