JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

This has been answered already. The Best Evidence is the head wound as witnessed first hand by the medical personnel at Parkland and others such as on the scene Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, namely a large blow-out in the back of the head indicating a shot from the right front and thus a conspiracy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e72478f327.jpg

Why did they not notice features clearly visible in the uncropped photo?
Why was this wound not visible when JFK left the plaza?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Nor is there any photographic evidence to support the counter-claim -- that of an intact back of the head except for a small entry wound.

I really don't want to call you a liar so can we modify that statement to say that there is no photographic evidence that you will accept that shows the back of JFK's intact except for a small entry wound?

This means of course that you must discount the autopsy photos (except for that cropped picture you keep posting) and the Z film both of which invalidate your shot from the Grassy Knoll theory.

Are you ready now to except David Lifton's alteration theory that the conspirators "blacked out" the back of the JFK's head to conceal an exit wound that was visible in the Z film? Every version of the Z film shows the back of the president's head intact so it must have been altered in this way if your theory is correct.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Grow a spine.

Don't be a hypocrite. People with spines acknowledge when they've made a mistake. I see no evidence of you doing that in this thread.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

I really don't want to call you a liar so can we modify that statement to say that there is no photographic evidence that you will accept that shows the back of JFK's intact except for a small entry wound?

This means of course that you must discount the autopsy photos (except for that cropped picture you keep posting) and the Z film both of which invalidate your shot from the Grassy Knoll theory.

Are you ready now to except David Lifton's alteration theory that the conspirators "blacked out" the back of the JFK's head to conceal an exit wound that was visible in the Z film? Every version of the Z film shows the back of the president's head intact so it must have been altered in this way if your theory is correct.

The back of the head photo is fake. Andi it's not just Lifton's opinion that it's fake. Not only is that pic inconsistent with some 40 witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda, but it is also inconsistent with the official autopsy report.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Don't be a hypocrite. People with spines acknowledge when they've made a mistake. I see no evidence of you doing that in this thread.

Because no one has been able to prove any mistake.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The back of the head photo is fake. Andi it's not just Lifton's opinion that it's fake. Not only is that pic inconsistent with some 40 witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda, but it is also inconsistent with the official autopsy report.

LOL. 30 becomes 40.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Why did they not notice features clearly visible in the uncropped photo?
Why was this wound not visible when JFK left the plaza?

It certainly was visible to Agent Clint Hill who was just inches from it.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Because no one has been able to prove any mistake.

You've been doing that just fine without help. Bang!

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So rather than answering the question you decide if they are reliable based on if they agree with you or not?

Hmm. If only there was some way to test the accuracy of subjective memories. To compare them to some source of material evidence rather than adopt an attitude of "enough people sayit must be true".

You can tell me to grow a spine and indulge in childish bravado all you like. But the answer will remain "unsupported by material evidence"

And your "material" evidence is what?????

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And your "material" evidence is what?????

A thorn in your side.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

There's a Secret Secret service? The CTs are going to have a field day with that information

.
Well, yeah!
They have their crullers and lattes catered by a special firm, cleared to be free of enemy influences.
Polygraphs required, and they have to pass the secretaries test.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

It certainly was visible to Agent Clint Hill who was just inches from it.

And yet invisible to film? Managaing to fail to appear on the Z film or polaroid? By the way, which piece of the Hill testemony you quoted described the wound? ETA: That means a page number and line number from the WC itself, not a secondary source.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

Time to go back to reading my novel,

.
Good idea.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

LOL. 30 becomes 40.

.
The poor soul has run out of feet, and is knee-capping himself now.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And your "material" evidence is what?????

Firstly, if you intend to tell others to grow a spine, acknowledge the evidence. Then conisder if more than one question mark is recquired per sentence.

Now, to answer you question:
1) The body. It is thre single best piece of evidence we have.And it matches the autopsy.
2) The autopsy records itself. Measured data collected and verified is material evidence.
3) The photographic record: Where as witness statements are liable to be fallible and are by their nature subjective, we have an objective record of the events. That you are dishonest or greatly flawed in your interpretation of them is of no consequence to anybody else.
4) As discussed previously a totality of evidence tying Oswald to the scene of the crime and the murder weapon.

Those are three pieces of evidence that always take presidence over witness statements.

Even the photo you yourself post, in a heavily cropped form is counter to the claims. Disregard the lack of rear exit wound in any photograph or frame of film taken while JFK was in the Plaza, including those taken AFTER all three shots were fired. At the very LEAST your Parkland statements have neglected to mention a priority wound with a direct baring on the questions asked during the WC. One that is verified in each piece of material evidence, that conflicts directly with the claims.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Marina Oswald said that by the time she met him in March, 1961 he spoke the language well enough so that at first she thought he was from one of the Baltic areas of her country". P. 257, Warren Report

My version of the Warren Report doesn't say that. It says that when Marina met Oswald, "she thought he was from one of the Russian-speaking Baltic countries because he spoke with an accent." (p. 626 New York Times edition)

In one of her interviews with Posner, Maria said she did not know Oswald was an American when she first met him and thought he might be from the Baltic because "they speak with accents" and "they don't speak Russian very well, they have different nationalities than the Russians." (Posner: pp. 64-65)

Even after living in Russia for a few years Oswald's language skills were still poor as he recorded himself in his diary. If he went to a U.S. language school for intelligence agents (as you claimed in your valentine to Oswald), he was a lousy student. All the available evidence indicates that, to the contrary, Oswald's Russian was self-taught.

[Tomtomkent]

The dangers of secondary sources is revelealed. Take note please Robert. Here is the version Robert posted:

http://www.jfklancer.com/CHill.html

Here is a different transcript of the same interview:
http://home.pages.at/jfk05/statement/testimony.pdf

Here is a secition on the Lancer page:

Quote:

Mr. SPECTER. Where did you find that portion of the President's head?

Mr. HILL. It was found in the street. It was turned in, I believe, by a medical student or somebody in Dallas...I simply just pushed and she moved--somewhat voluntarily -- right back into the same seat she was in. The President -- when she had attempted to get out onto the trunk of the car, his body apparently did not move too much, because when she got back into the car he was at that time, when I got on top of the car, face up in her lap... At the time of the shooting, when I got into the rear of the car, she said, "My God, they have shot his head off." Between there and the hospital she just said, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you," and sobbed...I heard Special Agent Kellerman say on the radio, "To the nearest hospital, quick."....He said, "We have been hit."...I had my legs -- I had my body above the rear seat, and my legs hooked down into the rear seat, one foot outside the car...

The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head...

See if you can spot the minor differences from the full transcript. I can't find any mention of a massive exit wound on the back of JFKs head. Not only that, but in the Lancer page, which has the text about the rear portion of his head missing there is a photo of Hill on the car, after the shots, as it speeds away. No sign of blood or brains "all over" it.

How odd.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

My version of the Warren Report doesn't say that.

It would seem that Robert reads other peoples take on the report rather than searching transcripts of the report itself.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The back of the head photo is fake. Andi it's not just Lifton's opinion that it's fake. Not only is that pic inconsistent with some 40 witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda, but it is also inconsistent with the official autopsy report.

I wasn't asking you about a "back of the head photo." I was asking you if Lifton's theory that the exit wound on the back of JFK's head in the Zapruder film which should have been visable if your shot from the front theory is correct was "blacked out" as Lifton claimed.

It's a simple question so let me restate if for you.

Do you believe the Z film was altered to remove the visual evidence of a rear exit wound on JFK's head?

[EventHorizon]

Robert, are you lying or mistaken about the things Clint Hill said?

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Because no one has been able to prove any mistake.

"Any mistake"? Not just about the assassination? OK...

Virtually all of the replies you've received in this thread "prove your mistake" regarding the JFK CT, but since you are so adept at tap dancing around those corrections, let's dwell on just one mistake (I have more if you like) that you've made in this thread that can't be spun with arrogant bluster and obfuscation:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Once again you continue to assert the consequence, assuming a fact you have not and cannot prove.

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

If you meant affirming the consequent, no. You should read up on it.

The mature and classy way to respond to RoboTimbo's correction would be to first verify that his correction was in fact correct (it was, as it happens), then respond with something like this:

"Oops, my bad. I've only heard the term used, I've never seen it in print and I must have misheard it. Sincere thanks for the correction but that still doesn't mean you are right about Oswald..."

You instead chose to ignore his correction. Was that because you disagree with his correction but didn't reply because you didn't want to derail the thread? Did you realize he was right but was too embarrassed and proud to admit it? A little of both? Some other reason? I guess we'll never know, which is apparently just the way you want it.

If you lack the class and courage to own up to a silly but innocent slip-up like the one RoboTimbo pointed out, why should we expect you to see (and openly admit to) how wrong you are about the JFK CT, a subject in which your ego is clearly deeply invested?

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by JohnG

If you lack the class and courage to own up to a silly but innocent slip-up like the one RoboTimbo pointed out, why should we expect you to see (and openly admit to) how wrong you are about the JFK CT, a subject in which your ego is clearly deeply invested?

This quote comes to mind:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Grow a spine.

[Garrison]

The whole second shooter idea falls down just from thinking about the planning. I mean you plan to set up your patsy in a particular spot, plant the appropriate weapon with their prints, and then you shoot your target from a completely different direction and angle thus guaranteeing a massive failure source in your plan?

[bynmdsue]

Originally Posted by Garrison

The whole second shooter idea falls down just from thinking about the planning. I mean you plan to set up your patsy in a particular spot, plant the appropriate weapon with their prints, and then you shoot your target from a completely different direction and angle thus guaranteeing a massive failure source in your plan?

No, they got that covered by altering films, bullying or ignoring witnesses and surgically creating new wound paths secretly pre-autopsy.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

No, they got that covered by altering films, bullying or ignoring witnesses and surgically creating new wound paths secretly pre-autopsy.

Oh well in that case...

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Marina Oswald said that by the time she met him in March, 1961 he spoke the language well enough so that at first she thought he was from one of the Baltic areas of her country". P. 257, Warren Report

Oswald arrived in Russia in September 1959. In 18 months of total immersion he learned the language - that shocks you?

[bynmdsue]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Oh well in that case...

They're very thorough. It's also a good indicator as to the evilness of the plotters and how powerful they are that they would do it the hardest and most complicated way they could. Y'know, insteada just shooting him from behind.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

They're very thorough. It's also a good indicator as to the evilness of the plotters and how powerful they are that they would do it the hardest and most complicated way they could. Y'know, insteada just shooting him from behind.

Yeah these conspirators clearly confused awfully evil with evilly awful; thus concoting an incredibly elaborate plan of that would be ruined by Kennedy deciding to drive in a hard top because the weather looked bad, or Jackie had just had her hair done and it was kind of breezy in Dallas.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Yeah these conspirators clearly confused awfully evil with evilly awful; thus concoting an incredibly elaborate plan of that would be ruined by Kennedy deciding to drive in a hard top because the weather looked bad, or Jackie had just had her hair done and it was kind of breezy in Dallas.

No different than if the planes on 9/11 had hit just slightly above or below the starting line of the prepositioned demolitions.

All CT describe plans that rely on the most bizarrely complex and convoluted set of coincidences. Each one of which must happen exactly right to achieve their ends. The most minute of deviations would ruin the CT and expose the entire cabal.

Of the thousands of CT alleged, have any of them ever been thwarted?

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by JohnG

If you lack the class and courage to own up to a silly but innocent slip-up like the one RoboTimbo pointed out, why should we expect you to see (and openly admit to) how wrong you are about the JFK CT, a subject in which your ego is clearly deeply invested?

Robert often forgets what he posts or thinks we won't remember what he posts leading to situations like the one below.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Along those same lines, are you completely sure of the sanity of the Bug man? You know of course that he has been attempting to get Former President George W. Bush prosecuted for war crimes. Sound pretty sane to you?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The best debunking of Poser's 'Case Closed" is the Bug Man's "Reclaiming History." The Bug Man indicts himself and his own internal sanity by his crusade to indict George W. Bush for War Crimes.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So what exactly did you mean by indicting his internal sanity if you were not implying he was a lunatic?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Ah, ah, ah... That is a mis -quote. I never called the Bug Man a lunatic. An apology and a retraction, please.

Perhaps Robert doesn't know that insane and lunatic are synonymous.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by JohnG

"Any mistake"? Not just about the assassination? OK...

Virtually all of the replies you've received in this thread "prove your mistake" regarding the JFK CT, but since you are so adept at tap dancing around those corrections, let's dwell on just one mistake (I have more if you like) that you've made in this thread that can't be spun with arrogant bluster and obfuscation:





The mature and classy way to respond to RoboTimbo's correction would be to first verify that his correction was in fact correct (it was, as it happens), then respond with something like this:

"Oops, my bad. I've only heard the term used, I've never seen it in print and I must have misheard it. Sincere thanks for the correction but that still doesn't mean you are right about Oswald..."

You instead chose to ignore his correction. Was that because you disagree with his correction but didn't reply because you didn't want to derail the thread? Did you realize he was right but was too embarrassed and proud to admit it? A little of both? Some other reason? I guess we'll never know, which is apparently just the way you want it.

If you lack the class and courage to own up to a silly but innocent slip-up like the one RoboTimbo pointed out, why should we expect you to see (and openly admit to) how wrong you are about the JFK CT, a subject in which your ego is clearly deeply invested?

That's a "mistake"??? That's all you guys can come up with. Trivialities? Pathetic.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by EventHorizon

Robert, are you lying or mistaken about the things Clint Hill said?

Ah, ah, ah... That's the old

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy): two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[

Your admission and apology, please.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

I wasn't asking you about a "back of the head photo." I was asking you if Lifton's theory that the exit wound on the back of JFK's head in the Zapruder film which should have been visable if your shot from the front theory is correct was "blacked out" as Lifton claimed.

It's a simple question so let me restate if for you.

Do you believe the Z film was altered to remove the visual evidence of a rear exit wound on JFK's head?

Some people do believe that. But I do not find it necessary to believe it or not. The evidence is in the first hand on the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head. I think it's possible that part of the Z film was altered, but even more likely that the face wound in the Z film was painted in, since the President's face was left intact from all accounts.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

The dangers of secondary sources is revelealed. Take note please Robert. Here is the version Robert posted:

http://www.jfklancer.com/CHill.html

Here is a different transcript of the same interview:
http://home.pages.at/jfk05/statement/testimony.pdf

Here is a secition on the Lancer page:




See if you can spot the minor differences from the full transcript. I can't find any mention of a massive exit wound on the back of JFKs head. Not only that, but in the Lancer page, which has the text about the rear portion of his head missing there is a photo of Hill on the car, after the shots, as it speeds away. No sign of blood or brains "all over" it.

How odd.

No, I'm not going to deal with more of your trivialities. If there are minor differences, then you point them out and then explain why a minor difference is of major importance.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Firstly, if you intend to tell others to grow a spine, acknowledge the evidence. Then conisder if more than one question mark is recquired per sentence.

Now, to answer you question:
1) The body. It is thre single best piece of evidence we have.And it matches the autopsy.
2) The autopsy records itself. Measured data collected and verified is material evidence.
3) The photographic record: Where as witness statements are liable to be fallible and are by their nature subjective, we have an objective record of the events. That you are dishonest or greatly flawed in your interpretation of them is of no consequence to anybody else.
4) As discussed previously a totality of evidence tying Oswald to the scene of the crime and the murder weapon.

Those are three pieces of evidence that always take presidence over witness statements.

Even the photo you yourself post, in a heavily cropped form is counter to the claims. Disregard the lack of rear exit wound in any photograph or frame of film taken while JFK was in the Plaza, including those taken AFTER all three shots were fired. At the very LEAST your Parkland statements have neglected to mention a priority wound with a direct baring on the questions asked during the WC. One that is verified in each piece of material evidence, that conflicts directly with the claims.

So I ask what your "material" evidence is, and you come up with a mish-mash of subjects already discredited, but no material evidence. As if you could produce the body, or the original autopsy notes (burned) or the real autopsy photos. Face it, you have nothing in your quiver but a bunch of brainwash.

[matt.tansy]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

That's a "mistake"??? That's all you guys can come up with. Trivialities? Pathetic.

Logical fallacies are "trivalities"?

Somebody nominate this for a Stundie, please. I've used my quota for the month on Patrick.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Some people do believe that. But I do not find it necessary to believe it or not. The evidence is in the first hand on the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head. I think it's possible that part of the Z film was altered, but even more likely that the face wound in the Z film was painted in, since the President's face was left intact from all accounts.

So your really believe this ridiculously, needlessly, convoluted plan conspiracy theorists have concoted is actually plausible? That they would set up a patsy in one location and shoot Kennedy from a completely different one thus requiring endless readaction and editing of evidence and creating a massive potential failure point?

All any plotter has to do to cover their tracks is make sure the fatal bullet is fired at least roughly from the same trajectory as Oswald would have shot from but no, in CT land they instead concoct a plan out of the worst hack thriller where everyhting depends on luck and chance to make it all work, a plan that depends on which car Kennedy decides to travel in for goodness sake!

[EventHorizon]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Ah, ah, ah... That's the old

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy): two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[

Your admission and apology, please.

The irony, it burns! The funny thing is I was going to quote your question and point out how you were using a false dichotomy but I thought this would get the point across better. I was wrong apparently.

Though now that I look at it, I'm thinking it isn't a false choice. It's already been pointed out that Clint Hill didn't say what you said he said. So that means you are either lying or mistaken. Is there a third option I'm not seeing?

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

I really don't want to call you a liar so can we modify that statement to say that there is no photographic evidence that you will accept that shows the back of JFK's intact except for a small entry wound?

This means of course that you must discount the autopsy photos (except for that cropped picture you keep posting) and the Z film both of which invalidate your shot from the Grassy Knoll theory.

How about this autopsy photo of the back of the head? Would you accept this?

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by EventHorizon

The irony, it burns! The funny thing is I was going to quote your question and point out how you were using a false dichotomy but I thought this would get the point across better. I was wrong apparently.

Though now that I look at it, I'm thinking it isn't a false choice. It's already been pointed out that Clint Hill didn't say what you said he said. So that means you are either lying or mistaken. Is there a third option I'm not seeing?

No such thing has been pointed out. But Clint Hill's observation does indeed put another nail in the Lone Nutter coffin, so much so, that you guys simply have to resort to your final escape into Denial.