• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
A W Smith said:
cowardly dodge noted


cowardly dodge noted


Cowardly dodge noted. You can ignore it all you want. But we are not bound to YOUR "rules" of engagement. I have concluded that you have been defeated here as you have failed to support your alleged conspiracy. You have yet to post any evidence whatsoever. In the face of everything that's been presented here in support of the common narrative for over 44 pages you retreat. One would think from your behavior here that you are nothing more than a deluded liar.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Well, start with the easiest, one that has been asked over and again for a long time now with out satisfactory answer: When you stated the autopsy was not reliable and part of the conspiracy, which of the listed names are you accusing of the lie?

The "one at a time" and imposing of silly "rules" is a simple dodge. If you say "do this or there will be no dialogue" you are looking for an excuse not to have to answer the questions. The obvious reason is because you know your theory falls apart and has no internal logic. In future at least have the wit to admit you can't answer the questuons instead of trying to deflect blame onto others.
Click to expand...

The autopsy report is ambiguous and inconsistent. Pick your poison with a specific quote or forget about it. I'm not going to write a book every time you have a question, so either one at a time or bye-bye.
 
Tomtomkent said:
No. The drawing shows Paul O'Connor CLAIMS it was from the back of the head.

Uncropping it, to show it in context shows it is not.

Here, let me show you the uncropped version again:
[nsfw]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.jpg
[/nsfw]

It doesn't matter what a person claims, even with a drawing, you can't change what the photo ACTUALLY SHOWS.

Seriously. Drawing a picture doesn't change it. Saying it aint so doesn't change it. Rotating the image 90 degrees doesn't chaange it.

Why are you pretending it does?
Click to expand...

When it comes to autopsy drawings and photos you seem to have a double standard.
 
Robert Prey said:
The autopsy report is ambiguous and inconsistent. Pick your poison with a specific quote or forget about it. I'm not going to write a book every time you have a question, so either one at a time or bye-bye.
Click to expand...
start with the easiest. or say bye bye to yourself. You came here and completely failed to support your case.
 
Robert Prey said:
The autopsy report is ambiguous and inconsistent. Pick your poison with a specific quote or forget about it. I'm not going to write a book every time you have a question, so either one at a time or bye-bye.
Click to expand...

Why do you need a specific quote to tell me who was or was not being honest?

I have presented a list of all those present at an autopsy you claimed was not as honest or reliable as the Parkland staff. Further you insinuated some were lying or mistaken. You just have to list the names. Who was lying, who was mistaken?

Why do you need a quote? Or if you do, scroll back a few posts. I listed plenty of your allegations. What possible difference would posting it again make?

You do realise you said it was baloney you are dodging, then immediately dodged right? You. Made the assertion Rob. Back it up. Give me a nice simple list, who was part of the coverup, who was mistaken, who did a perfectly fine job. Why is this so complex for you to grasp?

If you say bye-bye what do I lose? It simply proves you cant back up your claims. Anotherone biting the dust you said right?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Why do you need a specific quote to tell me who was or was not being honest?

I have presented a list of all those present at an autopsy you claimed was not as honest or reliable as the Parkland staff. Further you insinuated some were lying or mistaken. You just have to list the names. Who was lying, who was mistaken?

Why do you need a quote? Or if you do, scroll back a few posts. I listed plenty of your allegations. What possible difference would posting it again make?

You do realise you said it was baloney you are dodging, then immediately dodged right? You. Made the assertion Rob. Back it up. Give me a nice simple list, who was part of the coverup, who was mistaken, who did a perfectly fine job. Why is this so complex for you to grasp?

If you say bye-bye what do I lose? It simply proves you cant back up your claims. Anotherone biting the dust you said right?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I've backed up every single claim and answered each and every question -- numerous times. But if you think you're going to give me a list of 50 names and tell me to write all about them with appropriate references, you're nuts. One at a time, and I'm happy to play ball. When the Student is Ready, the Teacher appears.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Would you care to prove that photograph is of the back of JFKs head given the uncropped version?
Click to expand...

No. I can't "prove" anything about the autopsy photos and neither can you. I can, however prove what 40 or so first hand witnesses said concerning the large blow-out in the back of the head. And those observations are not subject to alteration.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. I can't "prove" anything about the autopsy photos and neither can you. I can, however prove what 40 or so first hand witnesses said concerning the large blow-out in the back of the head. And those observations are not subject to alteration.
Click to expand...

But aren't some of those observations included in the autopsy notes? The same autopsy that you say is inaccurate and inconsistent?

Unless you are willing to highlight each passage that you believe is accurate and which ones are wrong, don't reference the autopsy.

There, that solves a lot of problems, the autposy is unreliable so just ignore it.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. I can't "prove" anything about the autopsy photos and neither can you. I can, however prove what 40 or so first hand witnesses said concerning the large blow-out in the back of the head. And those observations are not subject to alteration.
Click to expand...

So the uncropped and correctly rotated version where you can see it is not the back of the head doesn't prove it wasn't the back of the head?
 
Robert Prey said:
Nonsense. I've backed up every single claim and answered each and every question -- numerous times. But if you think you're going to give me a list of 50 names and tell me to write all about them with appropriate references, you're nuts. One at a time, and I'm happy to play ball. When the Student is Ready, the Teacher appears.
Click to expand...

So you answered all the questions... but you wont answer the question?

You realise we can all see the past pages of this thread, and are aware of how many questions were handwaved or ignored?

Besides which all I asked for was a list of who was lying or unreliable Robert. You stated "in a word" the autopsy was dishonest and less reliable than the parkland staff. I am notaskingyou to write any more than a list. Who was dishonest, unrelaible, or whatever.

We know who was there, why can't you just indicate who was part of the conspiracy?

And if you wont, or can't retract your statement.
 
A W Smith said:
start with the easiest. or say bye bye to yourself. You came here and completely failed to support your case.
Click to expand...

Apparerntly Robert can't do that. You have to choose for him so he can fail to answerspecific, bite sized questions one at a time. I don't understand why. The questions don't go anywhere if he chooses to answer them one at a time or all at once.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So the uncropped and correctly rotated version where you can see it is not the back of the head doesn't prove it wasn't the back of the head?
Click to expand...

None of the autopsy photos can be authenticated, Not the ones that I cite; not the ones that you cite. But at least the photo which I cite is consistent wtih what all of the Parkland witnesses observed, unlike the ones you have cited which are clearly fraudulent.
 
Robert Prey said:
None of the autopsy photos can be authenticated, Not the ones that I cite; not the ones that you cite. But at least the photo which I cite is consistent wtih what all of the Parkland witnesses observed, unlike the ones you have cited which are clearly fraudulent.
Click to expand...

The parkland statements do not match the material evidence.
That indicates flaws with pakland testimony, not the photographs. The photographs are of known provenance.

It is not the photos that are at error, but your inability to interpret them honestly.

Face facts Robert: the Parkland testamony doesn't match any material evidence. Not the body, not the photographic record nor the autopsy.

You keep telling us it must be true, but have no evidence to prove this. Why not Robert? Where is your material evidence?

At least have the common sense to admit that your narrative offers no more reason to beassumed true than that which you refute.

ETA; there are two statements that can not both be true. The photographs I submit are frauds? But the ones Robert submits cant be verified either way? But the photos I submitted included the uncropped full images of those Robert submitted. Surely his pictures cant be both frauds AND unverified?

Ouch! Another shot to his foot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom