ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics 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 16th December 2011, 12:53 AM   #2081
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
I suspect "Robert Prey" is trolling JREF.
Possibly. If it's a troll, it's a good one. The more pertinent question is what on Earth does he think he is accomplishing aside from giving textbook examples of credulous irrationalism?
Walter Ego 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 16th December 2011, 01:49 AM   #2082
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
For some reason, the Warren Commission did not want to actually see the autopsy photos or x-rays, perhaps because they might conflict with their pre-determined script....
Robert is simply lying in this assumption.

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The reason is well known. Earl Warren himself said the intent was to publish everything the Warren Commissioners saw, and he felt if they saw the autopsy photos, they should publish them. They felt they were too gory to publish, so Warren made the decision not to have the Commissioners view them.
This is only partially correct. It was the Kennedy family (specifically RFK) who refused to release the autopsy photos to the Warren Commission. Warren, fearing that if the Commission had the photos they might be leaked to the press, did not pressure RFK on this issue. (Warren Commission staffer Arlen Specter registered his objection to this policy in this memo.) in June 1964, RFK did allow Warren and chief council J. Lee Rankin to review but not publish the photos. (Posner, Case Closed pp. 409-410)

(Warren's fears were not unreasonable as it turned out. While working as an advisor to the HSCA in the late 1970s, assassination ghoul and conspiracy huckster Robert Groden purloined copies of some of the more gruesome photos and sold them later to a supermarket tabloid for big bucks.)

In any case, the original autopsy photos and x-rays were reviewed by a medical panel assembled by Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1968, by the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 and again by the HSCA in 1979. All of these expert panels confirmed the conclusions of the Warren Commission regarding the autopsy findings so it is irrelevant at this late date whether the Commission had access to the photos and x-rays. Their interpretation of the autopsy evidence was correct.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 16th December 2011 at 02:10 AM.
Walter Ego 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 16th December 2011, 04:37 AM   #2083
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Robert is simply lying in this assumption.



This is only partially correct. It was the Kennedy family (specifically RFK) who refused to release the autopsy photos to the Warren Commission. Warren, fearing that if the Commission had the photos they might be leaked to the press, did not pressure RFK on this issue. (Warren Commission staffer Arlen Specter registered his objection to this policy in this memo.) in June 1964, RFK did allow Warren and chief council J. Lee Rankin to review but not publish the photos. (Posner, Case Closed pp. 409-410)

(Warren's fears were not unreasonable as it turned out. While working as an advisor to the HSCA in the late 1970s, assassination ghoul and conspiracy huckster Robert Groden purloined copies of some of the more gruesome photos and sold them later to a supermarket tabloid for big bucks.)

In any case, the original autopsy photos and x-rays were reviewed by a medical panel assembled by Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1968, by the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 and again by the HSCA in 1979. All of these expert panels confirmed the conclusions of the Warren Commission regarding the autopsy findings so it is irrelevant at this late date whether the Commission had access to the photos and x-rays. Their interpretation of the autopsy evidence was correct.
But as you very well know, the people who shot and processed the autopsy photos have asserted that the ones in evidence are frauds.
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 16th December 2011, 04:39 AM   #2084
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Also; why does that drawing differ so much from the one you posted before that showed the exit wound on the centre of the back of the head?

Which witness was "lying or mistaken" if they drew pictures so differently?

Dr. McClellend's drawing is just 2 dimensional.
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 16th December 2011, 06:24 AM   #2085
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Dr. McClellend's drawing is just 2 dimensional.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...e72478f327.jpg
Both are 2d line drawings.

They also show different wounds.

Who was "lying or mistaken"?
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 06:30 AM   #2086
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
But as you very well know, the people who shot and processed the autopsy photos have asserted that the ones in evidence are frauds.
And yet you never sourced this in a way that presented which photos were fraud.

Nor has it stopped you submitting photos as evidence yourself (which you have yet to retract) despite trying to crop and rotate them to aid your lies about what they apparently show.

The exit wound "on the back of the head" was not so.
The "entry wound" was a fold of skin from a vast exit wound you tried to crop out

Do you have any material evidence to support your witness statements yet?

Care to explain why the descriptions of the wound froma single source conflict?
Why the drawings do not match?

No. I didn't think so.
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 06:50 AM   #2087
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
I suspect "Robert Prey" is trolling JREF.
If the definition of trolling is to shoot yourself in the foot numerous times, make a spectacle and mockery of yourself, and be pointed at and laughed at, then Robert is the bestest troll ever.

Come on Robert, troll us some more. 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 16th December 2011, 09:13 AM   #2088
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
But as you very well know, the people who shot and processed the autopsy photos have asserted that the ones in evidence are frauds.
Robert, I know no such thing and neither do you and my post about the Warren Commission not having the original autopsy photos and x-rays was addressed to HSienzant, not to you. Please don't interrupt when the adults are talking to each other.
Walter Ego 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 16th December 2011, 09:21 AM   #2089
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
After JFK's death, everyone in the Federal govenment "worked for" the man who took his place: LBJ. Obviously.
Okay, so at the time this supposed 'conspiracy to assassinate JFK' was plotted, the people named thus far in the various agencies (like Nicholas Katzenbach in the Justice Department) work for whom, Robert?

Why does who they worked for *after the plot was completed* count for more than *who they worked for when the plot was hatched*?

Can you explain that coherently?

You never think of the implications of where these conspiracy theories lead, do you?

With all due respect,
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 16th December 2011, 09:24 AM   #2090
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
If the definition of trolling is to shoot yourself in the foot numerous times, make a spectacle and mockery of yourself, and be pointed at and laughed at, then Robert is the bestest troll ever.
That dufus in the parking lot holding a broomstick picture was good for a chuckle. Like most insufferable know-it-alls, Robert is completely lacking a sense of humor so any amusement he provides is completely unintentional. Whatever his intentions may be, however, he can rest assured we are laughing at him and not with him.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 16th December 2011 at 09:27 AM.
Walter Ego 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 16th December 2011, 09:39 AM   #2091
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
There are a whole lot of "whys" in regard to the b/y photos. Why did the DPD not find any in the Paine Garage on Nov. 22nd but did on the 23d? And why were there photos of the Neely Backyard in the hands of FBI hired photo processers the night of the 22nd, only to miraculously find the pics in the Paine garage the next day. And why was there a never discovered till 1995 photo of Oswald's "ghost" in that Neely backyard in a DPD evidence locker? A whole lot of "whys" Lone Nutters prefer to ignore.
You left one out: Why did Marina show one on the day after the assassination to Lee Harvey's Oswald's own Mother, who adivised her to burn it and flush the ashes down the toilet?

This is from the testimony of Marina Oswald.

You never did adress the question I raised about the photos. You alleged the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald with a rifle in the backyard, but destroyed those and susbtituted others - the ones now in evidence.

You never explained why we should believe that, instead of Marina's own admissions to the Warren Commission and to the HSCa, that she took the photos.

For example (testimony before the HSCA, as Mrs Marina Porter, in 1978):

Mrs. Porter, I have got two exhibits to show you, if the clerk would procure them from the representatives of the National Archives.
We have two photographs to show you. They are Warren Commission Exhibits C-133-A and B, which have been given JFK Nos. F-378 and F-379. If the clerk would please hand them to you, and also if we could now have for display purposes JFK Exhibit F-179, which is a blowup of the two photographs placed in front of you.
Mrs. Porter, do you recognize the photographs placed in front of you?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I do.
Mr. McDONALD. And how do you recognize them?
Mrs. PORTER. That is the photograph that I made of Lee on his persistent request of taking a picture of him dressed like that with rifle.

Now, unless you can explain *why* the conspirators would do something as silly as destroying legit photos of Oswald with a rifle, only to substitute falsified photos of Oswald with a rifle, it is clear the only reasonable explanation before us is that Marina took the photos, and simply mis-remembered at one time (ovr twenty years after the fact) which way she was facing.

I know you don't accept it, and never will. But it is the only reasonable explanation - unless you can address the silliness in your own claims and explain it reasonably.

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 16th December 2011, 09:53 AM   #2092
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
And yet you never sourced this in a way that presented which photos were fraud.

Nor has it stopped you submitting photos as evidence yourself (which you have yet to retract) despite trying to crop and rotate them to aid your lies about what they apparently show.
It's not Robert's fault. The conspiracy books throw so much garbage against the wall, hoping some of it will stick, that some people reading the books never get the concept that a lot of the allegations contradict each other, and thus at least one (if not both) must be false.

So Robert claims the autopsy photos in evidence aren't the real ones, then cites supposed evidence from one autopsy photo that it is alleged, shows JFK was shot from the front. And he doesn't even see the conflict in his own claims!

This is true throughout the conspiracy literature. I am thinking of the claims about the nearly-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital (Commission Exhibit399).

Some CTs allege it was planted, others allege it was swapped, still others allege it was both planted and swapped.

Not sure where RP stands on this, but it's clear that if conspirators planted the bullet, there would be no need to swap it later, and if it was swapped later, it clearly wasn't planted.

Still, that doesn't stop some less-thoughtful conspiracy theorists from alleging both happened.

Now, Robert, you can swamp us with arguments on both sides of that fence, but we realize what you don't - that something is not kosher with a conspiracy theorist if they argue for both. You need to pick one, if you are going to argue the bullet is not legit - no conspirator would act in the way the conspiracy books allege.

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 16th December 2011, 10:24 AM   #2093
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
The question at hand is not whether there was a crime, or that somebody shot at Kennedy. The question is, was it a conspiracy? A sub question might be was LHO involved, and there is considerable doubt about that. But even if he was, there is a mountain of evidence for others involved. Coming late to the forum, I suggest you read up on what you have missed.
If there is doubt about whether Oswald was involved, why did you mention the Cubans at Odio's apartment story, and tell us they were co-conspirators with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Have you changed your mind about the import of the Odio story?

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 16th December 2011, 10:31 AM   #2094
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Oswald talked to his cell mate. Ruby talked to the cameras. Sam Giancana talked to his brother. Frank Fiorini (Sturgis) talked. Marita Lorenz gave sworn testimony. And then there is the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt.
Hi Robert,

I was asking about the co-conspirators you named earlier. Do you even recall them?

Here's what I asked again:

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
So, let's keep count, shall we?

Involved in the conspiracy or coverup of the conspiracy according to you thus far:

Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, the two cubans, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who made the JFK should be shot remarks, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI.

I have no doubt there will be several thousand more co-conspirators or cover-upper-ers added by you in the ensuing days.

How'd they get all those guys together and agree to do this?

How'd they get all them guys to stay silent for nearly 50 years?

Hank
Now, instead of answering that question, you simply added more conspirators to the pile! Did any of the original co-conspirators you named confess to anything? No? Why couldn't you have said that, then?

So we're up to, according to your own statements, Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, two Cubans who appeared at Sylvia Odio's apartment, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who, it is alleged, made a "JFK should be shot" remark, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI, as well as definitely Oswald (who talked to a cellmate), Ruby, Sam Giancana, Frank Fiorini (Sturgis), Marita Lorenz, and E. Howard Hunt!

Now, I doubt you can offer a coherent theory about how this conspiracy work, but I feel duty-bound to ask: How did this conspiracy work? What was the plan? Where did it go wrong, and why did they have to forge backyard photos instead of just using the ones they had that Marina took, why did they have to alter the autopsy photos *AND* the z-film *AND* the body? Why did they have to both plant and then later swap a bullet at Parkland for the bullet they originally planted? etc. etc. etc. I realize you may not have made all these claims yet, but they are all in the conspiracy literature, and you are simply parroting back to us the claims from that literature, so it's probably only a matter of time before you make these other claims.

You've already flip-flopped a number of times on whether Oswald was involved. Why don't you start with that?

Better yet, why not just tell us which of the above you don't believe? We can start there.

Hank

Last edited by HSienzant; 16th December 2011 at 10:34 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 16th December 2011, 11:29 AM   #2095
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
The unsupported claim on this board, is that it was Oswald's pistol that was used to kill Tippit. When questioned as to how that was proven, nobody on this board seemed to know.
Not sure if this was covered in detail yet (I am still catching up) but the shells found at the scene indicate they were fired from Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Robert, please advise, if you feel Tippit was shot with an automatic, as I'm sure you do, why the conspirators didn't bother to shoot Tippit with a revolver or better yet, frame Oswald for owning and attempting to shoot officer Nick McDonald in the Theatre with an automatic?

Was this a conspiracy of dunces?

Why would conspirators even think to do what you allege happened?

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 16th December 2011, 12:03 PM   #2096
HSienzant
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Yes. But never in anger. Here is someone who has:

A combat-hardened ex-Marine and police sharpshooter Craig Roberts, author of "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza", asked,

" In a head shot, the exit wound, due to the buildup of hydrostatic pressure, explodes in a conical formation in the down-range direction of the bullet. "[/b]

http://www.jfklancer.com/sbt-1.html
Hi Robert,

Where is the conical explosive formation in the z-film?

I see it forward of the President.

Do you see it elsewhere?

Your source says that would be down-range (away from the shooter). Now, your source tells us that the shooter would be behind the president, if the above is true.

Is that wrong?
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 16th December 2011, 01:04 PM   #2097
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hi Robert,

Where is the conical explosive formation in the z-film?

I see it forward of the President.

Do you see it elsewhere?

Your source says that would be down-range (away from the shooter). Now, your source tells us that the shooter would be behind the president, if the above is true.

Is that wrong?
He was speaking of the absence of that conical explosive formation forward of the President, meaning, the fatal shot, in his view, did not come from behind.
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 16th December 2011, 01:06 PM   #2098
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
He was speaking of the absence of that conical explosive formation forward of the President, meaning, the fatal shot, in his view, did not come from behind.
And yet that does not explain why the ejecta of an exit wound is not visible from the back of the head.
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 01:06 PM   #2099
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Not sure if this was covered in detail yet (I am still catching up) but the shells found at the scene indicate they were fired from Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Robert, please advise, if you feel Tippit was shot with an automatic, as I'm sure you do, why the conspirators didn't bother to shoot Tippit with a revolver or better yet, frame Oswald for owning and attempting to shoot officer Nick McDonald in the Theatre with an automatic?

Was this a conspiracy of dunces?

Why would conspirators even think to do what you allege happened?

Hank
So, having failed to prove a Lone Nut assassin of the President, you now prefer to engage in a side issue of the shooting ot Tippit? Even if, how does that prove a Lone Nutter conspiracy???
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 16th December 2011, 01:09 PM   #2100
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
a Lone Nutter conspiracy???
lol. You may want to look up the definition of conspiracy.
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 16th December 2011, 01:11 PM   #2101
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hi Robert,

I was asking about the co-conspirators you named earlier. Do you even recall them?

Here's what I asked again:

[i]

Now, instead of answering that question, you simply added more conspirators to the pile! Did any of the original co-conspirators you named confess to anything? No? Why couldn't you have said that, then?

So we're up to, according to your own statements, Nicholas Katzenbach, LBJ, two Cubans who appeared at Sylvia Odio's apartment, Oswald or the Oswald look-alike who, it is alleged, made a "JFK should be shot" remark, the forger(s) of the back yard photos, Lt Day of the DPD crime lab, and now, some unnamed members of the FBI, as well as definitely Oswald (who talked to a cellmate), Ruby, Sam Giancana, Frank Fiorini (Sturgis), Marita Lorenz, and E. Howard Hunt!

Now, I doubt you can offer a coherent theory about how this conspiracy work, but I feel duty-bound to ask: How did this conspiracy work? What was the plan? Where did it go wrong, and why did they have to forge backyard photos instead of just using the ones they had that Marina took, why did they have to alter the autopsy photos *AND* the z-film *AND* the body? Why did they have to both plant and then later swap a bullet at Parkland for the bullet they originally planted? etc. etc. etc. I realize you may not have made all these claims yet, but they are all in the conspiracy literature, and you are simply parroting back to us the claims from that literature, so it's probably only a matter of time before you make these other claims.

You've already flip-flopped a number of times on whether Oswald was involved. Why don't you start with that?

Better yet, why not just tell us which of the above you don't believe? We can start there.

