• 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.
Robert Prey said:
But, others point to the large blow-out in the back of the head:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f2072433100a.jpg[/qimg]

Beverly Oliver: "The whole back of his head went flying out the back of the car."
Phillip Williis: "It took the back of his head off."
Dr.C. Crenshaw: 'The wound was the size of a baseball."
Dr. R. Jones: "...there was a wound in this area of the head."
Dr. R. McClelland: It was in the right back of the head -- very large..."
Dr. Paul Peters: "...right there..."
Dr. C. Carrico: "There was a large -- quite a large -- defect about here..."
Nurse Audrey Bell: "There was a massive wound at the back of his head."
Abrey Rike: "You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of his head."
Floyd Riebe: "... a big gaping hole in the back of the head."
Frank O'Neill: "A massive wound in the right rear."
Paul O'Connor: "There as an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain."

And many more.
Click to expand...

Robert, these are proven false by physical evidence. We have film and photographs of the shots hitting. There is no large blow out in the back of the head. Why can you not supply any physical evidence to prove the existence of the blow out at the back of the head?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Robert, these are proven false by physical evidence. We have film and photographs of the shots hitting. There is no large blow out in the back of the head. Why can you not supply any physical evidence to prove the existence of the blow out at the back of the head?
Click to expand...

He can't see those photos, he's stuck his head in the sand. He posted a picture of that earlier.
 
On the other hand, if anybody else has evidence beyond "other people disagree with him" that Zapruder was incorrect in both his testemony and his physical evidence feel free to post it. Perhaps explain why heis somehow a less reliable witness than others? Provide physical/material/objective evidence to support this claim?


Or even better to answer the simple question Robert keeps dodging. Was he "lying or mistaken" to say there was no witness with supporting evidence offered? Which was it Robert? You were wrong onasimplematter, and those are the only explanations you consider reasonable...
 
Having spent the last couple of days wading through this thread, the only phrase that comes to mind to describe Robert Prey's position is "intellectual dishonesty". In hindsight, however, I think we can dispense with the "intellectual" bit!

He argues like a creationist - ignoring the overwhelming physical evidence just so that his twisted myth can be shoehorned in.

I do hope he is never called to do jury service!
 
FG10 said:
Having spent the last couple of days wading through this thread, the only phrase that comes to mind to describe Robert Prey's position is "intellectual dishonesty". In hindsight, however, I think we can dispense with the "intellectual" bit!

He argues like a creationist - ignoring the overwhelming physical evidence just so that his twisted myth can be shoehorned in.

I do hope he is never called to do jury service!
Click to expand...

Ad hominem attack duly noted, and with it, as is always the case, not a scintilla of evidence, physical or otherwise.
 
Robert Prey said:
Ad hominem attack duly noted, and with it, as is always the case, not a scintilla of evidence, physical or otherwise.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, you don't agree with ad homenim attacks? So will you retract this post?
Robert Prey said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f217af4c099e.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Or other posts where you make almost identical "attacks" accusing others of putting their heads in sands, posting images of heads in sand, and such?

Or can you please explain how it is only an attack when others critique your refusal to provide evidence and cowardly ducking?

Surely "son" you would not be so childish as to have a double standard here?
 
Tomtomkent said:
So just to be clear, you don't agree with ad homenim attacks? So will you retract this post?


Or other posts where you make almost identical "attacks" accusing others of putting their heads in sands, posting images of heads in sand, and such?

Or can you please explain how it is only an attack when others critique your refusal to provide evidence and cowardly ducking?

Surely "son" you would not be so childish as to have a double standard here?
Click to expand...

[insert Cl1mbhazz4rd quote here]
 
Robert Prey said:
Ad hominem attack duly noted, and with it, as is always the case, not a scintilla of evidence, physical or otherwise.
Click to expand...

You do know that people aren't laughing with you, right?

Did you get pictures of the bottoms of Half a Beer Boy Doofus's feet so we can see what exit wounds look like?


Bang!

LOL.
 
RoboTimbo said:
No need. Your complete and total surrender was already accepted. I'm surprised you held out as long as you did, since all of reality was against you.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The 40 witnesses, including medical workers at Parkland didn't decide to lie by saying the exit wound was in the rear, where it always was and will be. They told the truth.

The President's wounds are validated by an autopsy photo and Zapruder showing the gaping hole on the right rear. Thus, they are all telling the truth because the films corroborate the exit wound on the rear as do the witnesses at Bethesda and the on the scene witnesses in Dealy Plaza. It's no longer a theory, it's a fact.
 
7forever said:
Indeed. The 40 witnesses, including medical workers at Parkland didn't decide to lie by saying the exit wound was in the rear, where it always was and will be. They told the truth.

The President's wounds are validated by an autopsy photo and Zapruder showing the gaping hole on the right rear. Thus, they are all telling the truth because the films corroborate the exit wound on the rear as do the witnesses at Bethesda and the on the scene witnesses in Dealy Plaza. It's no longer a theory, it's a fact.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could provide some of those photographs. The only ones we've seen have been shown to be lies where some dishonest CTwinks have cropped a photo of the exit wound. I'm sure you have a real photograph that backs up what otherwise looks like looney raving.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Robert Prey says that anyone who says the driver shot Kennedy is repeating looney theories and that the shot came from the grassy knoll. Do you agred with that?
Click to expand...

I don't agred with that.:D I could not care less what anyone thinks besides to post that there is no evidence of anyone firing the fatal shot besides the driver.
 
7forever said:
I don't agred with that.:D I could not care less what anyone thinks besides to post that there is no evidence of anyone firing the fatal shot besides the driver.
Click to expand...

But he says he has evidence that the shot came from the grassy knoll. Do you have evidence that it came from somewhere else? The only evidence we've seen in this thread has been overwhelmingly that the shot came from LHO firing his own rifle from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Why does Robert Prey think that the idea of the driver shooting Kennedy is looney?
 
Robert Prey said:
Yes. The Grassy knoll, or thereabouts. Lines, slopes, degrees are all imperfect approximations. But the Best Evidence are the wounds themselves. That points to a fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Click to expand...

But Robert, 7forever says that the driver shot JFK and that he has evidence to prove it. Which one of you is right? Is the other one lying or simply mistaken?
 
RoboTimbo said:
But Robert, 7forever says that the driver shot JFK and that he has evidence to prove it. Which one of you is right? Is the other one lying or simply mistaken?
Click to expand...

And the angle robert has drawn on the z film to show the path of the bullet does not key with either the exit wound behind the ear or the grassy knoll.

And nobody can show an exit wound behind the ear on the zapruda film. There is a small entry wound behind the ear, but no "blow out" behind the ear. Nor any matter being blown out.

Perhaps it is some form of invisible matter, and invisible wound, that doesn't show up on the Z film. Or Polaroid. Or autopsy photos...
 
Speaking of which, are those the autopsy photos that are totaly fake and prove the conspiracy? (Except when Robert calls them something else and posts them?)
 
Tomtomkent said:
So just to be clear, you don't agree with ad homenim attacks? So will you retract this post?


Or other posts where you make almost identical "attacks" accusing others of putting their heads in sands, posting images of heads in sand, and such?

Or can you please explain how it is only an attack when others critique your refusal to provide evidence and cowardly ducking?

Surely "son" you would not be so childish as to have a double standard here?
Click to expand...

What you cite is not an ad hominem attack. And in the case of Posner, an accurate summation of just where he and his book of lies belongs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom