JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags JFK assassination

Closed Thread
Old 22nd December 2011, 08:09 AM   #2281
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
That doesnt make sense, why would the people doing the forcing allow a doctor to burn notes himself?
Wouldnt the forcers simply have wanted to see the original notes and confiscate them and destroy them themselves?

Phone call
Hey Doc, you better burn those notes
Ok, I have burned them.
Right now keep it shut , or else.
"Oh, and Doc, make sure you sign the correct form to confirm you burned the notes, then submit it as evidence to the enquiry, and mention it at every oppertunity. You know, so everybody knows about it. But other than that, shuddup!"
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 08:16 AM   #2282
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by EventHorizon View Post
Oh my word! Which word do you not understand the definition of? From, other, exited or behind?! This is truly unbelievable. You criticize other people's research, saying they'd be lousy detectives yet you don't know what material evidence is and you don't backup claims. You speculate, quote mine, crop photos and basically act completely dishonestly and now we see that you can't even comprehend basic English? You have absolutely no credibility. You can't be for real? Please tell me you've been putting us on this whole time. You have to have been.
I'm with Robert here. Except I think Humes simply mis-spoke.

For example, if Humes had said,
"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than the front."

That would mean a back-to-front bullet path.

But what Humes actually said was different:
"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."

The two are certainly not synonymous.

The bottom line is Robert is believing the apparent mis-speaking by Humes at the same time he is accusing Humes of being part of a coverup and conspiracy (burning his notes, lying in the autopsy report, etc, etc).

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 08:24 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 08:18 AM   #2283
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
 
bynmdsue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,865
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
lol.

I would ask you for evidence to support those claims, but we both know you don't have anything other than suppositions and quotes out of context.

Hank
Bazinga!
bynmdsue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 08:22 AM   #2284
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
HOw much cred can you put in an autopsy doc who burned his notes the night of the autopsy?
ROTFLMFAO! You just quoted Humes on the bullet path. Don't you remember arguing his words here imply a conspiracy and a shot from other than the rear?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Yeah, perhaps you can resolve this infamous Humes quote as well:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360
How's that working out for you, Robert? The man is not credible, except when you like something he said?

It doesn't work that way, Robert.

And, oh, yeah, you dodged answering my question, Robert. I'll repeat it here:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hi Robert,

How soon after the assassination did Paul O'Connor make that drawing?
I believe the autopsy report was completed (typed) on 11/24/63 - two days after the assassination. I believe Humes testimony on the autopsy was in 1964, less than a year after the autopsy.

I believe Paul O'Connor's drawing was made more than 35 years after the assassination. Please let us know when this drawing was executed, and why you believe it should be granted more credence than the documents executed on the weekend of the assassination by the autopsists and more credence than the photographs of the body now available publicly that were taken on the night of the autopsy
.


Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 08:28 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 09:12 AM   #2285
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
ROTFLMFAO! You just quoted Humes on the bullet path. Don't you remember arguing his words here imply a conspiracy and a shot from other than the rear?



How's that working out for you, Robert? The man is not credible, except when you like something he said?

It doesn't work that way, Robert.

And, oh, yeah, you dodged answering my question, Robert. I'll repeat it here:




Hank
Ridiculous logic. O'Connor's drawing is legit because it is consistent with what all the medical Personnel at Parkland observed.
Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 09:16 AM   #2286
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Dodged the question for a fifth time.

Here it is again.

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries.

So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble.

I will answer your questions - When Oswald first tried to join the Marines, like his older brother Robert had previously, he was deemed too young by the Marines and turned down. He eventually did join a year later. Do you really think U.S.Intelligence was recruiting 16 year old high school dropouts with NO skills?

He got the clearance (the lowest level available) due to the nature of his job in the Marines, working with the radar group at Atsugi where he and other Marines were stationed.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence supporting the claim that Oswald "had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well".

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?

Hank
One question at a time.
Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 09:22 AM   #2287
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,001
Really, Robert. Nobody thinks less of you for your cowardly dodging and it doesn't harm your credibility at all. Bang! LOL.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 09:43 AM   #2288
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
One question at a time.
Robert dodged the question for a Sixth time!

Here it is again. I've placed it in boldface below in case you have trouble finding it amidst my answers to your other bogus issues.

Originally Posted by HSienzant
Quote:
And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth fifth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries.

So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble.

I will answer your questions - When Oswald first tried to join the Marines, like his older brother Robert had previously, he was deemed too young by the Marines and turned down. He eventually did join a year later. Do you really think U.S.Intelligence was recruiting 16 year old high school dropouts with NO skills?

He got the clearance (the lowest level available) due to the nature of his job in the Marines, working with the radar group at Atsugi where he and other Marines were stationed.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence supporting the claim that Oswald "had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well".

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?
Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 09:49 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:10 AM   #2289
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
How does that prove a non-conspiracy?
Robert dodges the questions.

Originally Posted by HSienzant
Quote:
Seriously, Robert.

You wrote this in post 983:

I am responding to that point *you* raised.

Here's the facts. The shells found at the scene are traceable to the revolver purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald and wrested from his hand in the theatre.

Oswald shot and killed police officer J.D.Tippit about 45 minutes after the President was assassinated.

Again, I know you are going to argue that an automatic was used to kill Tippit. If that's the case, why didn't the conspirators who were trying to frame Oswald do either of the [rather obvious choices] following:

a) Shoot Tippit with a revolver?
b) Frame Oswald for purchasing an automatic weapon?

Can you answer the question?

I doubt it, as none of the conspiracy books even try to address simple questions like these raised by their theories.

All the best,
Hank
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:16 AM   #2290
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Quote:
Brennan may have seen someone, but even after seeing Oswald on TV that day, Brennan failed to ID Oswald at the police lineup on the night of Nov. 22nd. Then later, he changed his mind, then later, changed his mind again. Not a very credible witness.
Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Quote:
A witness with bad eyesight who thinks he saw somebody from a distance but couldn't ID him up close, and then changes his story time and again, is not a credible witness. Obviously.
Hi Robert,

I haven't seen you retract these claims. I apologize if I missed your retraction. Can you point me to it?

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hi Robert,

Alleging Howard Brennan had bad eyesight at the time of the JFK assassination is a falsehood. Please retract it.

Thanks,
Hank
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:17 AM   #2291
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
One question at a time.
Robert, why can't you just answer questions one at a time?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:18 AM   #2292
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSienzant
But you previously said there was no damage to the face. O'Connor's drawing shows the damaged area extending through the head all the way to the face.
The drawing from Six Seconds in Dallas [the drawing showing what McClelland's version of the wound was] shows only a large exit wound on the back of the head, with no damage extending into the right temple or all the way to the face.

Can you somehow merge these disparate images into a coherent story line?

I bet you can't.
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
McClelland's drawing was pre-autopsy at Parkland.
Sorry, that doesn't explain the difference in the wounds described. Do you think the wounds changed between the time McClelland saw the wound at Parkland and the time O'Connor saw the wound at the autopsy?

How do you think they were changed?
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:22 AM   #2293
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,150
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
One question at a time.
Why bother? Even when someone does ask just one question your answer is always the same: A variation on "Oh yeah?! Well I don't think so! So there!"
__________________
Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012!

Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:23 AM   #2294
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Ridiculous logic. O'Connor's drawing is legit because it is consistent with what all the medical Personnel at Parkland observed.
It is not consistant with the material evidence.
If it is consistant with faliable human memory is entirely subjective.
Which makes your logic beyond ridiculous and into the realms of being laughable.


Why do you keep claiming material evidence must be wrong if it conflicts with testamony? You just can't lose face and admit the testamony could be wrong based on actual, reliable and viable evidence!
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:24 AM   #2295
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Sorry, that doesn't explain the difference in the wounds described. Do you think the wounds changed between the time McClelland saw the wound at Parkland and the time O'Connor saw the wound at the autopsy?

How do you think they were changed?
You dont expect him to answer two questions do you? Apparently he is unable to cope with such concepts!
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:25 AM   #2296
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
What matters is where the fatal bullet entered and exited. The large blow-out in the back of the head provides the answer.
What matters is where the fatal bullet entered and exited, yes. But the witness you cited as giving evidence of a large exit wound in the back of the head gave statements that clearly mean something different. For example, on McClelland:

Originally Posted by HSienzant
Quote:
Thank you for quoting that. I emphasized one line I wish you to explain away. Bear in mind JFK was on his back the entire time the doctors treated him, and the doctors did not move the head at any time.

Since that is true, how could they look *down* into the wound unless they were looking at it thru the massive right temple opening we see in the Z-film and the autopsy photos?

Where is the parietal bone? Do you know?
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_bone
"The parietal bones are bones in the human skull which, when joined together, form the sides and roof of the cranium."
And McClelland says what?
"so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half..."

That sounds a lot like the autopsy photos which show the massive wound in the right temple - in the parietal bone.

Bear in mind as well that at the time he testified, it was already considerably after he had written his notes on 11/22/63, which say there was a gunshot wound of the left temple. There is a massive gunshot wound of the right temple, and I will suggest to you again that McClelland simply made a left-right mistake in his earliest statement.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:28 AM   #2297
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
You are familiar with the concept of "reloading?"
Robert apparently thinks all weapons are one-use, disposable weapons.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:42 AM   #2298
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
He burned his original notes because he was forced to. They didn't fit the official script.
A pity you are just making that up and have no evidence to support your accusation. It would be a much better story if you could actually prove it.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:49 AM   #2299
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Ridiculous logic. O'Connor's drawing is legit because it is consistent with what all the medical Personnel at Parkland observed.
Yes, I agree it's ridiculous logic to cite the opinion of the autopsy doctor on one hand, then to argue he has little credibility on the other hand, but that's exactly what you did.

And remember, the statements of the medical personnel at Parkland are in dispute. I pointed out previously that Drs. Crenshaw, McClelland and Kemp Clark all gave statements indicating the wound was precisely where the autopsy placed it. Chiefly in the Parietal bone, with damage extending to other areas of the head.

Crenshaw:
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear." [Crenshaw's book]

McClelland:
"...right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself ..." (WC--V6:33)

Clark:
"There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... there was considerable loss of scalp and brain tissue...both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound..." (WR Appendix VIII, p.518)

Hank
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 11:03 AM   #2300
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Body: Michigan, Heart: Chicago
Posts: 4,456
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Why bother? Even when someone does ask just one question your answer is always the same: A variation on "Oh yeah?! Well I don't think so! So there!"

Its almost spamming by this point, no?
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:14 PM   #2301
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Yes, I agree it's ridiculous logic to cite the opinion of the autopsy doctor on one hand, then to argue he has little credibility on the other hand, but that's exactly what you did.

And remember, the statements of the medical personnel at Parkland are in dispute. I pointed out previously that Drs. Crenshaw, McClelland and Kemp Clark all gave statements indicating the wound was precisely where the autopsy placed it. Chiefly in the Parietal bone, with damage extending to other areas of the head.

Crenshaw:
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear." [Crenshaw's book]

McClelland:
"...right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself ..." (WC--V6:33)

Clark:
"There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... there was considerable loss of scalp and brain tissue...both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound..." (WR Appendix VIII, p.518)

Hank
So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.
Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:17 PM   #2302
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
A pity you are just making that up and have no evidence to support your accusation. It would be a much better story if you could actually prove it.

Yeah, well I also have the results of a lie detector test with the PSE device on Humes. And on Oswald as well (O'Toole's "The Assassination Tapes". What do you think were the results? Oh, you don't want to know.

Humes: high stress lies throughout .
Oswald: "I'm just a Patsy." low stress, truth.
Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:20 PM   #2303
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
What matters is where the fatal bullet entered and exited, yes. But the witness you cited as giving evidence of a large exit wound in the back of the head gave statements that clearly mean something different. For example, on McClelland:

Originally Posted by HSienzant
I'm getting kind of tired responding to the same garbage time and again. You know very well Dr. Mc believe the fatal shot to the head came from the Grassy Knoll. Give it up. You're done. Finished.
Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:21 PM   #2304
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,001
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.
Just like in that video you posted showing entry and exit wounds? Look at the bottom of your feet for more examples of exit wounds. Bang! LOL.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:23 PM   #2305
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
One question at a time.
"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.
Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:27 PM   #2306
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,001
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.
"Because I say so" is not proof. Are you going to attempt to prove anything at any point?

(That should be easy, it's only one question.)
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:42 PM   #2307
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
I'm getting kind of tired responding to the same garbage time and again. You know very well Dr. Mc believe the fatal shot to the head came from the Grassy Knoll. Give it up. You're done. Finished.
Who exactly is done?

If you are tired of having the same questions you KNOW all you have to do is supply material evidence.

Yet you can't.

And you can't face that the descriptions you rely conflict with the mans own words, and do NOT support your claims.

You are done Robert. Deluding yourself otherwise isn't helping. Pretending you have proven anything, when the available material evidence directly contradicts you is futile. You came with nothing, you produced nothing, repeating it isn't going to suddenly turn it to something.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:45 PM   #2308
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.
Nine ways? You haven't even produced valid evidence for one way.

Your "proof" is a doofus holding his analogue in a different way, invalidating any claims of "impossible" shadows. And yet ample examples of the "impossible" aspects being replicated have been supplied. The danged photo has been recreated for you by another poster.

Marina admits she took the photos. Your claims of impossible shadows are bunk. I make that a big fat zero ways you have "proven" them fake. You do not understand the concept of proof.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:48 PM   #2309
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Yeah, well I also have the results of a lie detector test with the PSE device on Humes. And on Oswald as well (O'Toole's "The Assassination Tapes". What do you think were the results? Oh, you don't want to know.

Humes: high stress lies throughout .
Oswald: "I'm just a Patsy." low stress, truth.
You know why "lie detectors" are not generally accepted as proof of anything, and are limited in their range of what it is indicative of? You know it is a polygraph and not a lie detector?

You know that Oswald believing does not mean he was?

Yeah, common sense often gets in the way of your little theories doesn't it.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 01:08 PM   #2310
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.
You do realize your version of the wound above (parietal damage) is clearly different from the image you posted to illustrate McClelland's version of the wounds, don't you?

Here's the image that is supposed to illustrate the wound McClelland saw (previously posted by you): http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.ph...mg&imgid=24590

Now please try to explain why the description of the wounds as seen by McClelland in Parkland don't match the wounds you say were caused by the bullet(s) in Dealey Plaza.

Is your witness for the head injury suffered perhaps mistaken [gasp!] as to the extent of the injuries?

Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 02:36 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 01:16 PM   #2311
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Yeah, well I also have the results of a lie detector test with the PSE device on Humes. And on Oswald as well (O'Toole's "The Assassination Tapes". What do you think were the results? Oh, you don't want to know.

Humes: high stress lies throughout .
Oswald: "I'm just a Patsy." low stress, truth.

That book was written in the 1970's. I read it then.

For those who haven't read it, O'Toole's claim is that you can take a tape recording of somebody, and by slowing down and graphing their speech, you can determine whether the person is speaking with high stress (which, he claims, denotes a lie) or with low stress (which, he claims, denotes the truth).

The problem I had at the time was the technology was new, so I wasn't prepared to necessarily believe his assertions about whether the stress levels were the determining factor.

I figured I'd put the assertions in the book aside, and let the technology prove itself and revisit the claims in a later decade.

About four decades later:

How many police departments use O'Toole's methodology for solving crimes?
How many courts in the USA accept his methodology?

To my knowledge, none and none.

Now, if this technology is as 'foolproof' as you would like to believe, it should be accepted almost everywhere - DNA is a example of a technology that wasn't available when O'Toole wrote his book, yet police departments and courts now routinely accept the validity of DNA evidence today universally.

But O'Toole's PSE, which pre-dates DNA evidence?

Nowhere to be seen. Not accepted in courts, and not used by the police to solve crimes.

Do you have an explanation for this, except that O'Toole's PSE isn't the foolproof lie-detector he claims?
I would love to hear it.

Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 02:51 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:10 PM   #2312
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
So, it was a hollow point or frangible bullet that entered in the right front, and proceeded to blow his brains out the back. Therefore, it passed through the parietal lobe as well.
Remember that the autopsists found evidence on the skull itself of the direction the bullet was travelling, and it was back-to-front.

Do you know what bevelling is, and what it means? If not, look it up.

And you are aware that noted conspiracist Cyril Wecht, who is a legitimate expert on this subject, disagrees with you entirely, are you not?

As Wecht told the HSCA when he testified to it after seeing the autopsy materials as a member of the HSCA medical panel:

Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there.I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.

The FORENSIC SCIENCE issue of 1974 published an article by Dr. Cyril Wecht and Robert Smith titled "The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy". In that article it is claimed that Connally was hit with a bullet fired from a high floor and Kennedy was hit with a bullet from a low or intermediate floor. . . . but they go on to say: "The available evidence, assuming it to be valid, gives no support to theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front of the Presidential car."

In June of 1975, Dr. Wecht issued a press release saying that the Rockefeller Commission misrepresented his testimony. Wecht says "I must emphasize that I have never myself advocated that President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll or similar forward locations, . . ."

Wecht went on to say ". . . Warren Commission's single-bullet theory is wrong, and that the available medical, physical and photographic evidence all point to the fact that the assassination was carried out by two gunmen. The fact that both gunmen were located to the rear of the President, which after all includes half of the earth's surface, in no way diminishes the impact of the conclusion."

Wecht's disagreements with the Warren Commission conclusions stems from his belief that one bullet could not have hit both Kennedy and Connally, and done the damage it did, and end up in the condition it did. He at no time supported a shot from the knoll.

Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 02:52 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:13 PM   #2313
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
"Whisked" is irrelevant. The photos are fake. Proved nine ways to Sunday.
Originally Posted by HSienzant

Quote:
Robert dodged the question for a Sixth SEVENTH time!

Here it is again. I've placed it in boldface below in case you have trouble finding it amidst my answers to your other bogus issues.

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth fifth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries.

So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble.

...

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?
Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 02:15 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:17 PM   #2314
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 5,264
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Robert, why can't you just answer questions one at a time?
Because he can't answer one question.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:26 PM   #2315
vtbub
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post

Wecht went on to say ". . . Warren Commission's single-bullet theory is wrong, and that the available medical, physical and photographic evidence
all point to the fact that the assassination was carried out by two gunmen. The fact that both gunmen were located to the rear of the President, which after all includes half of the earth's surface, in no way diminishes the impact of the conclusion."


Hank
That would be quite the feat considering how they were sitting in the limo. Lets play devil's advocate here and say Wecht is right. We have only accounted for two bullets from the shooting, The so-called magic bullet and the fatal shot. They both were fired from a Manlicher-Carcano. Does Wecht assume that Kennedy's neck wound was fired by someone else?

Where from behind would Connally been struck by another shooter considering JFK was in the way and the women in the car were not struck? The Dal-Tex building? Any place else from the TSBD would have been more easily detected.

Sounds like a not so plausible idea to me.
vtbub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:28 PM   #2316
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Marguerite molded Oswald's personality and they shared many traits in common, namely arrogance, self-absorption, a sense of grievance and entitlement and the belief that they were smarter than everyone else.

Marguerite was a truly bizarre woman and she was probably the first person to assert Oswald was a secret agent for American Intelligence. ... For Marguerite the assassination was a golden opportunity to be the center of attention, something she always craved (and another attribute she shared with her son Lee). It was also an opportunity to turn an easy buck.
She also admitted that perhaps Lee did do the shooting, but if he did, it should be viewed as a mercy-killing, in that the President suffered from "Atkinson's" [Addison's] disease.

Since Robert subscribes to Marguerite's "My son was an agent" assertion, I wonder if he also believes this one.

Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 02:39 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:37 PM   #2317
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Originally Posted by HSienzant



Hank
Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.
Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:44 PM   #2318
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by vtbub View Post
That would be quite the feat considering how they were sitting in the limo. Lets play devil's advocate here and say Wecht is right. We have only accounted for two bullets from the shooting, The so-called magic bullet and the fatal shot. They both were fired from a Manlicher-Carcano. Does Wecht assume that Kennedy's neck wound was fired by someone else?

Where from behind would Connally been struck by another shooter considering JFK was in the way and the women in the car were not struck? The Dal-Tex building? Any place else from the TSBD would have been more easily detected.

Sounds like a not so plausible idea to me.
A shooter in the southwest corner of the TSBD might not have to shoot through JFK to hit Connally, depending on when the shot that struck the Governor was fired. Perhaps that is where Wecht envisioned the shooter.

My recollection is Wecht agrees that bullet transited JFK's body, but he doesn't think it's a given that it hit Connally.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 02:53 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:50 PM   #2319
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Remember that the autopsists found evidence on the skull itself of the direction the bullet was travelling, and it was back-to-front.

Do you know what bevelling is, and what it means? If not, look it up.

And you are aware that noted conspiracist Cyril Wecht, who is a legitimate expert on this subject, disagrees with you entirely, are you not?

As Wecht told the HSCA when he testified to it after seeing the autopsy materials as a member of the HSCA medical panel:

Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there.I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.

The FORENSIC SCIENCE issue of 1974 published an article by Dr. Cyril Wecht and Robert Smith titled "The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy". In that article it is claimed that Connally was hit with a bullet fired from a high floor and Kennedy was hit with a bullet from a low or intermediate floor. . . . but they go on to say: "The available evidence, assuming it to be valid, gives no support to theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front of the Presidential car."

In June of 1975, Dr. Wecht issued a press release saying that the Rockefeller Commission misrepresented his testimony. Wecht says "I must emphasize that I have never myself advocated that President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll or similar forward locations, . . ."

Wecht went on to say ". . . Warren Commission's single-bullet theory is wrong, and that the available medical, physical and photographic evidence
all point to the fact that the assassination was carried out by two gunmen. The fact that both gunmen were located to the rear of the President, which after all includes half of the earth's surface, in no way diminishes the impact of the conclusion."

Wecht's disagreements with the Warren Commission conclusions stems from his belief that one bullet could not have hit both Kennedy and Connally, and done the damage it did, and end up in the condition it did. He at no time supported a shot from the knoll.

Hank
Cyril Wecht has said a lot of things.

Reprinted from Reclaiming History.


"I reminded Dr. Wecht that at the London trial I had asked him to be more specific as to the location of his possible second gunman, and he ended up positioning the triggerman not on the grassy knoll but "around the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and more down towards the other end [far west side] of the building."' When I pointed out to him in our phone conversation that from that position-not as far behind the president as Oswald was believed to be, but still to the president's right rear at the time of the first shot that hit him-it would have been physically impossible for a bullet shot from there to enter the front of the president's throat, he replied, "Yes, of course. And that's why I want to drop that position of mine and put the possible second gunman more to the west [right front] in the area of the grassy knoll. I know I testified to the other position in London and also wrote that in one of my articles in the past' but I no longer believe that to be true."

Robert Prey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:52 PM   #2320
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,664
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.
So what prevents you answering WHY the photos needed to be faked, if there were already genuine pictures Marina admitted taking, of LHO holding the exact same guns?

There is a red herring here. It is your answer.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.