Hank
Your post is filled with distortions and mis-quotes and a few dozen compound questions. You want an answer, then my rule is one question at a time and a little more honesty would be appreciated.
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 16th December 2011, 01:14 PM   #2102
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
So, having failed to prove a Lone Nut assassin of the President, you now prefer to engage in a side issue of the shooting ot Tippit? Even if, how does that prove a Lone Nutter conspiracy???
And this does not answer the direct question either. We can assume you have no reasonable evidence to suggest why they would frame Oswald with the "wrong" gun.

Oddly the murder of one policeman and attempted murder of a second, while trying to flee and hide, using a weapon directly tied to the murder weapon of the POTUS is not a side issue. It is a direct thread on enquiry. Oswald had the same pistol in is hand for those shootings as mariana photographed him holding with the rifle.
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 01:15 PM   #2103
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
If there is doubt about whether Oswald was involved, why did you mention the Cubans at Odio's apartment story, and tell us they were co-conspirators with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Have you changed your mind about the import of the Odio story?

Hank
Another distortion and mis-quote. I never accused Oswald of being involved in a conspiracy to murder the President, but have suggested he could have. The Odio incident merely shows that Oswald or someone impersonating him was one of the men who visited Odio. It may be altogether possible that Oswald, working for Am. Intelligence, had infiltrated the anti-Castro group and was playing the role of his youthful hero, Herb Philbrick, depicted in his favorite TV show, "I Led Three Lives." Oswald, in this role, may have been an Am. Intell. provocateur.

Last edited by Robert Prey; 16th December 2011 at 01:17 PM.
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 16th December 2011, 01:16 PM   #2104
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Your post is filled with distortions and mis-quotes and a few dozen compound questions. You want an answer, then my rule is one question at a time and a little more honesty would be appreciated.
Please indicate where you think there are misquotes.

Then you might want to amend many of your own posts.
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 01:19 PM   #2105
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Another distortion and mis-quote. I never accused Oswald of being involved in a conspiracy to murder the President, but have suggested he might have. The Odio incident merely shows that Oswald or someone impersonating him was one of the men who visited Odio. It may be altogether possible and Oswald, working for Am. Intelligence, had infiltrated the anti-Castro group and was playing the role of his youthful hero, Herb Philbrick depicted in his favorite TV show, "I Led Three Lives."
So you didnt ... except when you said he might have...

If he was NOT part of a conspiracy why did you suggest the odio quote "proved" a conspiracy, and argue at length that the two Cubans were legally part of the conspiracy for being aware of his plans?

Will you now please retract all claims to have proven a conspiracy.
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 01:20 PM   #2106
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
It's not Robert's fault. The conspiracy books throw so much garbage against the wall, hoping some of it will stick, that some people reading the books never get the concept that a lot of the allegations contradict each other, and thus at least one (if not both) must be false.

So Robert claims the autopsy photos in evidence aren't the real ones, then cites supposed evidence from one autopsy photo that it is alleged, shows JFK was shot from the front. And he doesn't even see the conflict in his own claims!

This is true throughout the conspiracy literature. I am thinking of the claims about the nearly-whole bullet found in Parkland Hospital (Commission Exhibit399).

Some CTs allege it was planted, others allege it was swapped, still others allege it was both planted and swapped.

Not sure where RP stands on this, but it's clear that if conspirators planted the bullet, there would be no need to swap it later, and if it was swapped later, it clearly wasn't planted.

Still, that doesn't stop some less-thoughtful conspiracy theorists from alleging both happened.

Now, Robert, you can swamp us with arguments on both sides of that fence, but we realize what you don't - that something is not kosher with a conspiracy theorist if they argue for both. You need to pick one, if you are going to argue the bullet is not legit - no conspirator would act in the way the conspiracy books allege.

Hank
No. You are the one who is confused. The boot-leg death stare photos are not autopsy photos, but pre-autopsy photos.
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 16th December 2011, 01:22 PM   #2107
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You left one out: Why did Marina show one on the day after the assassination to Lee Harvey's Oswald's own Mother, who adivised her to burn it and flush the ashes down the toilet?

This is from the testimony of Marina Oswald.

You never did adress the question I raised about the photos. You alleged the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald with a rifle in the backyard, but destroyed those and susbtituted others - the ones now in evidence.

You never explained why we should believe that, instead of Marina's own admissions to the Warren Commission and to the HSCa, that she took the photos.

For example (testimony before the HSCA, as Mrs Marina Porter, in 1978):

Mrs. Porter, I have got two exhibits to show you, if the clerk would procure them from the representatives of the National Archives.
We have two photographs to show you. They are Warren Commission Exhibits C-133-A and B, which have been given JFK Nos. F-378 and F-379. If the clerk would please hand them to you, and also if we could now have for display purposes JFK Exhibit F-179, which is a blowup of the two photographs placed in front of you.
Mrs. Porter, do you recognize the photographs placed in front of you?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I do.
Mr. McDONALD. And how do you recognize them?
Mrs. PORTER. That is the photograph that I made of Lee on his persistent request of taking a picture of him dressed like that with rifle.

Now, unless you can explain *why* the conspirators would do something as silly as destroying legit photos of Oswald with a rifle, only to substitute falsified photos of Oswald with a rifle, it is clear the only reasonable explanation before us is that Marina took the photos, and simply mis-remembered at one time (ovr twenty years after the fact) which way she was facing.

I know you don't accept it, and never will. But it is the only reasonable explanation - unless you can address the silliness in your own claims and explain it reasonably.

Hank

The only sense one can make of Marina's many versions is nonsense. But again, believe what you want about the phony b/y photos. It still doesn't add up to proof of one Lone Nut.
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 16th December 2011, 01:24 PM   #2108
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
No. You are the one who is confused. The boot-leg death stare photos are not autopsy photos, but pre-autopsy photos.
Then why do they form part of the autopsy documents?
Why (when uncropped…) do they not show what you describe?
Why have you never validated this claimed origin with documentary evidence?
Why have both been cropped and rotated to claim they show significantly different wounds to those claimed?
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 01:25 PM   #2109
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Okay, so at the time this supposed 'conspiracy to assassinate JFK' was plotted, the people named thus far in the various agencies (like Nicholas Katzenbach in the Justice Department) work for whom, Robert?

Why does who they worked for *after the plot was completed* count for more than *who they worked for when the plot was hatched*?

Can you explain that coherently?

You never think of the implications of where these conspiracy theories lead, do you?

With all due respect,
Hank
Nobody but you has made the claim of all the cover-uppers involved in the assassination plot. The cover-uppers most probably were merely following orders from the chief cover-upper.
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 16th December 2011, 01:29 PM   #2110
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
The only sense one can make of Marina's many versions is nonsense. But again, believe what you want about the phony b/y photos. It still doesn't add up to proof of one Lone Nut.
So what evidence leads you to believe the "nonsense" when she claims not to have taken some of the photos?
Why did your model fail to replicate the pose accurately when proving the shadows "impossible"?
Why should we not accept a signed photograph of LHO holding the rifle that fired all the shots accounted for at JFK, found later in his place of work, with his prints on, as evidence heacted alone? In the absense of evidence of any other shooters what other reasonable conclusion can be drawn? Why should we not use that evidence in conjuction with the rest of the material 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 16th December 2011, 01:31 PM   #2111
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Nobody but you has made the claim of all the cover-uppers involved in the assassination plot. The cover-uppers most probably were merely following orders from the chief cover-upper.
So are you going to supply a coherent narrative or just vague assertions like this?
__________________
@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 16th December 2011, 01:45 PM   #2112
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Your post is filled with distortions and mis-quotes and a few dozen compound questions. You want an answer, then my rule is one question at a time and a little more honesty would be appreciated.
Honestly, your cowardly dodging does not make anyone think less of you.
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 16th December 2011, 03:53 PM   #2113
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Another distortion and mis-quote. I never accused Oswald of being involved in a conspiracy to murder the President, but have suggested he could have. The Odio incident merely shows that Oswald or someone impersonating him was one of the men who visited Odio. It may be altogether possible that Oswald, working for Am. Intelligence, had infiltrated the anti-Castro group and was playing the role of his youthful hero, Herb Philbrick, depicted in his favorite TV show, "I Led Three Lives." Oswald, in this role, may have been an Am. Intell. provocateur.
"Suggested," "could have," "may be," "may have been." Interesting. So these claims are unsupported supposition. That's odd because in your "I Luv Lee" post quoted below and some other posts you've made the same claims as if they were incontrovertible facts. So which is it, Robert?


Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
[Lee Harvey] Oswald claimed to be a Marxist, but actually was a loyal patriotic American who loved his country, loved his president, was a former US Marine, worked for Naval Intelligence, as well as an operative for CIA and FBI, was sent to USSR after having been sheep dipped as a disloyal American, but never revoked his citizenship, was apparently sent to language school so that he could speak fluent Russian, then sent to USSR so that he could spy for the US. While he made a big splash with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, he was also working with anti-Castro groups at the same time. Someday, when the full truth is accepted, he should be posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 16th December 2011 at 03:56 PM.
Walter Ego 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 16th December 2011, 04:24 PM   #2114
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
"Suggested," "could have," "may be," "may have been." Interesting. So these claims are unsupported supposition. That's odd because in your "I Luv Lee" post quoted below and some other posts you've made the same claims as if they were incontrovertible facts. So which is it, Robert?
Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.
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 16th December 2011, 04:28 PM   #2115
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.
Can you point out that blow out wound to the back of the head on the Zapruder film? Not the one you colored with your red crayon. Are you lying or simply mistaken? What about the Half a Beer Boy doofus in your photo?

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 16th December 2011 at 04:29 PM.
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 16th December 2011, 05:03 PM   #2116
Walter Ego
Master Poster
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,687
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.
You have not offered the slightest bit of evidence for Oswald as a "double agent provocateur," only supposition presented as if it were fact.

And you are of course wrong that I am not "open to other scenarios." As I said before (perhaps you weren't paying attention), I would suffer no loss of self-esteem if it could be proven there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. You and the conspiracy authors you rely on have failed (miserably in your case) to do so. The preponderance of the evidence still points to your hero Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter.

Last edited by Walter Ego; 16th December 2011 at 05:12 PM.
Walter Ego 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 16th December 2011, 05:35 PM   #2117
Robert Prey
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,705
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
You have not offered the slightest bit of evidence for Oswald as a "double agent provocateur," only supposition presented as if it were fact.

And you are of course wrong that I am not "open to other scenarios." As I said before (perhaps you weren't paying attention), I would suffer no loss of self-esteem if it could be proven there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. You and the conspiracy authors you rely on have failed (miserably in your case) to do so. The preponderance of the evidence still points to your hero Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter.
The Parkland observations -- 30 or so witnesses independently corroborating each other -- is as solid evidence as there could be. The notion that Oswald was a double agent provocateur of course is supposition. But your entire LN case consists of the flimsiest suppositions, beginning with the supposition that there was an honest investigation and the 30 medical witnesses at Parkland could all be either lying or mistaken. That's a hell of a supposition.
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 16th December 2011, 05:48 PM   #2118
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,457
Who cares what eyewitness say, when they are in conflict with physical evidence?
__________________
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 16th December 2011, 09:58 PM   #2119
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
 
bynmdsue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,898
There's a tendency amongst, let's call them Leftists who strive to exonerate Oswald because, well, it looks pretty bad for the president's assassin to be a Communist. So they minimize Oswald and focus on oilmen and war-mongers and a "climate of right-wing hate" in Dallas.

So why is a seemingly committed Righty like RP trying so hard to deflect from Oswald, his ideological enemy? To pin the blame on LBJ? There are plenty of real world reasons to oppose LBJ, why invent one?
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 16th December 2011, 11:34 PM   #2120
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,508
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Oswald, in the role of an double agent provocateur still wears a white hat. It does not necessarily mean he intended to participate in a plot to kill the President. Unlike you, while I may have a strong belief in his innocence as to shooting anybody, I am also open to other scenarios, except for the unlikely scenario of one Lone Nut acting alone. The blow-out wound to the back of the head negates that.
Classic, "I am open to anything except for the historical reality."

BTW, are you ever going to explain why you intentionally lied about LHO being "fluent in Russian?"
Robrob 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

International Skeptics 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 09:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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