• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
*sigh*

Asked and answered about a hundred times. You don't know how to analyze photographs for affine-projective consistency. We established this a long time ago. We established it again when you brought it up again. Do you think this time is any different?
Click to expand...

Jay are you scoffing at repeated attempts at fringe reset?

Tisk, tisk

(I'd admire all those especially Jay who take the time to respond to 'Robert' you all have the patience of Job)

lol
 
Robert Prey said:
By your definition of "objective evidence" you, yourself, have none.
Click to expand...

Hmmm?

By my definition of objective evidence, evidence that can be measured, tested, inspected and does not rely upon subjective memory or subjective description several have been produced here in this thread.
You are either lying about, or unable to understand my definition of objective evidence.

Did anybody describe the photo and films to you, or do you not know what can and can not be obtained from copies and digital renditions. There are of course some things a generation one production provides that digital representations can not, but as objective analysis can still be made they remain objective evidence.

That has not stopped your own methods from being deeply flawed of course.

Please continue to avoid identifying a single frame of the z film with artefacts of manipulation.
 
So what can we tell from the Z film, other than the lack of evidence for any tampering?

Robert has never addressed the ejecta visible in the film. Nor has he addressed what can not be seen. His claim it is consistant with a shot from the front could be with in the realms of possibility, if not plausibility, but only (as I mentioned recently) at the cost of denouncing the witness testimony that Robert insists is all he needs for a "reasonable" doubt.

Regardless of which direction the bullet travels from we can see body mass exiting the body in a cloud like dispersal pattern, over an area that corresponds with the location of the exit wound as described by the WC, Autopsy and in the autopsy photographs. Something has made tissue and fluid exit the body in a wide scattering of directions. Now at this point it does not matter if the matter is being pushed or sucked, it disperses over a wide area in a fairly short distance. There is no plausible way this can happen from the small entry wound Robert has described at the fornt or side of the head, regardless of "jet effect".

Imagine a bucket full of particles of any kind (water, beans, gas, etc) that are heavier than air. Suspend the bucket over a void, so there is no ground to splash against and put a hole in the bottom of the bucket. The particles will stream out of the hole in cone that flays out only a little wider than the hole. If we apply a force, say pressure, on the bucket the particles will come out faster, and the cone will elongate, but it will only marginally expand wider than the hole.

If these particles were body tissue ejected from a wound then from a small exit or small entry wound we can only expect the explosive discharge to spread over a limited arc of directions relative to the hole. This already suggests that a big cloud means a big hole, unless the particles have found some way of passing through the bucket other than the hole (which as we obey the laws of physics we can discount).

So let us pretend for a second that the "jet effect" did work as Robert described. We have a sealed vessel to replicate JFKs head, and we fill it with Ballistic Jelly to represent human tissue, and we can even put it under a considerable pressure as Robert once described the contents of a noggin comparing it to a balloon. We will offer the best possible chance of an explosive discharge. Then we fire a bullet into it.

The suggestion is that as the bullet punches through the container and passes through the jelly some of the mass will be sucked out of the entry hole. We will even allow for the bullet to flatten or break apart so that the wound track through the jelly is an expanding cone, not a consistant tunnel.

Here we hit a problem, as Robert stated that the wound the doctors desribed after the explosive dischare was still a small hole we can not suggest this "jet effect" caused further damage to the skull. Matter passes through the entry hole under pressure as it exits. Heck, mass has been funneled down the wound track to the hole. All of it means there is still that cone of directions relative to the hole that the mass can travel in. If you push liquid through a hose, turn on a tap, or use a syringe, you can all guess with reasonable accuracy where the mass will go. Even if we boil a kettle we can see the distance the steam has to travel from the spout in a cone, before the temperature change allows the water vapour to billow into a cloud.

So if there was a frangible bullet that exploded on impact? Well that could concievably cause the mass to explode outwards, but only by leaving the craterous wound, the large wound, that conflicts with Roberts narrative. If Robert is correct and those who saw the body described only a small wound where the WC placed the exit wound, then we have to ask how they could have missed the massive (ie of mass) and large crater where a big chunk of the skull must have been compromised to allow for the ejecta.

So why is the wound more likely to be an exit wound? Because when a bullet passes through a body the material ahead of it is displaced by a trauma wave. Damage is done across a far wider space than the bullet touches as this bow wave spreads outwards and ahead of the bullet. If the bullet breaks apart of flattens the dispersal is wider. This is not only why we have a much larger wound on the exit of some bullets (though Through and Through wounds are possible) it adds to the dispersal pattern of the ejecta, of the splatter. The trauma wave balloons outwards and pushes the ejecta in all possible directions, spreading it out as wide as the exit wound will allow. The cone is much wider as the trauma wave is likely much wider than the hole it manages to produce. It is a an explosive discharge.

This is still the best explanation of the Z film, that matches the autopsy, that matches the WC findings, that matches the "back and to the left" meme, that matches the descriptions of the body that Robert has cherry picked lines from. It matches the testimony when it put it back in context and look beyond the subjective descriptors Robert is enamoured to.

It is a feature of the film we can see for ourselves, objective evidence on which we do not need to rely on subjective interpretation.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So what can we tell from the Z film, other than the lack of evidence for any tampering?

Robert has never addressed the ejecta visible in the film. Nor has he addressed what can not be seen. His claim it is consistant with a shot from the front could be with in the realms of possibility, if not plausibility, but only (as I mentioned recently) at the cost of denouncing the witness testimony that Robert insists is all he needs for a "reasonable" doubt.

Regardless of which direction the bullet travels from we can see body mass exiting the body in a cloud like dispersal pattern, over an area that corresponds with the location of the exit wound as described by the WC, Autopsy and in the autopsy photographs. Something has made tissue and fluid exit the body in a wide scattering of directions. Now at this point it does not matter if the matter is being pushed or sucked, it disperses over a wide area in a fairly short distance. There is no plausible way this can happen from the small entry wound Robert has described at the fornt or side of the head, regardless of "jet effect".

Imagine a bucket full of particles of any kind (water, beans, gas, etc) that are heavier than air. Suspend the bucket over a void, so there is no ground to splash against and put a hole in the bottom of the bucket. The particles will stream out of the hole in cone that flays out only a little wider than the hole. If we apply a force, say pressure, on the bucket the particles will come out faster, and the cone will elongate, but it will only marginally expand wider than the hole.

If these particles were body tissue ejected from a wound then from a small exit or small entry wound we can only expect the explosive discharge to spread over a limited arc of directions relative to the hole. This already suggests that a big cloud means a big hole, unless the particles have found some way of passing through the bucket other than the hole (which as we obey the laws of physics we can discount).

So let us pretend for a second that the "jet effect" did work as Robert described. We have a sealed vessel to replicate JFKs head, and we fill it with Ballistic Jelly to represent human tissue, and we can even put it under a considerable pressure as Robert once described the contents of a noggin comparing it to a balloon. We will offer the best possible chance of an explosive discharge. Then we fire a bullet into it.

The suggestion is that as the bullet punches through the container and passes through the jelly some of the mass will be sucked out of the entry hole. We will even allow for the bullet to flatten or break apart so that the wound track through the jelly is an expanding cone, not a consistant tunnel.

Here we hit a problem, as Robert stated that the wound the doctors desribed after the explosive dischare was still a small hole we can not suggest this "jet effect" caused further damage to the skull. Matter passes through the entry hole under pressure as it exits. Heck, mass has been funneled down the wound track to the hole. All of it means there is still that cone of directions relative to the hole that the mass can travel in. If you push liquid through a hose, turn on a tap, or use a syringe, you can all guess with reasonable accuracy where the mass will go. Even if we boil a kettle we can see the distance the steam has to travel from the spout in a cone, before the temperature change allows the water vapour to billow into a cloud.

So if there was a frangible bullet that exploded on impact? Well that could concievably cause the mass to explode outwards, but only by leaving the craterous wound, the large wound, that conflicts with Roberts narrative. If Robert is correct and those who saw the body described only a small wound where the WC placed the exit wound, then we have to ask how they could have missed the massive (ie of mass) and large crater where a big chunk of the skull must have been compromised to allow for the ejecta.

So why is the wound more likely to be an exit wound? Because when a bullet passes through a body the material ahead of it is displaced by a trauma wave. Damage is done across a far wider space than the bullet touches as this bow wave spreads outwards and ahead of the bullet. If the bullet breaks apart of flattens the dispersal is wider. This is not only why we have a much larger wound on the exit of some bullets (though Through and Through wounds are possible) it adds to the dispersal pattern of the ejecta, of the splatter. The trauma wave balloons outwards and pushes the ejecta in all possible directions, spreading it out as wide as the exit wound will allow. The cone is much wider as the trauma wave is likely much wider than the hole it manages to produce. It is a an explosive discharge.

This is still the best explanation of the Z film, that matches the autopsy, that matches the WC findings, that matches the "back and to the left" meme, that matches the descriptions of the body that Robert has cherry picked lines from. It matches the testimony when it put it back in context and look beyond the subjective descriptors Robert is enamoured to.

It is a feature of the film we can see for ourselves, objective evidence on which we do not need to rely on subjective interpretation.
Click to expand...

40 plus medical witnesses disagree.
 
JayUtah said:
Straw man. Oswald's shooting has an objective record, and the record still exists. How many people may have witnessed it subsequently is immaterial. You can't distinguish that from the indirect hearsay of two people claiming they saw a film, and that dated testimony being the only support for the existence at all of the film.

You couldn't have given me any better proof that you don't understand the difference in value between kinds of evidence.
Click to expand...


FYI -- One person claimed to have seen the film -- Dennis David. The second man - Pitzer - had committed suicide twenty years before David ever made the claim. The fact that David claimed Pitzer had the film doesn't change the fact that only one person ever claimed to have seen it.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Asked and answered. Just another fringe reset by you. Pretty much all of these were covered in the past. Here's the link to just one post on the backyard photos.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8164109&postcount=5157

Anyone who cares can see in the link you danced in circles on the backyard photos, never explaining how your theories made a lick of sense, and concluded your exposition on the subject by changing the subject and by insulting me.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
You are grasping for non-existent loopholes and parsing words. Pitzer shot the film that he viewed along with Dennis David. That's make him a witness to the large blow-out in the back of the head. Since Dennis David was his associate, that makes them both medical photographers and therefore, both belong on the list of witnesses with a medical background.
Click to expand...


If Pitzer shot the film, he must have been at the autopsy. But the previously provided listing of autopsy attendees does not list him as attending. Please advise how he shoots a film of an autopsy he is not in attendance at. You have since claimed it wasn't necessary for him to be at the autopsy. But that is pretty much demolished by your own claim above that he shot the film. If you're going to tweak the claim to say someone else shot this supposed but actually non-existent) film, please provide a name and explain how Pitzer came in possession of it. Of course you cannot do any of this. Right now you have one claim by one man which isn't backed up by anything. Nonthing confirms Dennis David's story.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
40 plus medical witnesses disagree.
Click to expand...

Please provide the statements where those same 40 plus witnesses discuss the ejecta dispersal patterns seen in the film so we can decide if they have any opinion at all.

But hey, if you want to claim that the film proves a shot from the front you go and reconcile the content of the film with your description of the small entry wound.

Oh and with your claim of no objective evidence.

As it stands your version of events suffers further from internal conflict.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Previously disproven as untrue. Governor Connaly never insisted he was hit by a separate bullet as you above claim, but he did insist he was hit by the second one. If the first shot missed the car and the passengers, and the second hit both the President and the Governor, as the Governor conceded was possible, your claim is falsified.

Just another fringe reset attempt by you.

At one point you actually came dangerously close to admitting that:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8171796&postcount=5324

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

HSienzant said:
We can discuss all the witnesses you want, but many of those were discussed previously, and all you did was make the font larger and more colorful when reiterating your initial claims after they were rebutted. Others you simply ignored entirely. You tried claiming before that the line-outs throughout your listing is dishonest and no evidence was ever produced to show why they should be removed. Do you remember the post below?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190


Robert?

I do believe you've owed me some responses for a good six months or more.

Hank
Click to expand...



You never did respond, except to say you won't respond, giving a pointless and artificial reason (one point at a time) as your excuse.

Your listing of 40 medical witnesses (many of them the Parkland doctors) is easily shown to be inflated. And the fact that you avoid responding shows you know that to be true.

Hank
 
Last edited:
To go from ficton written by an amatuer author in this thread to fiction written by a good author, I'm currently reading "The Third Shot" by Stephen Hunter, I highly recommend it as it's entertaining, well written from a ballisitic viewpoint, and it doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is.
 
Robert, if the film was altered, why was it altered to throw doubt on the lone shooter from the rear?
Click to expand...
I notice Robert has avoided this like the plague.
He's going to have to try really hard to avoid blowing another hole in his foot by answering it.

Come on Robert, at least give it a go....;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom