JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JohnG]

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

So....that's a "no" on acknowledging RoboTimbo's correction?

There is evidence to show that there is no such thing as an "asserting the consequence" logical fallacy. You ignore qualifiers in the statements of others and when you yourself omit qualifiers in your statements you stubbornly insist that those qualifiers were implicit. And here I thought when you wrote "any mistake" you meant "any mistake". Practically everything you've written here is chock full of wrong. You are just too ignorant to realize it and too obstinate to admit it.

If you are intellectually and emotionally incapable of seeing and admitting trivial mistakes that you make, there's no way you'll see and admit nontrivial mistakes like the dozens of mistakes you've made here about the JFK assassination. It's clear that you don't want to debate, you want to preach and as you must realize by now, very few people here are interested in listening to preachers, particularly preachers as unreasonable and unqualified as you are.

 

[Robert Prey]

So....that's a "no" on acknowledging RoboTimbo's correction?

There is evidence to show that there is no such thing as an "asserting the consequence" logical fallacy. You ignore qualifiers in the statements of others and when you yourself omit qualifiers in your statements you stubbornly insist that those qualifiers were implicit. And here I thought when you wrote "any mistake" you meant "any mistake". Practically everything you've written here is chock full of wrong. You are just too ignorant to realize it and too obstinate to admit it.

If you are intellectually and emotionally incapable of seeing and admitting trivial mistakes that you make, there's no way you'll see and admit nontrivial mistakes like the dozens of mistakes you've made here about the JFK assassination. It's clear that you don't want to debate, you want to preach and as you must realize by now, very few people here are interested in listening to preachers, particularly preachers as unreasonable and unqualified as you are.

So desperate is the Lone Njutter that he yet clings to trivialities. But as to the "dozens of mistakes concerning the JFK assassination, name one.

(Crickets chirping)

 

[RoboTimbo]

So desperate is the Lone Njutter that he yet clings to trivialities. But as to the "dozens of mistakes concerning the JFK assassination, name one.

(Crickets chirping)

Here's one:

Nor is there any photographic evidence to support the counter-claim ...

... the right front head wound as depicted in the Z film ...

Oops!

Robert, how do you deal with your cognitive dissonance?

(gunshots to Robert's feet)

LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

My favorite part of that website is this:



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.

And so, your point is??????

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, how mad are you at those JFK CT Whack-a-Loon sites that fed you all this garbage? You should go back to them and give them a piece of your mind for causing you to come here repeating their tripe to your obvious embarrassment. I still think you could mulct them for substantial damages.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

So, you are not only giving credence to photo forgery and substitutions, but also body switches ala David Lifton???? Funny, you guys didn't even offer up the full face death photo of Tippit.

 

[EventHorizon]

So desperate is the Lone Njutter that he yet clings to trivialities. But as to the "dozens of mistakes concerning the JFK assassination, name one.

(Crickets chirping)

How about these:

It was for the very reason of anticipating luck and chance unfavorable to the intended outcome that they had to have back-up plans, back-up shooters, back-up Patsies, and back-up locations for the Big Event. It was all very professional and the proof is in its ultimate "success."

The back of the head photo is fake. Andi it's not just Lifton's opinion that it's fake. Not only is that pic inconsistent with some 40 witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda, but it is also inconsistent with the official autopsy report.

Oh, now you change your story from the top of the head to the right side of the head. Yeah, there is something there, but not a large blow-out, probably and emulsion of tissue from the pressure of the entry bullet. But let's try to act grown-up. There never was any cropped photo but the one still used to introduce the youtube video which showed everything -- excerpt for the back of the head.

Perhaps you need eyeglasses. You are seeing things. Nor is there any view of the back of the head in the death stare photo. Obviously.

"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

Nor is there any photographic evidence to support the counter-claim -- that of an intact back of the head except for a small entry wound. But there is a mountain of testimony of first hand witnesses of a large blow-out in the back of the head. And that testimony is not subject to alteration or falsification.

A theory is a theory, but the first hand observations of the Medical Personnel at Parkland is an un-alterable fact.

This has been answered already. The Best Evidence is the head wound as witnessed first hand by the medical personnel at Parkland and others such as on the scene Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, namely a large blow-out in the back of the head indicating a shot from the right front and thus a conspiracy.

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

Your "uncropped" photo shows a face and a right temple in tact except for a small entrance wound consistent with all of the Parkland personnel's observations and in contrast to what you have claimed the Z film shows.

Six to eight seconds of the Z film deleted. So much for solid, unimpeachable material evidence.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html

The odds of 30 some first hand witnesses being mistaken? Pretty small.

Witnesses who have first hand knowledge, and no allegiance to adverse government proclamations, have much more credibility than a couple of frightened autopsy docs.

There's a whole lot the Z film shows and doesn't show according to live witnesses on the scene. It is not a reliable piece of evidence. And there is much controversy over missing frames. How can you cite a film as evidence that is not a complete rendition of the event???


`1988
"This year, the original Zapruder slide set was transferred within the Archives; at that time, it was found to be missing frames 180, 321, 349 and 372. The reproduction set was found to be missing fraomes 164-170, and 344-486, but these were never part of the original set." ( Archives memo)

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

I've only gone back about 5 or 6 pages and I know I've skipped over some mistakes too.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Or would that make too much sense?

No. If it's the Morningstar article, I can see why you wouldn't want to repeat it.

 

[EventHorizon]

And so, your point is??????

My point is that CTists don't really understand metaphor.

 

[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.

All of your so-called possible answers come under the general heading "mistaken." Thus, given a choice between all the witnesses lying in unison, you say they could be mistaken. So the either/or challenge was logical and accurate, unless, of course, you include the possibility of "truth" which there is no way you are about to do after a half century of thoroughly impregnated brainwash.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, were you lying or simply mistaken about Commander Humes?

 

[Robert Prey]

How about these:

I do not address multiple pieces of garbage, which I know is why you must resort to it. One piece of garbage at a time, please.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I do not address multiple pieces of garbage, which I know is why you must resort to it. One piece of garbage at a time, please.

It's hardly his fault that you post garbage. Maybe you should think about raising your game.

 

[EventHorizon]

I do not address multiple pieces of garbage, which I know is why you must resort to it. One piece of garbage at a time, please.

That's OK. Your admission that your posts were "pieces of garbage" is enough. But if you do want to go with one at a time why not start with this:

There's a whole lot the Z film shows and doesn't show according to live witnesses on the scene. It is not a reliable piece of evidence. And there is much controversy over missing frames. How can you cite a film as evidence that is not a complete rendition of the event???


`1988
"This year, the original Zapruder slide set was transferred within the Archives; at that time, it was found to be missing frames 180, 321, 349 and 372. The reproduction set was found to be missing fraomes 164-170, and 344-486, but these were never part of the original set." ( Archives memo)

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, how mad are you at those JFK CT Whack-a-Loon sites that fed you all this garbage? You should go back to them and give them a piece of your mind for causing you to come here repeating their tripe to your obvious embarrassment. I still think you could mulct them for substantial damages.

You mean like the 40 witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and right on the scene, like Clint Hill who saw the back head damage right up front and Powers and O'Donnell who actually saw the shots from the Knoll? Perhaps you should try to indict them for inflicting your own embarrassment. Sad.

 

[Robert Prey]

That's OK. Your admission that your posts were "pieces of garbage" is enough. But if you do want to go with one at a time why not start with this:

So what's the mistake????

 

[RoboTimbo]

You mean like the 40 witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and right on the scene, like Clint Hill who saw the back head damage right up front and Powers and O'Donnell who actually saw the shots from the Knoll? Perhaps you should try to indict them for inflicting your own embarrassment. Sad

LOL. 30 becomes 40 becomes all. Bang!

You failed to answer, Robert. Were you lying or simply mistaken about Commander Humes?

You failed to answer, Robert. Did you do the homework I gave you reading Chapter 3 pages 86 & 87? What did you think of them?

Were you lying or simply mistaken about Dr. Perry?

Were you lying or simply mistaken about Dr. Carrico?

Answer the questions, Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, you are not only giving credence to photo forgery and substitutions, but also body switches ala David Lifton???? Funny, you guys didn't even offer up the full face death photo of Tippit.

Body switches? Forgery? No full face photo?

No. I am giving credence to genuine photographs of somebody else being misrepresented.

If you want to explain how JFK lacked an exit wound to the back of the head in photographs taken after the three shots, feel free.

If you want to explain that big old exit wound at the top of the head you cropped out of the colour photo, feel free.

 

[EventHorizon]

So what's the mistake????

You claim that there are frames missing and that this makes it an incomplete rendition of the event. This is incorrect. That means it is a mistake. That I have to spell this out is astonishing to say the least.

ETA - And before you jump in and claim that you never said that those frames are still missing allow me to point out that you followed the link to the lancer site with this question:

Have you seen the missing frames from the Z film????

Clearly implying that the frames are still missing. Which of course they are not.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. If it's the Morningstar article, I can see why you wouldn't want to repeat it.

You know the difference between somebody stating a loon actually did research that indicated a genuine error and a writer condoning the conclusions of said loon?

At no point is Mr Ramsey claiming that morningstars conclusions are right. He is stating a single piece of research, the identification of the the Tippet photographs was valid.

I guess expecting you to read a whole page of text by somebody who supports your LBJ claims like Ramsey was too much to ask. Ah well...