JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Probably, but it's not necessary. The z film could be altered with no artifact of alteration.But even if altered, the film still shows the fatal shot from the right front. The Grassy knoll.

1) Please explain in detail how film can be altered with no evidence of alteration.
2) Your conclusion is flawed. The film shows a mass of ejecta that would have to be travelling towards your proposed shooter. Please note you have offered no viable exxplanation for how that mass of ejecta can disperse in such a cloud from an entry wound such as that you claim was described by your "medical witnesses", nor how the exi wound is invisible.

Lets save your prattling about jet effect, or frangible bullets. Until you can provide a single artefact in the film to show a single frame has been altered lets obey the law of physics. Small holes offer a small range of directions for ejecta. We see explosive ejecta, in lots of directions. That must mean a big hole.

It meant a big hole 200 pages ago, and it means a big hole now. Fountains and faucets still work the same way.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. It is direct testimony offered live on tape in the flesh. If someone told the Secret Service that someone had solicited an assassination, what do you think the Secret Service would do? Ignore it? Ditto a police chief, or a state prosecutor? Many, if not most crimes are adjudicated based on the testimony of witnesses. A witness is evidence. Deal with it.

Deal with it? Oh I think I am right here, right now.

Let's answer your question. If somebody comes up to a law enforcement agent and says something, why do they have to then make a statement recorded under set rules? Why would they need to stand in a court and give evidence? Why would the barrister on the other side then be able to uncover lies using tangible evidence?

So about those controls. Being recorded on a tape is not testimony. Being printed in a book does not make it testimony. You seem to think that if somebody ever said anything that itself is testimony. You keep talking about what would be a legal slam dunk, but you remain oblivious to the difference between "something in a book" and "statements made in a legal investigation" and "testimony".

But we are not in court. We are in a critical tinkers site, so we use the rules of critical thinking. You keep wanting to impose your own rules about how many questions others can ask, so lets assume you can respect those requested by others: Subjective evidence is not evidence of anything other than what a person claimed.

 

[Robert Prey]

Deal with it? Oh I think I am right here, right now.

Let's answer your question. If somebody comes up to a law enforcement agent and says something, why do they have to then make a statement recorded under set rules? Why would they need to stand in a court and give evidence? Why would the barrister on the other side then be able to uncover lies using tangible evidence?

So about those controls. Being recorded on a tape is not testimony. Being printed in a book does not make it testimony. You seem to think that if somebody ever said anything that itself is testimony. You keep talking about what would be a legal slam dunk, but you remain oblivious to the difference between "something in a book" and "statements made in a legal investigation" and "testimony".

But we are not in court. We are in a critical tinkers site, so we use the rules of critical thinking. You keep wanting to impose your own rules about how many questions others can ask, so lets assume you can respect those requested by others: Subjective evidence is not evidence of anything other than what a person claimed.

Objective evidence? It takes a live human witness to testify about a fingerprint, or a piece of fiber, or a DNA , or a wound, or a ballistic or a photograph. Thus, in your twisted world of objectivity, there is no such a thing as objective evidence. In the Court of Common Sense, if a man says he saw a film that betrays a cover-up of the Crime of the Century, and another man says he was asked to murder the man who possessed that film, that, in the Court of Common Sense is Reasonable Suspicion. Your Court of Critical Thinking is Court devoid of any critical thinking, or any common sense.

 

[TheRedWorm]

How's about giving us your version of events, Rob?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Objective evidence? It takes a live human witness to testify about a fingerprint, or a piece of fiber, or a DNA , or a wound, or a ballistic or a photograph. Thus, in your twisted world of objectivity, there is no such a thing as objective evidence. In the Court of Common Sense, if a man says he saw a film that betrays a cover-up of the Crime of the Century, and another man says he was asked to murder the man who possessed that film, that, in the Court of Common Sense is Reasonable Suspicion. Your Court of Critical Thinking is Court devoid of any critical thinking, or any common sense.

People may have to give their objective opinions, but the material is the same.


Unlike a memory or a story we can look at the z film for ourselves and decide if your subjective assessment is valid.

So once again, supply any single frame of the zaprudar film with an artefact of manipulation. Show me where the emulsion was cut, where the grain does not match, where there is paint.

Otherwise your "reasonable" suspicion is proved to be unreasonable.

 

[JayUtah]

And you don't understand the difference between common sense and nonsense.

That's the best you can come up with?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So in this "common" sense it is not possible for somebody to tell one story and somebody else to tell another story, with out both being true?

So for example, despite the Titanic laying in two pieces at the bottom of the sea we know the hull must not have broken in two because all but one witness said it sank in a single piece?

How about something more mundane. This thread must contain posts in which I declare victory and call myself a JFK scholar on Roberts say so?

And the clown in the Guy Fawks mask stood in exactly the same pose as LHO?

So if I came up with a plainly false story from two people would Robert be bound to agree it must be true by his measure of common sense?

 

[Robert Prey]

People may have to give their objective opinions, but the material is the same.


Unlike a memory or a story we can look at the z film for ourselves and decide if your subjective assessment is valid.

So once again, supply any single frame of the zaprudar film with an artefact of manipulation. Show me where the emulsion was cut, where the grain does not match, where there is paint.

Otherwise your "reasonable" suspicion is proved to be unreasonable.

I don't know if the Z film was altered and neither do you. Forty plus medical witnesses prove the conspiracy. But I do believe that it would be no big deal to alter the film without an emulsion cut, or a mis-matched grain. For examples, see the following which contains several Z film anomalies which betray a composite forgery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

 

[jargon buster]

I don't know if the Z film was altered and neither do you.

Theres zero evidence the film was altered

Forty plus medical witnesses prove the conspiracy.

They don't exist.

But I do believe that it would be no big deal to alter the film without an emulsion cut, or a mis-matched grain.

"I do believe" isn't evidence Robert

For examples, see the following which contains several Z film anomalies which betray a composite forgery:

A lot of "could be" in that video Robert, it's hardly evidence.

Robert, if the film was altered, why was it altered to throw doubt on the lone shooter from the rear?

 

[Wolrab]

Step one: Have somebody recreate the head wound, as described in the WCR, on your head. Repeat till they get it right.

Step two: Lay down on an examination table.

Step three: Have 20 or 30 people in a trauma room (yeah, right) not move your head and have them describe where the wound is and their thoughts as to where the shot came from. Remember that your body is surrounded by the trauma crew and most will only get fleeting glimpses over someone's shoulder or if somebody moves out of the way.
Step four: Add some time for the memories to ferment.

Step five: Take most of the recollections out of context or totally misrepresent what they say.

Step six: If anyone points out you are wrong, remind them you took a headshot in the first step.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't know if the Z film was altered and neither do you.

No. You claim it was altered, but you admit you can't prove it. Nor have any of your attempts to prove it, or the other photographic record, to be the fakes you say they are succeeded in the least.

You infer it must be fake because you take a one-sided view of the evidence -- the one that confirms your desired belief.

Forty plus medical witnesses prove the conspiracy.

No, they are not the only evidence. They are just the only evidence you will listen to. You latch onto one kind and scope of evidence and ignore everything else, no matter to what absurd and speculative lengths that dogged evasion requires.

But I do believe that it would be no big deal to alter the film without an emulsion cut...

Your belief is irrelevant. And after 200 pages are you really going to take us down the rat hole of "anomalies" again? We've done this at least three times, and it always comes down to you begging the question that what you see in the film must be de facto proof of fakery. You see something you can't understand or explain, and you yell fraud.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't know if the Z film was altered and neither do you. Forty plus medical witnesses prove the conspiracy. But I do believe that it would be no big deal to alter the film without an emulsion cut, or a mis-matched grain. For examples, see the following which contains several Z film anomalies which betray a composite forgery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

You know how we could find out?

If the film contains artefacts like those I mentioned it would be suggestive of having been altered.


But it does not. All you can offer are people proving faliable memories may vary and "anomolies".

This proves you are only half right. How your psychic divination of what I know seems to be guessing how much i know about the film and how many photo artefacts I may or may not have found.

