JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

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

Then it is a good job I didn't reference them alone, and referenced all the statements that contradict a front entry wounds. In fact I have discussed Posner, but not stated him as evidence.

So, let's ask again:
What makes your cherry picked quotes more reliable than all those that contradict them. I don't want your opinion that the autopsy was a cover up, I want evidence that proves the doctors you quoted are more reliable or honest than those who carried out the autopsy, or the people who saw the shooting happen and reported a shot from beind.

I want to know what evidence supports your claim.

 

[bynmdsue]

The doctor described what he did in the book which was cutting off clothes, determining a pulse, and inserting an IV.

When was he inspecting the head wound then?

 

[bynmdsue]

Because they were all independently made with no motive for fraud

It gets conspiracy nutters to listen to them tho, don't it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Unlike everybody who said they saw the head shot from behind, who also had no reason for frau- oh.... exactly like everybody else who had no reason for fraud.

 

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Lone gunman specters are only the imagined workings of the hopelessly delusioned Lone Nutter. What do other assassinations have to do with the JFK assassination in the world of objective rationality? Absolutely nothing.

Absolutely nothing? Other than answering and rebutting your statement about a routine protocol.

Of course there is no "routine protocol" in the investigations of assassinations and my mentioning of the lone gunman as a specter haunting the American landscape was to point out than historically American assassins tend to be loners, not that the JFK assassination by necessity not a conspiracy.

I assume that even Robert would not claim all the assassinations and attempted assassinations I mentioned aside from JFK (Garfield, McKinley, Huey Long, Harvey Milk, George Moscone, Gabrielle Giffords, John Lennon, George Wallace and Ronald Reagan) were conspiracies.

Or maybe he would.

Edit:

Interesting wiki of presidential assassination attempts and plots.

Failed assassination attempts: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

There were foiled attempts to take the lives of JFK and Lincoln by lone individuals before they were killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth, respectively.

Interestingly, of all the names on that list, only two attempted killings (of Harry Truman and George H.W. Bush) could be classified as conspiracies. Two Pureto Rician nationalists plotted to kill Truman and sixteen men in the employ of Saddam Hussein smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait with the intent of killing Bush in 1993.

So of all these attempts, successful and unsuccessful, only two (Lincoln and Truman) were conspiracies, the rest were by lone individuals.

 

[Robert Prey]

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...

Oh, yes. not just capable, but guilty:

From Washington Post,

Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board

Seal of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB Final Report)
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 10, 1998; Page A03


The central contention of the report is that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy's brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained when he was shot in Dallas and brought to Parkland Hospital there on Nov. 22, 1963. The doctors at Parkland told reporters then that they thought Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind as the Warren Commission later concluded.

"I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the Archives are not of President Kennedy's brain," Horne, a former naval officer, said in an interview. "If they aren't, that can mean only one thing -- that there has been a coverup of the medical evidence." Horne contends that the damage to the second brain reflected a shot from behind. He says the first brain was Kennedy's and reflected a shot from the front. --Douglas Horne, the board's chief analyst for military records.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

 

[Robert Prey]

Of course there is no "routine protocol" in the investigations of assassinations and my mentioning of the lone gunman as a specter haunting the American landscape was to point out than historically American assassins tend to be loners, not that the JFK assassination by necessity not a conspiracy.

I assume that even Robert would not claim all the assassinations and attempted assassinations I mentioned aside from JFK (Garfield, McKinley, Huey Long, Harvey Milk, George Moscone, Gabrielle Giffords, John Lennon, George Wallace and Ronald Reagan) were conspiracies.

Or maybe he would.

"Treason doth never prosper: what 's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason"

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, yes. not just capable, but guilty:

From Washington Post,

Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board

Seal of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB Final Report)
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 10, 1998; Page A03


The central contention of the report is that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy's brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained when he was shot in Dallas and brought to Parkland Hospital there on Nov. 22, 1963. The doctors at Parkland told reporters then that they thought Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind as the Warren Commission later concluded.

Why does the Zapruder film show a shot from behind blowing out the right front of his head?

 

[kookbreaker]

So basically it comes down to: "Are you going to believe my cherry-picked quotes or your own lying eyes?".

 

[RoboTimbo]

So basically it comes down to: "Are you going to believe my cherry-picked quotes or your own lying eyes?".

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, yes. not just capable, but guilty:

From Washington Post,

Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board

Seal of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB Final Report)
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 10, 1998; Page A03


The central contention of the report is that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy's brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained when he was shot in Dallas and brought to Parkland Hospital there on Nov. 22, 1963. The doctors at Parkland told reporters then that they thought Kennedy was shot from the front and not from behind as the Warren Commission later concluded.

"I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the Archives are not of President Kennedy's brain," Horne, a former naval officer, said in an interview. "If they aren't, that can mean only one thing -- that there has been a coverup of the medical evidence." Horne contends that the damage to the second brain reflected a shot from behind. He says the first brain was Kennedy's and reflected a shot from the front. --Douglas Horne, the board's chief analyst for military records.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

And Horne's conclusion is based on the contradictory testimony from two non-medical witnesses - a photographer (Stringer) and a former FBI agent (O'Neall).

In that same article....

"It was the same brain," he said of the Nov. 25 examination. "We decided it was destroyed enough that we didn't need to take sections." Asked about Stringer's recollection of photographing sections, Boswell said, "He's full of [expletive]."

 

[Walter Ego]

And Horne's conclusion is based on the contradictory testimony from two non-medical witnesses - a photographer (Stringer) and a former FBI agent (O'Neall).

In that same article....

Robert cherry picking quotes? I'm shocked, shocked!

Say it ain't so!

 

[I Ratant]

There's no need to pity the ..... guy.
Willful ignorance honed by inhaling too many conspiracy novels, with the added benefit of learning how to misrepresent evidence and fact is what he is doing, following the lead of the novelists.

 

[matt.tansy]

Best Evidence reads like a compendium of movie scenes where you have to suspend your disbelief. The entire time I was watching the truck chase scene in The Raiders of the Lost Ark my brain was screaming, "Just stop all the vehicles, get out, and shoot him!". If you want to make it look like JFK was shot from the front, just shoot him from the front.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

Actually no, eye witness testimony is some of the worst possible evidence. It rates right down the bottom with police obtained confessions. Unfortunately most people don't understand that and think that these are both foolproof.

The scientifically shown reality is that eyewitness testimony relies on two very poor functions of the human body. Firstly on perception, something we are lousy at, and secondly on memory retreival, which is even worse. Take a few classes in the how the human brain functions, and you might start understanding that while it is extremely powerful, the things that make it power also create the ability for massive flaws.

Perception is the period of time between observing and understanding what our senses are inputing. We need to interpert what our senses are telling us. This isn't instantaneous, and the more uncommon the sight we see, the longer it takes our brains to figure out what is happening, if it figures it out at all.

The second issue is memory. Our brains suck at storing and retreiving memories. Unlike a computer system that keeps all the files separate, and well cataloged, our brain uses sensory triggers for keys and re-uses previous neural pathways or similar experiences to recode the new memory.

This results in memories being lost over time, but even worse allows our brains to actually overwrite what was there to begin with and give us a new memory of that event. When new information comes in about an event we witnessed, even if that is just by leading questions of another person, our brains can overwrite our previous memory and create a fake one. Worse still our brains can do this merely by our thinking about these events, changing our memory and belief about what happened during an event. There is no known way to determine a false memory from a real one in these circumstances.

Relying on eyewitness testimony when there is physical evidence and recorded evidence is daft, and when eyewitness and physical evidence conflict, 99.999% of the time, it is the eye-witnesses who are wrong, even if they truely believe what they are saying.

 

[Robert Prey]

Why does the Zapruder film show a shot from behind blowing out the right front of his head?

I see a shot from the front blowing out his head producing a predictable jet effect spray of blood, brain and tissue. You see only what you want to see. I also see Jackie turning around to the trunk to try to retrieve a chunk of the JFK's brain blown away from the back of his head. But it's all subject to interpretation, which is why my proof of a second shooter lies in the un-assailable statements of the Parkland Personnel, not the Z film.

