• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
aggle-rithm said:
Irrelevant.

http://www.bevfitchett.com/gunshot-wounds/gunshot-wounds-of-the-brain.html



(I'm sure this has all be explained repeatedly in the last 200 pages, but clearly we haven't gotten across.)
Click to expand...

Don't see what that has to do with anything, but..

From: Explore Forensics
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds
Author: Jack Claridge - Updated: 20 July 2010

"Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound."
 
aggle-rithm said:
I'm sure if Robert finds a single counter-example, he will claim that this proves the large hole in Kennedy's head COULD NOT have been an entrance wound. Standard CT operating procedure.

I also expect him to say that fruit is not a perfect analogue for the human head, or they didn't use the right kind of bullet, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I do get the impression that some "Deep Thinkers" are actually coming to infer, that there just may have been a large blow-out hole in the back of K's head, albeit 40 plus witnesses and 218 pages after the fact. Oh, well. Better late than never.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's no illusion. Your scoreboard account of un-cherry-picked witnesses remains at zero.
Click to expand...
That's because this is game you're playing with yourself. We never agreed to play your game with your arbitrary and biased set of rules; rules that you seemingly disregard yourself, whenever you think it helps your case.
 
Robert Prey said:
Don't see what that has to do with anything, but..

From: Explore Forensics
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds
Author: Jack Claridge - Updated: 20 July 2010

"Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound."
Click to expand...

Does "usually" mean "always" now?
 
Robert Prey said:
I do get the impression that some "Deep Thinkers" are actually coming to infer, that there just may have been a large blow-out hole in the back of K's head, albeit 40 plus witnesses and 218 pages after the fact. Oh, well. Better late than never.
Click to expand...

You mean like the one in the WC illustrations?

The concept that "the descriptions may not say or mean what you think" has not changed since page one. Hardly after the fact (or more precisely after the conjecture). It has been pointed out that "at the back" can mean more than "on the rear most surface" and the discussion of locality is not exactly a recent development.

You may still be wrong, but do try at least to understand why now that realisation may finally glimmer through.
 
Robert Prey said:
I do get the impression that some "Deep Thinkers" are actually coming to infer, that there just may have been a large blow-out hole in the back of K's head, albeit 40 plus witnesses and 218 pages after the fact. Oh, well. Better late than never.
Click to expand...

Could you show us with your red crayon again? LOL. That did it for me.



You didn't think the picture you colored was gone, did you?
 
Still unaccounted for in Roberts narrative:

The lack of ejecta visible from his proposed blow out in the Z film.
The amount of ejecta from what he claimed was an entry wound.
The direction and distribution of ejecta from a "small entry wound."
The lack of evidence for any frame of the z film being altered.
The lack of evidence of Jackie scooping up (invisible) brain tissue from the boot of the car.
The anthropological evidence the autopsy photos are of JFK.
The lack of evidence for jet effect working as claimed.
The lack of viable method of faking the autopsy photos.
The lack ofevidence for supression or destruction of objective evidence.
40 Medical witnesses whose full testimony is exclusively contrdictory of the autopsy or WC. So far the total of those offered whoseevidence withstands scrutiny and is not compatible with known wounds stands at... zero.
 
Also: When and how the polaroid was faked.
Evidence LHO was a hero/spy/patsy.
A reason why there would be an attempt to frame Oswald by leaving an entirely different rifle in the TSBD.
Any evidence for the existence of curtain rods.
A reason why the backyard photos would be faked given that there were apparently genuine photos of Oswald holding the same weapons, that the same person describes taking.
A narrative of events that must have happened on that day that fits all elements of the conspiracy Robert has proposed.
 
Robert Prey said:
I do get the impression that some "Deep Thinkers" are actually coming to infer, that there just may have been a large blow-out hole in the back of K's head, albeit 40 plus witnesses and 218 pages after the fact. Oh, well. Better late than never.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. The way I read the post you've quoted is that for all your demands for an affirmative case, if one were provided you'd just disregard it on a whim.
 
Robert Prey said:
OH, Good. Anther Jay Utah Credibility Poll. What a joke.
Click to expand...

If you say so. You're the one obsessing over my credibility and trying to make it part of your argument. By all means do so, because we know what my credibility is here at JREF compared to yours. And by all means turn around and mock your own argument right after you make it. Credibility in, credibility out. Just pick one and stick with it.
 
I think "they" made JFK to do all the no-nos possible, such as wanting to change the monetary system, break up the CIA, make deals with the Soviet Union, mess with the oil industry and a whole basket of things that those having the real power did NOT want U.S. Presidents to do. And then they sacrificed JFK (or at least pretended to assassinate him). To scare the bejeezus out of the following Presidents to keep them in line.

And JFK was made by LBJ to order the moon program. And after the assassination scientists could no longer object to the incorrect science of that project, because JFK had promised the American people that they would go to the moon and he was now dead. So NASA and the Apollo program could then be used as a public front for the secret military NRO who's purpose was U.S. military preeminence in space instead of some flower power peaceful moon landing program.
 
JayUtah said:
If you say so. You're the one obsessing over my credibility and trying to make it part of your argument. By all means do so, because we know what my credibility is here at JREF compared to yours. And by all means turn around and mock your own argument right after you make it. Credibility in, credibility out. Just pick one and stick with it.
Click to expand...

A poster confident of his arguments, does not need a poll of low information skeptics to confirm it.
 
Robert Prey said:
My 40 plus to your zero. Right. It's more like no contest.
Click to expand...

Why you under the impression that a "winner" can be declared by a scoreboard of witnesses?

Why are you not adjusting the score to account for those debunked, or shown to tally withthe wc and autopsy?

How do you think your narrative scores in terms of objective evidence?

The idea you are keeping score and offer that as evidence you are winning is laughable. Especially as you dont like people declaring victory.

Speaking of which wish to quote me declaring victory yet?
 
Robert Prey said:
A poster confident of his arguments, does not need a poll of low information skeptics to confirm it.
Click to expand...

You realise you are the one who questions the credibility of other posters.

Which model would you suggest for gauging credibility?
 
Robert Prey said:
Don't see what that has to do with anything, but..

From: Explore Forensics
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds
Author: Jack Claridge - Updated: 20 July 2010

"Exit wounds - as we have already mentioned - are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound."
Click to expand...

How do it know?

The bolded above is pure nonsense.

A projectile loses enegry from the moment it exits the muzzle.

A projectile does not "push harder" at any point in it's flight even in open air, it does nothing but lose energy and velocity.

A supersonic projectile intersecting the cranial vault can produce hydrostatic shock in the brain tissue, causing tissue to eject from both the entrance and exit wounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom