JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JohnG]

Because no one has been able to prove any mistake.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

This quote comes to mind:

Grow a spine.

 

[Garrison]

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

 

[bynmdsue]

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

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

 

[Garrison]

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

Oh well in that case...

 

[Robrob]

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

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

 

[bynmdsue]

Oh well in that case...

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

 

[Garrison]

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

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

 

[Robrob]

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

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

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

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

 

[Walter Ego]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Robert Prey]

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

 

[Robert Prey]

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

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

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

Your admission and apology, please.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

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

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

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

 

[Robert Prey]

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

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

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

Here is a secition on the Lancer page:




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

How odd.

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

 

[Robert Prey]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[matt.tansy]

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

Logical fallacies are "trivalities"?

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

 

[Garrison]

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

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

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

 

[EventHorizon]

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

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

Your admission and apology, please.

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

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

 

[Robert Prey]

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

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

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

 

[Robert Prey]

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

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

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