• 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.
Walter Ego said:
McClelland has made many contradictory statements about what he observed that day
.
Click to expand...


McCellland has always been consistent about a large blow-out in the back of the head. Nor am I aware of any "conspiracy books" authored by Dr. McCelland. If you know of one, name it.

"I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33)
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
All anybody really needs to know about the credibility of Dr. Michael Baden is the fact that he testified at the OJ Simpson trial For the Defense. Nor was Baden present at Parkland, nor at Bethesda. All he could do was interpret autopsy photos which the photographer says were not the ones he took.
Click to expand...

You know the photo you posted of an exit wound to the front of the head cropped, rotatedand falsely claiming to be the back of the head was also from the collection of somebody from OJs defense team?

Do you now retract those claims and admit they were deliberately misrepresenting the. Data?
 
More Hypocrisy From The Conspiratards

Rich_C said:
So what? How does that effect his credibility?
Click to expand...

When the conspiraloons run out of real arguments, they don't hesitate to stoop to guilt by association tactics like this.

If testifying for the O.J. defense means we can't believe the witness on the subject of the JFK assassination, then we must also question the credibility of self-styled JFK "photo expert" and conspiracy huckster Robert Groden who testified for the defense in the O.J. civil trial.

So who uses Groden as a "reliable" source despite his testifying for O.J.? Take a guess.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
When the conspiraloons run out of real arguments, they don't hesitate to stoop to guilt by association tactics like this.

If testifying for the O.J. defense means we can't believe the witness on the subject of the JFK assassination, then we must also question the credibility of self-styled JFK "photo expert" and conspiracy huckster Robert Groden who testified for the defense in the O.J. civil trial.

So who uses Groden as a "reliable" source despite his testifying for O.J.? Take a guess.
Click to expand...


Blam! Another hole in Robert's foot. That's Stundie worthy.

ETA: Stundied.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
When the conspiraloons run out of real arguments, they don't hesitate to stoop to guilt by association tactics like this.

If testifying for the O.J. defense means we can't believe the witness on the subject of the JFK assassination, then we must also question the credibility of self-styled JFK "photo expert" and conspiracy huckster Robert Groden who testified for the defense in the O.J. civil trial.

So who uses Groden as a "reliable" source despite his testifying for O.J.? Take a guess.
Click to expand...

And that's another one of Walter's untruths. I"ve never cited Groden as an "reliable source" on anything. On the other hand, Michael Baden never saw a low life murderer able to pay at least six figures, for whom he could not give favorable testimony. And Walter, we should all be mindful that it is a sin to tell a lie.
 
Robert Prey said:
And that's another one of Walter's untruths. I"ve never cited Groden as an "reliable source" on anything.
Click to expand...

Walter linked to the post where you used Groden as a source. If he's not a reliable source, then you just admitted you're posting rubbish.
 
 
Last edited:
Rich_C said:
Walter linked to the post where you used Groden as a source. If he's not a reliable source, then you just admitted you're posting rubbish.
Click to expand...

More fallacious reasoning from the Lone Nutter Amen Chorus -- in this case the False Dilemma fallacy. It's got to be this or it's that. Kindergarten stuff.
 
Walter Ego said:
Three more posts citing Groden.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7791136&highlight=groden#post7791136

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7740198&highlight=groden#post7740198

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7761833&highlight=groden#post7761833
Click to expand...

It is a sin to tell a lie. Never cited Groden. Only the source of some photos as you well know. Still waiting for you to enlighten me as to the title of that Conspiracy book you claim Dr. McCelland authored.
 
Robert Prey said:
More fallacious reasoning from the Lone Nutter Amen Chorus -- in this case the False Dilemma fallacy. It's got to be this or it's that. Kindergarten stuff.
Click to expand...

"Evidence" you hope will support your case can ONLY be valid or not.
This is not a false dichtomy, it is very real dichtomy.

If being associated with OJ Simpson is grounds to invalidate evidence, it has to be applied toyour own evidence, or you operate under a double standard. Clearly you are less critical of evidence that claims to be supporting your narrative.

If this is "kindergarden" stuff, why have you still failed to grasp it? Is your preschool education as impressive as your professional medical qualifications?
 
Robert Prey said:
It is a sin to tell a lie. Never cited Groden. Only the source of some photos as you well know. Still waiting for you to enlighten me as to the title of that Conspiracy book you claim Dr. McCelland authored.
Click to expand...

You never cited him, except as the source of evidence?
So that is a citation.
Still waiting for material evidence to support your claims.
 
Robert Prey said:
It is a sin to tell a lie. Never cited Groden. Only the source of some photos as you well know. Still waiting for you to enlighten me as to the title of that Conspiracy book you claim Dr. McCelland authored.
Click to expand...

So were you lying or lying when you lied about citing Groden?

Bang! LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
More fallacious reasoning from the Lone Nutter Amen Chorus -- in this case the False Dilemma fallacy. It's got to be this or it's that. Kindergarten stuff.
Click to expand...

Even a kindergarten student would know what lying is. You either don't know what it is or don't care that you're doing it.


Three more things to add to the list of stuff that Robert doesn't know the meaning of:

lying
false dilemma
fallacy
 
What A Tangled Web We Weave

Robert Prey said:
It is a sin to tell a lie. Never cited Groden. Only the source of some photos as you well know. Still waiting for you to enlighten me as to the title of that Conspiracy book you claim Dr. McCelland authored.
Click to expand...

I gave four examples where you cited Groden. Your attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "cite" doesn't change this. Since you seem to think a citation only applies to a printed source, how about this.

Robert Prey said:
Doris Nelson, the supervising Emergency Room nurse, carefully inspected the body. Ben Bradlee, Jr., asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" "A very good look," she replied. "Oh, I did see it. When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." She was then asked if the alleged autopsy photos were accurate. "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." ("High Treason," by Groden and Livingstone 454)
Click to expand...

It's a sin to tell a lie, Robert. You quoted a passage from a book co-authored by Groden. That's a cite even by your definition. A decent person would offer an apology at this point but we won't hold our breath waiting for you to man up on that one.

While you're plotting your next example of deception, however, I will throw you a small bone by doing something you would never do. I will admit I was in error by saying Dr. McClelland co-authored (not authored as you put it) a conspiracy book. It was Dr. Crenshaw who co-authored a conspiracy book. (Crenshaw's book, Conspiracy of Silence, is deconstructed here.)
 
Last edited:
And what was left of the credibility for the "not citing" argument is now laying on the floor of the kindergarden screaming at logic,and the uncanny ability of reading old posts, to stop stamping on him.


It is sad to see such lies stamped on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom