JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Apparently all conspirators take a bet as to how complex their plan can be and still work.



Funny how with all the many convoluted and complex CT out there, not a single one has ever been exposed or thwarted.



Feel free to present evidence supporting your fantastical claim of "back-up shooters" and "back-up patsies" and "back-up locations!" You can't even prove the primary theory, much less the alternate ones!



At least you'd think the "real" assassin would have been firing from somewhere in the same general LOS as Oswald.

Hey, was the "back-up patsy" also a defector, fluent in Russian and carrying a mail order rifle? Did they invent and entirely separate, just as convoluted conspiracy to set him up or was patsy #2 a "Navy Intelligence Officer" slash High School drop out as well? Wonder how they stopped patsy #2 from acting and then how did they cover it up? Certainly would have been embarrassing for there to have been more than one patsy shooting people that same day!

If you want a dialogue, only one question at a time, please.

 

[Robert Prey]

You said:




So I pointed out one of your mistakes and yes it was trivial but that was exactly my point. If you can't even acknowledge a trivial mistake it is highly unlikely you'll acknowledge a mistake on a subject as serious and important as the JFK assassination. Get it?

The other reason I chose that specific mistake is that you can't waffle on about subjective interpretations of the evidence. Even in an example where even you must realize are wrong you are too proud and stubborn to admit it, even if it would prove me wrong about you.

Pathetic.

By "mistake" I was referring to one of evidence, of course. Having been unable to find any, you instead resort to trivialities.

 

[Robert Prey]

Leaving aside the point that you have provided no evidence for such backups it is still utter nonsense because if there was a plan it was flawed at the most basic level. Why not simply choose a set up where you knew Kennedy would have to be in the open? And where you could easily ensure that the actual and alleged shooter were at least roughly on the same trajectory? Instead you posit endless convolution involving huge numbers of people having to endlessly plug holes created by the ludicrous plot. Frankly it would be more at home in a Mitchell and Webb sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoZ71sj3Kn0

More ridiculous hypothetical nonsense. The event succeeded and even today continues to fool a whole bunch of alleged Deep Thinkers.

 

[Garrison]

More ridiculous hypothetical nonsense. The event succeeded and even today continues to fool a whole bunch of alleged Deep Thinkers.

Kennedy was assassinated, your conspiracy theory version of that event is ludicrous beyond belief, a fiction of pointless elaboration depending on blind luck and chance for success. Hypothetical nonsense? Well in that I will concede your expertise.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I merely asked if you would accept the photo as genuine. So you don't? You say it is of Tippit? And just how do you know that? But you do accept the Death Stare photo? Yes?

If you actually read the articles I posted ages ago you would already have the answers to these questions. Well done.

Yes, the UNCROPPED version of the deathstare photo was genuine. The. One with the exit wound to the top of the head.

A series of photos, that are perfectly genuine but of Tippit were also leaked.

Little hint, entry wound behind the ear, top of the head exploded and its JFK (mostly in colour). Black and white, shot from the front, with only a passing resemblence to JFK its Tippit. Go back and read the article rather than asking questions already answered.

 

[Tomtomkent]

By "mistake" I was referring to one of evidence, of course. Having been unable to find any, you instead resort to trivialities.

So you are so anally retentive you can't even admit you made mistakes and now wish to move the goal posts?

 

[Tomtomkent]

There was no logical fallacy here. You Lone Nutters had already dismissed the only other possibility - truth. So the dilemma you faced was not false, but real. And you still face the same dilemma.

Wow, so even though you only allow for two answers it's not the same fallacy. Lets see if we can think of another answer. How about "their statements are not supported by evidence"?

Other possibilities are:
1) the observations are being misrepresented.
2) the statements given are not complete.
3) the statements have later been retracted.
4) and, just to repeat it in the hope it sinks in, the statements simply fail to be supported by material evidence.

Why are you only allowing two possibilities? Why do you not allow for any others?

We of course look forward to your retraction and apology.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you want a dialogue, only one question at a time, please.

Why, can you not refer back to a post and answer a question later?

What utter piffle. Questions can be asked as often as anybody wants. You can dodge them one at a time if you so wish.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The autopsy report is misleading and ambiguous. But this passage cannot possibly be consistent with the the photo in question:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region, there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." P. 540, WR

That is the photo where you cant see the exit wound at the top of the head?

The one not consistent with the Parkland statements?

So we are discounting those now? Oh good.

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow, so even though you only allow for two answers it's not the same fallacy. Lets see if we can think of another answer. How about "their statements are not supported by evidence"?

Other possibilities are:
1) the observations are being misrepresented.
2) the statements given are not complete.
3) the statements have later been retracted.
4) and, just to repeat it in the hope it sinks in, the statements simply fail to be supported by material evidence.

Why are you only allowing two possibilities? Why do you not allow for any others?

We of course look forward to your retraction and apology.

The statements are as clear and complete as they can be, never retracted, and supported even by un-faked "material" evidence such as the death stare photo and the back of the head autopsy photo.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The statements are as clear and complete as they can be, never retracted, and supported even by un-faked "material" evidence such as the death stare photo and the back of the head autopsy photo.

Two statements conflict here.

The death stare photo does not show the entry wound where you claim.
It shows a vast exit wound where you claim it is not.

The statements are either not complete, or the photo does not support them.

Which is it?

Are you still wanting people to act grown up? You may consider an apology for the fallacy.

 

[Robert Prey]

If you actually read the articles I posted ages ago you would already have the answers to these questions. Well done.

Yes, the UNCROPPED version of the deathstare photo was genuine. The. One with the exit wound to the top of the head.

A series of photos, that are perfectly genuine but of Tippit were also leaked.

Little hint, entry wound behind the ear, top of the head exploded and its JFK (mostly in colour). Black and white, shot from the front, with only a passing resemblence to JFK its Tippit. Go back and read the article rather than asking questions already answered.

What article? Post it again. Are you saying that Groden produced an autopsy photo of Tippit from the JFK collection?? How ludicrous.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What article? Post it again. Are you saying that Groden produced an autopsy photo of Tippit from the JFK collection?? How ludicrous.

Why not back track through the posts, find the link and see what I am saying.

Or would that make too much sense?

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you want a dialogue, only one question at a time, please.

Were you lying?

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you want a dialogue, only one question at a time, please.

Or mistaken?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Here is a concise summery of the photograph confusion.

http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/conspiracycorner/341/jfk_and_the_autopsy_photos.html

As was pointed out before most of the photographic evidence was leaked and a number of photographs that were supposed to show JFKs body showed nothing of the sort. They showed somebody from the same morgue, on the same day, with a passing resemblance, shot from the front with wounds that can not possibly match the photographic evidence we have of JFK in the plaza.

Now to be absolutely clear, as the photo that Rob claims was of the rear head room is of unknown provenence to me, I'm not going out on a limb. But a black and white phot? Of a rear exit wound? From a different stock of the photos we have clearly showing the identifiable head of JFK? Sounds like a Tippet photo, and from a cursery inspection looks like one.

As from experience though, we will have to source better quality images to see if anything has been cropped out. Like wounds that the "Best Evidence" testimony failed to mention. As a recent example.

 

[bynmdsue]

WARNING! Aside from the gruesome autopsy photos, this link takes you down a rabbithole into a land of whack-a-doo.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/morningstar3.htm

 

[EventHorizon]

Robert. That was a joke based on a question you have demanded we answer about your sources on a number of occassions.

You suggesting that you were wrong to ask us if the Parkland staff were lying or mistaken?
Do you intend to appologise and retract your own statements also?

We can just add humor to the long list of things Robert doesn't understand. I will of course not admit to nor retract my obvious joke that everyone except Robert got because it was quite obviously a joke.

There was no logical fallacy here. You Lone Nutters had already dismissed the only other possibility - truth. So the dilemma you faced was not false, but real. And you still face the same dilemma.

I would ask if this post is a joke but then we've already determined that you are incapable of humor, so I just don't know anymore.


Are you going to admit to and apologize for all of your fallacies Robert?

 

[I Ratant]

I almost gave up at "gestalt", but persevered.
Whack-doodle it is.

 

[EventHorizon]

WARNING! Aside from the gruesome autopsy photos, this link takes you down a rabbithole into a land of whack-a-doo.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/morningstar3.htm

My favorite part of that website is this:

THE BEST WITNESSES: ROBERT AND JACKIE

As shocking as this may seem, consider the words of Senator Robert F. Kennedy as he viewed the body in the open casket. William Manchester reports that as RFK looked at his "brother" for the last time, he said:
"It doesn't look like him at all".

Manchester's account (in "Death of A President") continues, "His eyes full, the Attorney General turned to Bill Walton and whispered, 'Please look, I want to know what you think.' Walton looked as long as he could, with a growing sense of outrage. He said to Bob, 'You mustn't keep it open. It has no resemblance to the President. It's a wax dummy...Don't do it'."

Arthur Schlesinger said: "It is appalling,...At first glance it seemed all right, but I am nearsighted. When I came closer it looked less and less like him."

And according to Manchester, Jacqueline Kennedy said, "It wasn't Jack. It was like something you would see at Madame Tussaud's."

Every single time I've been to a funeral/wake with an open casket I've made nearly identical comments. Because it NEVER looks like the person. That's why I hate open caskets. It's an outdated tradition that should have been made obsolete with the invention of the photograph. But for some odd reason the morbid tradition continues. But I've told all my close relatives that if they want an open casket, I'm not going to their funeral. Screw that.