JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[kookbreaker]

I see a lot of Robert Prey 1-liner taunts but very little evidence from him.

 

[Robert Prey]

Does Robert have some kind of condition that causes his mind to blank out while he is reading? He keeps asking the same questions over and over even after the questions have been answered (while, it must be noted, refusing to answer questions repeatedly put to him).

I found this page, The rational thinker versus the paranoid, online and it might have been written with Robert as a test case... or with Robert's picture in place of the text. (Not that I think Robert is necessarily paranoid.)

Let's look at a few examples, shall we?

The rational thinker checks the evidence carefully and doesn't rely on uncertain evidence while the paranoid grabs onto a few pieces of evidence and defends them inflexibly. Check. See Robert's harping on those "unimpeachable" Parkland Hospital witnesses.

The rational thinker doesn't care which evidence he must let go while the paranoid seemingly irrationally seizes onto something and won’t let go. Check. Again the Parkland witnesses, although I'd drop the "seemingly" in Robert's case.

(In light of the above example, after re-checking the Bug Man's citations, I'll admit there was no roll call of employees at TSBD after the assassination. Vince "Buggy" Bugliosi was citing an unreliable source.)

The rational thinker seeks a realistic answer in simple and familiar processes while the paranoid invokes complex, unrealistic scenarios controlled by powerful forces behind the scenes. Check. Too many examples from Robert to cite just one.

I could go on but you get the point and you can look at the page yourselves and I'll give you a bright, shiny, mint-condition Kennedy half-dollar if you can find an example on that page of the rational thinker vs. the paranoid that can't be illustrated by a post Robert has made on this thread.

Good advice for you, Walter.

 

[Robert Prey]

I see a lot of Robert Prey 1-liner taunts but very little evidence from him.

Are you blind? Here is my evidence: Deal with it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just because 2 or more discuss assassinating a President and one of them is LHO or someone impersonating LHO, doesn't mean that LHO even fired a single shot.

BUT UNLESS IT WAS LHO PLANNING TO AND ACTUALLY FIRING THE KILLING SHOTS, THEY HAVE NOT CONSPIRED, BY THE DEFINITION YOU POSTED AND ARGUED FOR, CLAIMING THIS WAS EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY.

Or on the other hand, you could be admitting they were not conspiring, as per the legal description you gave. They could just be two guys given to believe somebody might have been capable of shooting the president. Who was not LHO now. Great, but not a conspiracy by the definition you posted.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you blind? Here is my evidence: Deal with it.

Why does the Zapruder film show the large exit wound forming on the right front of Kennedy's head unlike officer Tippitt's autopsy photo?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Are you blind? Here is my evidence: Deal with it.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994ebe70dc7a7ad.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994ebe70dc7a7ad.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

Two photos of Tippit and a drawing.

And this porves...?

But no,l let's play along. You say those photos are REAL and the autopsy ones are FAKE. But you have yet to prove it. So why should we accept that narrative when there is more, and better, evidence supporting the narrative?

Deal with it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh, there's a Poser here, but it isn't Posner. BTW, don't deliberately alter people's names in order to mock them. It's...sophomoric.




Link? All I see you doing in this thread is simply denying the lone gunman theory. It isn't enough to randomly cast doubt on the theory, you have to come up with a counter theory and provide evidence for said theory.

No.The first step is establishing that is was a conspiracy. The next step is who, what, and why?

Logic 101.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I see a lot of Robert Prey 1-liner taunts but very little evidence from him.

Are you blind! He has a heavily cropped photo of a whole other guy!

And a drawing! (Yeah, because those can't be innacurate right?)

 

[RoboTimbo]

No.The first step is establishing that is was a conspiracy. The next step is who, what, and why?

Logic 101.

Teach us about entry and exit wounds 101. LOL.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No.The first step is establishing that is was a conspiracy. The next step is who, what, and why?

Logic 101.

Then hadn't you better supply some evidence of a conspiracy that you haven't contradicted?

