JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

The consistent contemporaneous observations of first hand witnesses, not subject to forgery or fraud, is not only evidence, it is the Best Evidence.

No they are claims. They are not material evidence and people can be mistaken. Or can lie. But let's assume you are right:

There are two conflicting versions of events. I want to establish whose is the most correct. I can see the Zupruder film, the pathology reports and the autopsy photographs that support the WC findings, and by extension the statements the WC found most convincing. According to you these are the BEST EVIDENCE, as I see no evidence of fraud or forgery.

Yet you claim your quotes are EVEN BETTER evidence. For what reason? What evidence supports those quotes and show them to be more accurate?


If you don't understand this basic principle, or are unable to answer admit so now.

 

[I Ratant]

Already answered that. The Z film is not the Best Evidence but if accurate, it clearly shows the head of the President blasted by a shot from the front.

.
More hands over the eyes and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" I see.
Shots from the front... from "Rashomon to the Extreme"..
Roscoe White, Charles Nicolletti, Jim Hicks, Lucien Sarti, "Man in Suit", Railroad Worker, Secret Service Agent, Badge Man, Policeman, Charles Harrelson, John Gedney, Jack Lawrence, Unknown #1, Unknown #2, Carlos, The Second Man.
And the 14 shooters in Dealey Plaza.
And yet, there's no entrance wounds in anyone in the limo, except in the backs of JFK and the governor, the -two- (2) initial wounds indicating shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD, which itself had only elbow room for all the shooters using that vantage point (5), and those in the buildings behind the motorcade route (8).
All of them using the Mannlicher-Carcano, as was the "patsy", just in case any bullets in the body weren't found in the autopsy done in the plane between Dallas and DC.
It sure all comes together dunnit!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Attempts to divert the subject from the statements of witnesses on the scene at Parkland, to varying interpretations of the Z film, are useless. I do not use the Z film to prove conspiracy. I cite the 20 or so witnesses at Parkland. Deal with that, if you can.

Wow. This misses the point by a country mile. You don't use the Z film to prove conspiracy? Well Golly Gosh. I will use it to DISPROVE those claims:

The film shows matter being ejected from the front of JFKs head. This is inconsistent with the wounds your quoted statements refer to. Unless you can disprove the provenence of the film, your statements are disproven.

I will go further. One of the other people being shot on the car appears to have a wound to the head consistent with the wounds described, inferring the statements were mistaken.

I don't care how you try to ignore the film. It is evidence. Ignore it if you wont, but I will consider it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And did anyone else notice that firsthand witness statements unsupported by evidence are very much open to fruad and fakery? It is exceedingly easy to simply lie. RP is basing his entire case around the assumption that an awful lot of people did just that. Yet continues, time and again, to fail to explain why statements supporting his views are not apparently open to being frauds, mistaken or lies.

This is a confirmation bias, and a double standard. Perhaps Robert you would be so kind as to explain why these statements were not open to being fraudulant? What is about those statements that would have made it impossible for anybody to have lied? More importantly why this is not applicable to those who contradict them?

 

[Robert Prey]

And did anyone else notice that firsthand witness statements unsupported by evidence are very much open to fruad and fakery? It is exceedingly easy to simply lie. RP is basing his entire case around the assumption that an awful lot of people did just that. Yet continues, time and again, to fail to explain why statements supporting his views are not apparently open to being frauds, mistaken or lies.

This is a confirmation bias, and a double standard. Perhaps Robert you would be so kind as to explain why these statements were not open to being fraudulant? What is about those statements that would have made it impossible for anybody to have lied? More importantly why this is not applicable to those who contradict them?

Because they were all independently made with no motive for fraud, unlike the cover-uppers at Bethesda. Boy, oh boy are you ever grasping.

 

[I Ratant]

And did anyone else notice that firsthand witness statements unsupported by evidence are very much open to fruad and fakery? It is exceedingly easy to simply lie. RP is basing his entire case around the assumption that an awful lot of people did just that. Yet continues, time and again, to fail to explain why statements supporting his views are not apparently open to being frauds, mistaken or lies.

This is a confirmation bias, and a double standard. Perhaps Robert you would be so kind as to explain why these statements were not open to being fraudulant? What is about those statements that would have made it impossible for anybody to have lied? More importantly why this is not applicable to those who contradict them?

.
And there's the very well proven problem with recall after time has passed.
Phil Willis and family testified to the WC the shots came from above them..
TSBD.
In "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", they all said the shots came from the Grassy Knoll.
Which to believe?
And Phil is a "witness" to the head wound ejecta....
From his location (Willis #5) and the orientation of the limo, how could he see that at all?

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow. This misses the point by a country mile. You don't use the Z film to prove conspiracy? Well Golly Gosh. I will use it to DISPROVE those claims:

The film shows matter being ejected from the front of JFKs head. This is inconsistent with the wounds your quoted statements refer to. Unless you can disprove the provenence of the film, your statements are disproven.

I will go further. One of the other people being shot on the car appears to have a wound to the head consistent with the wounds described, inferring the statements were mistaken.

I don't care how you try to ignore the film. It is evidence. Ignore it if you wont, but I will consider it.

The Z film is all open to interpretation which is why you prefer to discuss it as opposed to that which is not open to interpretation, namely, the contemporaneous observations of the Doctors, Nurses and Attendants at Parkland. That you cannot mis-interpret.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The Z film is all open to interpretation which is why you prefer to discuss it as opposed to that which is not open to interpretation, namely, the contemporaneous observations of the Doctors, Nurses and Attendants at Parkland. That you cannot mis-interpret.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Answer the question. Why does the Zapruder film contradict the anecdotes you quoted?

 

[Robert Prey]

No they are claims. They are not material evidence and people can be mistaken. Or can lie. But let's assume you are right:

There are two conflicting versions of events. I want to establish whose is the most correct. I can see the Zupruder film, the pathology reports and the autopsy photographs that support the WC findings, and by extension the statements the WC found most convincing. According to you these are the BEST EVIDENCE, as I see no evidence of fraud or forgery.

Yet you claim your quotes are EVEN BETTER evidence. For what reason? What evidence supports those quotes and show them to be more accurate?


If you don't understand this basic principle, or are unable to answer admit so now.

The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden.

 

[kookbreaker]

The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden.

And just who did that and how did they do that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden.

The Zapruder film hasn't been hidden. Why are you so reluctant to discuss the disconnect between reality and your quoted statements?

The right front of Kennedy's head blows out along with a mass of ejecta. That was the exit wound we see in the Zapruder film. Did someone else shoot him after the end of the Zapruder film and we don't see it? Did someone switch heads on the way to Parkland?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Z film is all open to interpretation which is why you prefer to discuss it as opposed to that which is not open to interpretation, namely, the contemporaneous observations of the Doctors, Nurses and Attendants at Parkland. That you cannot mis-interpret.

Why are the statements not open to interpretation? We have to decide why their statement is more or less reliable than those who contradict them. Which equally can (according to your stance) not be mis-interpreted.


Witness statements are open to interpretation. They can be wrong. They can be mistaken. They can be lies.

I don't give a hoot about "interpretation". I care about analysis. Which shows the Zupruda film to be genuine. A recording of the moment as it happens. It shows matter ejected from the front of JFKs head.

RP, why do none of your apparently infallible witnesses reconcile the matter ejected from the front of the mans head? Why do they not reconcile the statements and testemony that states JFK was shot in the back of the head? What evidence suggests that they are more honest than the statements that say JFK had wounds consistent with being shot in the back of the head? Why do they not reconcile with the multitude of witnesses that state they saw JFK being shot in the back of the head?

What makes these particular statements immune to the falibility of human perception? Why are they so special they can not be argued while you are happy to discount others as a whitewash?

Go on. Answer the question. Or admit you can't.

 

[EventHorizon]

Because they were all independently made with no motive for fraud, unlike the cover-uppers at Bethesda. Boy, oh boy are you ever grasping.

The Z film is all open to interpretation which is why you prefer to discuss it as opposed to that which is not open to interpretation, namely, the contemporaneous observations of the Doctors, Nurses and Attendants at Parkland. That you cannot mis-interpret.

I should just stop buying irony meters. They just keep exploding.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Parkland witnesses got to actually see the evidence before it was re-created and then hidden.

According to what evidence?
How was it recreated?
How was it hidden?

You are not seriously suggesting the Best Evidence story about JFK having his wounds altered?

No, lets stick to the important question at hand: Which witnesses at Parkland saw the falsified body. The ones who claimed the shot was from the front or the rear? How do you KNOW those were the ones telling the truth? What makes the conflicting statements wrong?

 

[Robert Prey]

Once again. What evidence is this based on? When facing two conflicting versions of events what evidence did you use to decide which was true and which was false?

According to Posner, nobody even looked at the back of the head, and he quotes Jenkins:

"When we decided to declare him dead," says [Dr.Pepper] Jenkins, people just started to fade away... With Mrs. Kennedy there, we were not about to start examining the wounds or turning the body over. No one even lifted the head, although a few doctors passed by and quickly looked at the wound." (Posner, p. 292)."

So no one even lifted the head, eh? But Jenkins himself surely did, and confirmed the wound to the back of the head, just like the others:

"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. -- Warren Report, Page 530.

Now, if you don't know where the Occipit or the Cerebellum is located... and to view that, Jenkins would have had to turn the head.

I'd say there are so many examples of Posner lies, that your reference to him is an indictment of your own hopeless bias.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Answer the question. Why does the Zapruder film contradict the anecdotes you quoted?

Why do other annectdotes contradict them?
What is supposed to make the Front Entry Wound more accurate?
What evidence supports it?

Why is it more likely that the evidence was "altered" and "hidden" than "doctors trying to save the lives of multiple people got confused over the identity of two men with a passing resemblance and terrible head injuries."


Having asked the question this many times I think there is only one answer: The folks who said the injury was from the front are no less likely to be telling lies or mistaken than those who say the entry wound was from the back.

The difference being that the ones saying the shot came from behind have a totality of evidence to support them. Where as the ones saying the shot came from the front have the further CLAIM the evidence was hidden and tampered with.

Now RP just has to prove the evidence was indeed hidden and tampered with. Not that I expect him to anymore. He has yet to show the statements were supported by evidence, yet to shwo they are anything other than a claim.

Let's apply his methodology to say, UFOs. They are clearly aliens spacecrat, because nobody who saw one can be fallible. How about sea monsters? Yeah they are real as people who saw them can not lie or be mistaken. Faries? Real. Absolutely. Two girls could not have in any way lied to Arthur Conan Doyle. Ghosts? Must be real. People saw them, and they are beyond fraud because they say so.

Oh, and LHO being the lone gunman? Yeah, well, those statements saying the shot came from behind had to be true for the same reason as the ones who say it came from the front... Whoo...

 

[Tomtomkent]

According to Posner, nobody even looked at the back of the head, and he quotes Jenkins:

"When we decided to declare him dead," says [Dr.Pepper] Jenkins, people just started to fade away... With Mrs. Kennedy there, we were not about to start examining the wounds or turning the body over. No one even lifted the head, although a few doctors passed by and quickly looked at the wound." (Posner, p. 292)."

So no one even lifted the head, eh? But Jenkins himself surely did, and confirmed the wound to the back of the head, just like the others:

"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)... so that there was herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. -- M.T. Jenkins M.D. -- Warren Report, Page 530.

Now, if you don't know where the Occipit or the Cerebellum is located... and to view that, Jenkins would have had to turn the head.

I'd say there are so many examples of Posner lies, that your reference to him is an indictment of your own hopeless bias.

Right, and the autopsy was all lies then? Or are you going to claim the pathologists who carried out the autopsy were more capable of being frauds or wrong than other doctors?

Seriously, please just answer the direct question for once...

 

[I Ratant]

Wow. This misses the point by a country mile. You don't use the Z film to prove conspiracy? Well Golly Gosh. I will use it to DISPROVE those claims:

The film shows matter being ejected from the front of JFKs head. This is inconsistent with the wounds your quoted statements refer to. Unless you can disprove the provenence of the film, your statements are disproven.

I will go further. One of the other people being shot on the car appears to have a wound to the head consistent with the wounds described, inferring the statements were mistaken.

I don't care how you try to ignore the film. It is evidence. Ignore it if you wont, but I will consider it.

.
http://jfklancer.com/zapruder/thompZ.html

 

[Tomtomkent]

So. We know there was a conspiracy because RP claims two anti castro cubans were complicate with LHO when he planned to shoot JFK.

But LHO did not intend to, or shoot JFK. His rifle was planted and his prints put on it after death. LHO was only a patsy and not part of a plan to kill anyone.

So our evidence of a conspiracy is invalidated. Nobody was complicit with LHO because he was not planning anything.

But then those two cubans still planted the evidence, faked the testimony of the crowd of witnesses who saw JFK lose his brains through an exit wound at the front, altered the body to fake an autopsy with photographs, planted the gun and made american intelligence white wash the WC.

Imagine if they had just targetted castro?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, why are you scampering away from answering about the Zapruder film?

Why does the Zapruder film show the right front of Kennedy's head blowing out in contradiction to the statements you've quoted?