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually no, eye witness testimony is some of the worst possible evidence. It rates right down the bottom with police obtained confessions. Unfortunately most people don't understand that and think that these are both foolproof.

The scientifically shown reality is that eyewitness testimony relies on two very poor functions of the human body. Firstly on perception, something we are lousy at, and secondly on memory retreival, which is even worse. Take a few classes in the how the human brain functions, and you might start understanding that while it is extremely powerful, the things that make it power also create the ability for massive flaws.

Perception is the period of time between observing and understanding what our senses are inputing. We need to interpert what our senses are telling us. This isn't instantaneous, and the more uncommon the sight we see, the longer it takes our brains to figure out what is happening, if it figures it out at all.

The second issue is memory. Our brains suck at storing and retreiving memories. Unlike a computer system that keeps all the files separate, and well cataloged, our brain uses sensory triggers for keys and re-uses previous neural pathways or similar experiences to recode the new memory.

This results in memories being lost over time, but even worse allows our brains to actually overwrite what was there to begin with and give us a new memory of that event. When new information comes in about an event we witnessed, even if that is just by leading questions of another person, our brains can overwrite our previous memory and create a fake one. Worse still our brains can do this merely by our thinking about these events, changing our memory and belief about what happened during an event. There is no known way to determine a false memory from a real one in these circumstances.

Relying on eyewitness testimony when there is physical evidence and recorded evidence is daft, and when eyewitness and physical evidence conflict, 99.999% of the time, it is the eye-witnesses who are wrong, even if they truely believe what they are saying.

Eye-witness statements that are contemporaneous are not lost over time. And when virtually all 20 of the witnesses at a scene report the same observations, the veracity is substantial. On the other hand, evidence that lacks a proper chain of custody and is altered, forged or substituted has no credibility value whatsoever. I refer you to the substantial evidence of autopsy fraud as reported by Doug Horne of the ARRB and others.

 

[Noztradamus]

I see a shot from the front blowing out his head producing a predictable jet effect spray of blood, brain and tissue.
You see only what you want to see.
~~~~~~~
.

"I was going to say I see a ducky and a horsey, but I changed my mind"

Robert, why is there no spray though the hole you claim is in the rear of Kennedy's skull?

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
And Horne's conclusion is based on the contradictory testimony from two non-medical witnesses - a photographer (Stringer) and a former FBI agent (O'Neall).

In that same article....


Robert cherry picking quotes? I'm shocked, shocked!

Say it ain't so!

So by that astute observation, I take it that you give substantial credibility to the Medical Personnel at Parkland, eh?

 

[Walter Ego]

Robert Prey: Stundie

Best Evidence reads like a compendium of movie scenes where you have to suspend your disbelief. The entire time I was watching the truck chase scene in The Raiders of the Lost Ark my brain was screaming, "Just stop all the vehicles, get out, and shoot him!". If you want to make it look like JFK was shot from the front, just shoot him from the front.

Of all the JFK conspiracies to embrace, some more plausible than others, Robert has chosen the looniest.

David S. Lifton's lengthy 1980 pro-conspiracy JFK book "Best Evidence: Disguise And Deception In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" spells out a fantastically-absurd theory of casket-switching, body-snatching, and head-altering surgery that was supposedly performed on the badly-damaged cranium of assassinated President John F. Kennedy by a group of unnamed conspiratorial surgeons prior to JFK's official autopsy at Bethesda Naval Medical Center near Washington, D.C., on the night of Kennedy's murder.

http://best-evidence.blogspot.com/

But that's par of the course for Robert. He is a walking, talking Stundie.

Just out of curiosity, how are the Republicans "anti-science." Why would anyone think that? Perhaps because some reject the fable of Man made global warming?

He is also paranoid.

Do you realize that killing the unborn for not having a functioning brain is a principle that endangers many of the already born?

Calm down, Robert. No one wants to kill you.