Not that what you offered actually counts as "evidence" it was a "claim". So how about you actually prove a conspiracy. With proof. Actual evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

Then you're withdrawing your unevidenced claims? I accept your defeat. Oh, sorry about mentioning feet.

I'd say you're chicken. Don't blame you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'd say you're chicken. Don't blame you.

A CT with a load of unevidenced claims that he cowardly withdrew would say that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why does the Zapruder film show the large exit wound forming on the right front of Kennedy's head unlike officer Tippitt's autopsy photo?

And where is the exit wound jettison? Or is RP suggesting MORE matter was sucked out of the brain by the "jet effect" than pushed out of the head by the trauma of a bullet wound? Perhaps he didn't watch the ballistic jelly shot in that video of his. Or really did think it was just "Jello".

Man, that is the knowledge of forensics we need to discern if an aautopsy is accurate or not.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'd say you're chicken. Don't blame you.

Now, what is it you kept saying about ad hom attacks?


Double standards much?

BTW is "I'd say your chicken" a yes or a no about withdrawing your unevidenced claims? Or are you going to supply evidence for ANY of the supposed "links"? Was choosing just one that hard? Really?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Then you have retreated. Then just forget about it, oh ye of little faith.

Yeah because encouraging you to go ahead and post your very best evidence is a retreat. Unlike telling people to forget it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Unless of course RP's pic is not a trimmed Tippit photo but this:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-jfk-autopsies-and-conspiries-photos?image=7

Which would mean his "Jet effect" sucked out a massive chunk of JFKs brains above the entrance wound. Which would be odd.

But does match with JFK being shot from behind ant the "entry wound" being the exit notch. As described in the autopsy.

 

[bynmdsue]

Okay, so the parkland witnesses are unassailable and unimpeachable, beyond reproach and thoroughly incapable of being mistaken or God forbid, lying. Right? That's one of the legs of RP's "gonna show you all" gambit. Then what to make of this?

Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland, Attending Surgeon:
a) WR 526-527 / 17 H 11-12 / CE 392: report written 11/22/63---" a
massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the
trachea The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from
a gunshot wound of the left temple.";http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/excerpt_book2.html

Left temple? LEFT TEMPLE!! But that means the bullet couldn't have come from the rear...or from the grassy knoll to Kennedy's right. That means the killer could only be Jackie Kennedy, tired of all the years of unfaithfulness, she punished her husband in public. This also explains the trunk escapade. Nothing more than a guilty woman's attempt to flee the scene of the crime.

Damn, Robert, you were way off base.

 

[JohnG]

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

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

Getting terminology wrong, thereby revealing that they never understood the meaning of the term in the first place. Then when their mistake is pointed out, stubbornly and gracelessly refusing to acknowledge the correction. Standard CTist MO.

If Robert lacks the intelligence, objectivity and/or courage to own up to a silly but understandable slip-up like the one RoboTimbo pointed out, what hope do any of you have in getting Robert to see (and admit) how wrong he is about the JFK CT, a subject in which he is clearly emotionally invested?

 

[I Ratant]

RP isn't doing anything original, or even derivative.
Just cutting and pasting from novels that were dismissed as worthless before the kid was born.
And then repeating it all time after time, as if repetition will magically make the falsehoods true.

 

[Walter Ego]

5. Demands quick, even immediate explanations.

Robert's insistence we provide only one single piece of evidence.​

9. Will not face evidence that destroys his theory.

Robert's refusal to even acknowledge the questions that do so.​

11. Often seizes single pieces of evidence and blows them out of proportion.

Robert's "irrefutable" anecdotes and drawing.​

12. Sticks to preconceived notion regardless of new evidence.

Especially when it's his own evidence that shoots him in the foot! LOL.​

13. Preconceived, rigid, victimlike, cowardly.

Says it all really.​

I kinda like that Dunning–Kruger effect thing that JohnG mentioned.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is...

Robert actually thinks he's doing a great job here showing up all these brainwashed skeptics. His self-deception is total which is why, combined with his arrogance and petulance, I've more or less stopped responding directly to him. Stundie, who is a real person, would be proud of him.