JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robrob]

If I have to limit myself to "one question" I'd like to ask Robert why he lied about LHO's Russian fluency?

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh , don't forget to quote this paragraph, either:

"I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

Do any of your conspiracy books quote that?

Hank

Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation."
Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand.

 

[BravesFan]

Boy, conspiracy people don't like when you point out the problems with the thing that keeps them going eh?

Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything cuz there's nothing to prove. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion LHO acted alone.

 

[Tomtomkent]

None of the above is "material" evidence but only false assertions as to what you claim is evidence. And not a scintilla of evidence for a Lone Nut. On the other hand, the observations of medical personnel at Parkland as to the head wounds is superior to everything else because it proves conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.

So you are claiming the rifle does not exist.
That the shell casings and bullets do not exist.
That the photographs and film do not exist.
That the body of JFK itself does not exist.

But no, you insist on the observations of the Parkland staff as material evidence. Very well. Explain what material they are made out of, and how I can go about testing them, with measurable data, to prove they are in any way more accurate than the statements that directly contraddict them.

They are not material evidence Robert. They are claims. They are unsupported by any evidence and clearly you are either too much of an idiot to acknowledge this, or trying to treat others like idiots by assuming they would accept this.

Supply material evidence for your claims, or stop making them, you silly little child.

 

[Tomtomkent]

None of that minutia points to one Lone Nut. But the head wounds observed by medical personnel at Parkland prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Parkland witnesses are not beyond doubt. They are very much in doubt because their observations conflict with the autopsy and the material evidence, and we have no reason to assume they are infaliable or to assume their honesty and competence is any greater than anybody elses.

All available evidence points to LHO firing a rifle, and there is no evidence anybody else was firing a rifle. So yes, it does point towards a lone nut.

So either provide evidence to support the unsubstanciated claims, or we will have no reason to assume those claims are more honest than the ones we have actual evidence for.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation."
Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand.

No it doesn't translate as anything like that, unless you are a delusional birk who needs it to mean that, desperately, to justify his claims of a conspiracy.

Let the rest of the world know when you are ready to extract your head from your rectum and actually appraise the evidence in the context of the enture memo, and the surrounding evidence, rather than in the context of what it you clearly hope and wish it showed.

Your head was in your rectum when you lied about Oswalds Russian skills (and cherry picked a partial sentence to justify it), about the photogrpahs you cropped, about the pose your doofus stood in to "prove" something about shadows (you can't even stand in the same pose and expect that to have omething meaningful to say about shadows), about the fingerprints, and now about this.

Yet you accuse others of having heads in the sand and not listening? You have not touched anything remotely resembling reality for most of your posts.

 

[SpitfireIX]

None of that minutia points to one Lone Nut. But the head wounds observed by medical personnel at Parkland prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.

From the article "Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark," by Teri Randall, which appeared in the April 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Note: this quotation is from an article copyrighted 1993 by the AMA, and is reproduced here pursuant to the fair use exemption to US copyright law, for research purposes.)

The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim....

As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time. [bolding mine]

 

[Walter Ego]

If I have to limit myself to "one question" I'd like to ask Robert why he lied about LHO's Russian fluency?

If Robert was just repeating a lie cribbed from one of his conspiracy books or from some conspiracy web site without bothering to confirm its validity, he was merely demonstrating his confirmation bias. If he doctored the quote from the Warren Commission to "prove" his hero Lee Harvey Oswald was fluent in Russian, he is indeed a bald-faced liar. Take your pick. Only Robert knows for sure. In either case, the lie was exposed and he has dropped his claim like a hot potato.

 

[Robert Prey]

From the article "Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark," by Teri Randall, which appeared in the April 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Note: this quotation is from an article copyrighted 1993 by the AMA, and is reproduced here pursuant to the fair use exemption to US copyright law, for research purposes.)

Quote:
The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim....

As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time. [bolding mine]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg[/qimg]

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

 

[Robert Prey]

Boy, conspiracy people don't like when you point out the problems with the thing that keeps them going eh?

Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything cuz there's nothing to prove. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion LHO acted alone.

Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

Why?

You know the difference bewteen trauma specialist working in an emergency room and a pathologist working in a morgue right?

Which does that statistic refer to?


Now appologise for being wrongt again.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds.

I know a four year old who can tell the difference between observations and material evidence.
Did you learn the difference yet?


What Material Evidence supports your claims?

 

[HSienzant]

Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation."
Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand.

Thank you for telling me how you interpret that memo. However, I think your interpretation is incorrect. I think it is colored by the information you've obtained from conspiracy books that is less than the whole truth.

I remind you that an investigation was already undertaken at that time by the Dallas Police, the Secret Service, the FBI, and numerous other agencies. you interpret Katzenbach's memo as saying they don't need *any kind* of investigation. You wrote: "...we don't need ... any other kind of investigation..."

Katzenbach was in favor of one major Presidential investigation with a number of famous Americans of unimpeachable character - like Earl Warren - and that is precisely what his memo says, despite your denial: 'That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation..." '

What Katzenbach said he wanted to avoid was too many disjointed investigations and Congressmen playing politics with the assassination and doing grandstanding for their own political purposes. That's something you don't think ever happens? Katzenbach wrote: "We need something to head off ... Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

And you apparently think speculation (as opposed to evidence) is a good thing. You wrote: 'That passage translates as "we don't need ... speculation." '

Katzenbach's memo concludes:
"I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

 

[jargon buster]

No disrespect to the guys posting in this thread but it's only Robert who isn't hand waving and getting excited.

And it's not a compliment to him by the way.

 

[HSienzant]

If Robert was just repeating a lie cribbed from one of his conspiracy books or from some conspiracy web site without bothering to confirm its validity, he was merely demonstrating his confirmation bias. If he doctored the quote from the Warren Commission to "prove" his hero Lee Harvey Oswald was fluent in Russian, he is indeed a bald-faced liar. Take your pick. Only Robert knows for sure. In either case, the lie was exposed and he has dropped his claim like a hot potato.

I have no doubt Robert was simply cribbing the lie from the three or four JFK assassination conspiracy books he owns. He hasn't shown any inclination to actually check out the documentation available from a variety of sources online, that I can see.

Even when the links are provided, it doesn't appear he has actually read any of them.

Hank

 

[Robrob]

Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds.

So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...?

 

[EventHorizon]

So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...?

Tsk, tsk. That 'and' makes it two questions. Robert won't answer.

 

[SpitfireIX]

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

As noted, the article says "emergency physicians"; it doesn't say "pathologists". Fail.

Further, even if true, the fact wouldn't help your case (such as it is). You have claimed that the recollections of the Parkland doctors constitute incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy. Showing that they might be wrong destroys any illusion of incontrovertibility.

However, showing that the autopsy analysis might be wrong doesn't help, because the burden of proof is on you for your extraordinary claim. The only way you can help your case is to prove that the autopsy report is wrong.

 

[matt.tansy]

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

It says "trauma specialists", not "pathologists". So much for your cherry-picked Parkland witnesses.

But it doesn't take a pathologist to determine all the gunshot wounds in your feet were self-inflicted.

 

[Robert Prey]

As noted, the article says "emergency physicians"; it doesn't say "pathologists". Fail.

Further, even if true, the fact wouldn't help your case (such as it is). You have claimed that the recollections of the Parkland doctors constitute incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy. Showing that they might be wrong destroys any illusion of incontrovertibility.

However, showing that the autopsy analysis might be wrong doesn't help, because the burden of proof is on you for your extraordinary claim. The only way you can help your case is to prove that the autopsy report is wrong.

You're late to the party. There's a mountain of evidence that proves conspiracy, 30 plus medical personnel at Parkland, several more at Bethesda, witnesses right behind the Pres. Limo that heard and saw shots from the Grassy Knoll, a missing Presidential brain, evidence of more than one autopsy, autopsy photos and x-rays never shown to the Warren Commission, etc, etc., etc. And then we have the sketch made at the instructions of DR. McClelleand showing a large blowout in the back of the head:




in contrast to the sketch which was shown to the Warren Commission:



Only the deaf, dumb and intentionally blind could possibly support the Lone Nutter fairy tale. But there is no shortage of those on this board of Deep Thinkers.