JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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.



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.)

As anyone can plainly see, citing a quotation in a book co-authored by the person in question is not the same as citing the person in question himself as a "reliable source" which is what you falsely accused.

 

[EventHorizon]

As anyone can plainly see, citing a quotation in a book co-authored by the person in question is not the same as citing the person in question himself as a "reliable source" which is what you falsely accused.

I really can't figure this one out. Are you saying that the book that he co-authored is a reliable source but the person himself is not? That makes absolutely no sense (not new for you I know) but that's what it seems like you're saying.


The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to believe your fantasies must be exhausting.

 

[jargon buster]

I think Robert just wanted to cite an unreliable source to back up his non-existant evidence.

 

[Garrison]

I really can't figure this one out. Are you saying that the book that he co-authored is a reliable source but the person himself is not? That makes absolutely no sense (not new for you I know) but that's what it seems like you're saying.


The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to believe your fantasies must be exhausting.

It's a common CT problem, they seem to believe that if they once admit to a mistake, however minor, however peripheral to their belief, that the entire edifice they have built up will tumble down.

 

[Garrison]

As anyone can plainly see, citing a quotation in a book co-authored by the person in question is not the same as citing the person in question himself as a "reliable source" which is what you falsely accused.

No Robert Prey I don't think anyone else sees that. What exactly is the practical difference between citing the persons written words and the person themselves? Why does failing to make a distinction that seems frankly non-existent constitute a false accusation?

 

[Walter Ego]

I really can't figure this one out. Are you saying that the book that he co-authored is a reliable source but the person himself is not? That makes absolutely no sense (not new for you I know) but that's what it seems like you're saying.

What did I tell you.

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.

Since Groden, who testified for the O.J. defense, only co-authored the book, Robert could argue that the book he cited (more than once, btw) is only half-unreliable. That would be ridiculous of course but he has never hesitated to made a fool of himself in the past.

 

[Robert Prey]

I really can't figure this one out. Are you saying that the book that he co-authored is a reliable source but the person himself is not? That makes absolutely no sense (not new for you I know) but that's what it seems like you're saying.


The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to believe your fantasies must be exhausting.

If you want to call into question the veracity of a book or its co-author, you need to cite something in the book that is untrue.

 

[Garrison]

If you want to call into question the veracity of a book or its co-author, you need to cite something in the book that is untrue.

So what was the point of this statement you made earlier(my bold):

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.

I mean shouldn't you have to show he wrote something that was untrue in his JFK work to attack his credibility? Or do you have a different standard depending on whether someone agrees with you or not?

 

[Walter Ego]

If you want to call into question the veracity of a book or its co-author, you need to cite something in the book that is untrue.

So you were citing this passage from High Treason (co-authored by Groden) to show it was untrue?

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)

Thanks for admitting there was no gaping exit wound on the back of the president's head thus invalidating the shot from the grassy knoll theory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you want to call into question the veracity of a book or its co-author, you need to cite something in the book that is untrue.

So, you retract your earlier statemnt to the effect that "All you need to know" is somebody supported OJ? As that doesn't cite any specific statement...

 

[Robert Prey]

So, you retract your earlier statemnt to the effect that "All you need to know" is somebody supported OJ? As that doesn't cite any specific statement...

All anybody needs to know about OJ is that he is guilty as sin as the civil trial proved, but Baden supported his cacamammy defense in the criminal trail. But Baden also has a track record of following the money no matter how low life the crime. As to his JFK testimony -- all based on fraudulent autopsy photos and x-rays.

 

[Robert Prey]

So you were citing this passage from High Treason (co-authored by Groden) to show it was untrue?



Thanks for admitting there was no gaping exit wound on the back of the president's head thus invalidating the shot from the grassy knoll theory.

Your conclusion does not follow Nurse Nelson's statement.

 

[Robert Prey]

So what was the point of this statement you made earlier(my bold):



I mean shouldn't you have to show he wrote something that was untrue in his JFK work to attack his credibility? Or do you have a different standard depending on whether someone agrees with you or not?

His JFK testimony was false, based on false autopsy photos and x-rays. He never viewed the head wounds, nor any of the actual photos that were taken, nor did the Warren Commission.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Your analysis is irrelevant.

 

[Tomtomkent]

All anybody needs to know about OJ is that he is guilty as sin as the civil trial proved, but Baden supported his cacamammy defense in the criminal trail. But Baden also has a track record of following the money no matter how low life the crime. As to his JFK testimony -- all based on fraudulent autopsy photos and x-rays.

And how does this not also reflect on your source, who has deliberately misrepresented photos, and also acted in defence of OJ? You can not justify this double standard, in one. Source is dismissed for these reasons all sources must meet the same standard. You can't claim a source is exempt because you agree with it.

So, do you retract your earlier posts and the photos there in as tainted by the OJ connection, or is OJ irrelevant, so you instead retract your objection?

The third option is to admit you have double standards and can not take part in any conversation based on reason and logic.

Your double standards are too blatant Robert. "Bug Man" is a loon for wanting to indite based on his belief in political corruption, but you are not for suggesting those responsible for your CT should be subject to investigation by the authorities. Autopsy photos are fake (except the ones you post after editing)...

 

[Robert Prey]

And how does this not also reflect on your source, who has deliberately misrepresented photos, and also acted in defence of OJ? You can not justify this double standard, in one. Source is dismissed for these reasons all sources must meet the same standard. You can't claim a source is exempt because you agree with it.

So, do you retract your earlier posts and the photos there in as tainted by the OJ connection, or is OJ irrelevant, so you instead retract your objection?

The third option is to admit you have double standards and can not take part in any conversation based on reason and logic.

Your double standards are too blatant Robert. "Bug Man" is a loon for wanting to indite based on his belief in political corruption, but you are not for suggesting those responsible for your CT should be subject to investigation by the authorities. Autopsy photos are fake (except the ones you post after editing)...

Grodon "misrepresented photos"??? How do you know that?

 

[TheRedWorm]

CT Mode
How do you know he didn't?!?!?!!??!
/CT Mode

 

[Tomtomkent]

Grodon "misrepresented photos"??? How do you know that?

Because it has been shown to you that the photo he claimed was of an exit wound to the back of the head, that you posted, was a cropped image of the exit wound at the top of the head rotated 90 degrees. The same exit wound cropped out of the version of the "deathstare" photo you posted.

Claiming the photo is of the opposite side of a head is misrepresenting it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I posted links both to the uncropped/rotated original photo and the debunking of Grogens claims ages ago. Robert must have known this as he replied to the post at the time.

 

[Robert Prey]

Because it has been shown to you that the photo he claimed was of an exit wound to the back of the head, that you posted, was a cropped image of the exit wound at the top of the head rotated 90 degrees. The same exit wound cropped out of the version of the "deathstare" photo you posted.

Claiming the photo is of the opposite side of a head is misrepresenting it.

Your statement is very confused. Grodon made no claims.