Robert how about you prove how reliable subjective memory is by validating your claim I have declared victory, or your older claim I call myself a scholar. 200 pages and thousands of posts. How sure were you when you typed those claims I had done any such thing? How sure were you that Clown Fawks was holding his broomstick in the same pose as Oswald?

 

[Robert Prey]

You know how we could find out?

If the film contains artefacts like those I mentioned it would be suggestive of having been altered.


But it does not. All you can offer are people proving faliable memories may vary and "anomolies".

This proves you are only half right. How your psychic divination of what I know seems to be guessing how much i know about the film and how many photo artefacts I may or may not have found.

Robert how about you prove how reliable subjective memory is by validating your claim I have declared victory, or your older claim I call myself a scholar. 200 pages and thousands of posts. How sure were you when you typed those claims I had done any such thing? How sure were you that Clown Fawks was holding his broomstick in the same pose as Oswald?

By using a protractor.

 

[TheRedWorm]

By using a protractor.

Try giving us your timeline of the day in question.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. Y
No, they are not the only evidence. They are just the only evidence you will listen to. You latch onto one kind and scope of evidence and ignore everything else, no matter to what absurd and speculative lengths that dogged evasion requires.

Oh, hardly. There is much more to confirm conspiracy than just 40 plus medical witnesses that confirm it. There are also the non-medical witnesses, the destruction of evidence, the front to back bullet hole in the Limo windshield, the insistence of Gov. Connally of being hit by a separate bullet, the missing brain, the Harper Fragment discovery, the insistence of Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell riding in the next car of shots from the grassy knoll, the double autopsy, the fake backyard photos, the confession of participants including the death bed confession of E. Howard Hunt, the statements of Madelyn Brown, mistress of LBJ, the sworn testimony of Marita Lorenz, the statements of a jail cell inmate of Oswald, the cryptic statements of Jack Ruby, and on and on and on. But all we really need are the observations of all the Parkland doctors -- a large wound in the back of the head. That's all that's needed to prove reasonable suspicion of conspiracy to assassinate as well as the cover up.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Oh, hardly. There is much more to confirm conspiracy than just 40 plus medical witnesses that confirm it. There are also the non-medical witnesses, the destruction of evidence, the front to back bullet hole in the Limo windshield, the insistence of Gov. Connally of being hit by a separate bullet, the missing brain, the Harper Fragment discovery, the insistence of Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell riding in the next car of shots from the grassy knoll, the double autopsy, the fake backyard photos, the confession of participants including the death bed confession of E. Howard Hunt, the statements of Madelyn Brown, mistress of LBJ, the sworn testimony of Marita Lorenz, the statements of a jail cell inmate of Oswald, the cryptic statements of Jack Ruby, and on and on and on. But all we really need are the observations of all the Parkland doctors -- a large wound in the back of the head. That's all that's needed to prove reasonable suspicion of conspiracy to assassinate as well as the cover up.

Steaming pile of hot garbage.

 

[Tomtomkent]

By using a protractor.

Apart from holding it in the wrong direction relative to the camera, with feet, arms, torso and "rifle" all in different possitions relative to both body and camera, and obscuring the face with a mask so one of the "impossible" shadows could not be seen we now have the cryptic answer to contend with.

Q: how sure were you that clown fawks was in the same pose?
A: by using a protractor.

And what does "using a protractor" equate to as a percentage? 99% sure? 50%? Would you like a point by point comparrison to find out? Lets start with an easy one, should the stick be between the torso and camera? Should the stick lean towards camera or away? How about the torso? Was the stick leaning on the thigh as in the original?

Would you care to guess how many reference points actually match between photos?

 

[jargon buster]

Robert, if the film was altered, why was it altered to throw doubt on the lone shooter from the rear?

Don't forget that Robert.

 

[Hans]

I can see the evil conspiracy guys gathering to plan and kill the president

Okay so we set up Oswald and then we really shoot hin from the front but then we make everyone think it was from the back and only from Oswald.

Small guy in the back asks - how do we know where our sniper will hit him? If at all? Why not just shoot him from the back?

Robert how did the bad guys know that in advance?

 

[Tomtomkent]

A death bed confession?

Another term for "story".

Still no objective evidence. I wonder why Robert does not repeat the qualifier.