JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robrob]

Oh read the parts of this thread where he quoted articles about getting prints off dead bodies (for identification) and implied that technique could be used to 'plant' prints on the rifle.

Which of course, even if so would result in 180 degree inverted prints.

 

[EventHorizon]

Which of course, even if so would result in 180 degree inverted prints.

Oh man I was going to bring that up when that was the subject and I completely forgot. Oh well, I'm sure it will come around again.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The only unimpeachable, un-alterable, un-forged "material" evidence we have are the observations of the Parkland Medical Personnel and other first hand witnesses. It is their unalterable, un-impeachable material evidence that impeaches what you claim to see or not see in the Z film.

Ok, I get you don't know what material evidence is, and don't like the z film as it directly debunks the testemony you rely on.
So that just leaves the autopsy, body, photographic record, rifle, bullets and the other film of the shooter intheTSBD.

Where is the material evidence to support the parkland statements?

 

[Robert Prey]

I see that RP still doesn't understand how fingerprints work or how they are lifted - or what lifting does to the print.

Tell that to the WC.


"...there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. "

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tell that to the WC.


"...there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. "

Gee Sherlock. Put those deductive powers to the test and see if that might explain why there was no Palm print from the rifle when one group looked at it, and there was when another group actually did the test. Like, maybe, the guy you accused of telling lies and taking the palm print from the dead body...

MAybe, just maybe, you were wrong and it came from the rifle. What do you think ol' master detective. Are you capable fo banging the metephorical rocks together and getting a spark are we to be blessed with the tired old and flea bitten "when the student" is ready line?

You are the student here. The bottom of the class so far. See if you can fit the most basic pieces of the puzzle together honestly for once.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tell that to the WC.


"...there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. "

Now that you've had a chance to finish your homework, here's your pop quiz:

What indication would you expect there to be that a print had been lifted?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Now that you've had a chance to finish your homework, here's your pop quiz:

What indication would you expect there to be that a print had been lifted?

And more importantly, does that not conflict with his statements previously?

He claims that Lt. Day was a liar. We know this because apparently the rifle had no prints on it when discovered, then Day can't have found them later.

But if nobody checked for prints UNTIL Day lifted them, why are we supposed to believe they were or were not there before?

 

[Walter Ego]

The "final nail" having been posted, it looks like this thread has degenerated into a forensic autopsy of Mr. Prey's total failure to prove his case for a conspiracy to an audience of skeptics.

Nothing new has been posted for pages and pages. Lot's of dead horses are being flogged and tired dogs are being run around the same circles and Mr. Pray is repeating his stock phrases, but again, nothing new.

My employer will be be keeping me busy this month but in time I will be posting my own analysis of this thread focusing not on any of Mr. Prey's alleged "evidence" but on his style of presentation, his dishonesty, and slippery dodges and evasions which I believe are typical of conspiracy mongers and irrationalists.

 

[EventHorizon]

Tell that to the WC.


"...there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. "

How embarrassing for you to post that dishonest quote mine again, even after I said this:

Awesome. More dishonest quote mining.


After the first sentence you posted, the next paragraph goes on to say that Lieutenant Day had already lifted the palm print. In fact, the entirety of the second sentence that you quoted which is in that very paragraph is:

"The lifting had been so complete in this case that there was no trace of the print of the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed."

See how the meaning changes when you don't take something out of context. By dishonestly leaving out that sentence about the completeness of the print lifting you were of course implying that it was unusual that there were no traces of the lifting left. But we all see what you're doing here of course; at least by putting in the ellipsis it was easy to identify the quote mining.

So just keep being dishonest; it really makes your case.

 

[kookbreaker]

How embarrassing for you to post that dishonest quote mine again, even after I said this:



So just keep being dishonest; it really makes your case.

How many times can your correct someone and they still make the same 'mistake'.

Gotta love how the most dishonest people are the ones claiming to hunt so hard for the truth.

RP, you are either deliberately dishonest or have a negative learning curve.

 

[Robert Prey]

The "final nail" having been posted, it looks like this thread has degenerated into a forensic autopsy of Mr. Prey's total failure to prove his case for a conspiracy to an audience of skeptics.

Nothing new has been posted for pages and pages. Lot's of dead horses are being flogged and tired dogs are being run around the same circles and Mr. Pray is repeating his stock phrases, but again, nothing new.

My employer will be be keeping me busy this month but in time I will be posting my own analysis of this thread focusing not on any of Mr. Prey's alleged "evidence" but on his style of presentation, his dishonesty, and slippery dodges and evasions which I believe are typical of conspiracy mongers and irrationalists.

Thus, having run the gambit with your Loons and Wacktards analysis,l you will now simply retreat into personal ad hominems -- a sure admission of defeat.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ad hominems are unfounded attacks on character. Criticising when you are vulgar or dishonest are not unfounded.

A sure sign of being fed up of your "genius" Robert.

Where is the material evidence to support the Parkland testemony Robert?

 

[Walter Ego]

Thus, having run the gambit with your Loons and Wacktards analysis, l you will now simply retreat into personal ad hominems -- a sure admission of defeat.

FTFY. Interesting Freudian slip. Did that extra first person singular pronoun get there by mistake? You are also assuming this thread is so long people will forget what you have posted or that they won't bother to look it up.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Thus, having run the gambit with your Loons and Wacktards analysis,l you will now simply retreat into personal ad hominems -- a sure admission of defeat.

By the way, who needs to admit defeat. You are the one making a claim of conspiracy, hows that material evidence coming? Do you have any to support those parkland testaments yet? Or will you just pretend those statements ARE material evidence?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thus, having run the gambit with your Loons and Wacktards analysis,l you will now simply retreat into personal ad hominems -- a sure admission of defeat.

Actually, the Loon and Whacktard analysis was proved with much help from you. Not that you're a Loon or a Whacktard, of course, but you sure did illustrate how they shoot themselves in the foot, posting evidence that counters what they are trying to prove, shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly and whacking their thumb with a hammer.

Remember when you posted that video showing the massive blowout from the exit of a bullet? You hadn't watched the entire video so you didn't know it totally demolished your argument but it sure did give us days and days of amusement at the Loon's and Whacktard's expense!

Remember when you used your red crayon to color in a fake exit wound to the rear of JFK's head? You were showing us what a Loon or Whacktard would do and it caused great mirth also. Bang! Another shot to the foot! LOL.

Remember when you showed the Loon or Whacktard cropped pictures showing how a dishonest Loon or Whacktard would do it? You were a wealth of information on the inner workings of a Loon or Whacktard CT. Not that you are but you were just showing us how they work so thanks for that.

Remember when you showed us how a Loon or Whacktard would dishonestly quote mine from the Warren Commission Report to try to make something appear to support their Looney story when the full quote said just the opposite? Bang! Bang!

Walter, looking forward to your anlaysis.

 

[Walter Ego]

Walter, looking forward to your anlaysis.

It might be after Christmas or the New Year before I can devote much time to it. I work in retail and we're very busy this month.

As a preview, just let me mention Robert's shifting positions on the Zapruder film. He seemed at first to be totally unaware that the film provides unassailable photographic evidence that invalidates his shot from the front theory. The back of Kennedy's head is clearly visible in the film and there is no gaping exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head were it must be if Robert's theory is correct.

So what does Robert do? He hand waves the problem away. First the film is a "Rorschach test" that shows anything you want it to show. Next the film is a "blur" where no details can be resolved. (Though not so blurry he couldn't see Jackie Kennedy picking up a piece of JFK's brain from the trunk of the car... a detail invisible to everyone else.)

When this failed to convince anyone he shifted to the "missing frames" canard. When it was shown there were no missing frames, he shifted to the idea that the film was altered in the lab before anyone could view it, a position embraced by only the looniest of the loons. (He was, however, reluctant to retreat to the "altered in the lab" theory and did so only when that was his last resort.)

And so on. I'm not interested in Robert as a person, I am only using him as a example to show the lengths peddlers of schlock (literally, shoddy merchandise) will go to sell their dreck. He picked the wrong audience in coming to this forum.

 

[Walter Ego]

Addendum to my post above. Robert's last restort fall-back position:

The only unimpeachable, un-alterable, un-forged "material" evidence we have are the observations of the Parkland Medical Personnel and other first hand witnesses. It is their unalterable, un-impeachable material evidence that impeaches what you claim to see or not see in the Z film.

This is the corner Robert has boxed himself into in his defense of his "hero" Lee Harvey Oswald. Forget the Z film, forget the autopsy photos, forget the mountain of material and circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt. Let's rely on the confused, contradictory and mostly retracted statements of the Parkland trauma room doctors and attendants.

This is sad.

 

[Robert Prey]

Addendum to my post above. Robert's last restort fall-back position:



This is the corner Robert has boxed himself into in his defense of his "hero" Lee Harvey Oswald. Forget the Z film, forget the autopsy photos, forget the mountain of material and circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt. Let's rely on the confused, contradictory and mostly retracted statements of the Parkland trauma room doctors and attendants.

This is sad.

"Forget the Z film,
which shows JFK's head being blown off by a shot from the right front.


"forget the autopsy photos"

There are no autopsy photos.

"forget the mountain of material and circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt."

That mountain points to Patsy set-up.

"Let's rely on the confused, contradictory and mostly retracted statements of the Parkland trauma room doctors and attendants."

Totally false. The observations were consistent with each, an were not mostly retracted. When truth won't serve, then the Lone Nutter simply relies on un-truth.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Totally false. The observations were consistent with each, an were not mostly retracted. When truth won't serve, then the Lone Nutter simply relies on un-truth.

Baloney. The Loon and Whacktard dishonesty has been proven. Bang!

 

[Tomtomkent]

"Forget the Z film,
which shows JFK's head being blown off by a shot from the right front.


"forget the autopsy photos"

There are no autopsy photos.

Yes there are. You posted some yourself. Youlied about them being "pre-autopsy" but then you cropped them and lied about there being an exit wound visible on the top of the head.

"forget the mountain of material and circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt."

That mountain points to Patsy set-up.

Only in your dishonest opinion. As you have yet to substantiate that possition, or counter our possition, with material evidence we have no reason to humour it.

"Let's rely on the confused, contradictory and mostly retracted statements of the Parkland trauma room doctors and attendants."

Totally false. The observations were consistent with each, an were not mostly retracted. When truth won't serve, then the Lone Nutter simply relies on un-truth.

No, not all statements were consistent, nor (and this is the key) are they supported by any form of material evidence. Not even your own interpretation is consistent. The number you quote has changed from 10, 20, 40 to "all" the Parkland staff.

Where is the material evidence to substantiate your claims Robert?