• 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.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person
Click to expand...

Important word bolded for your assistance Robert

It isnt ad hominem if its relevant.
 
Hank wrote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant
And this (Saundra Spencer 35-year-old recollection).

Question: How was Spence'rs account proven false???
 
jargon buster said:
Important word bolded for your assistance Robert

It isnt ad hominem if its relevant.
Click to expand...
Like pointing out the guy has no training or knowledge in the field he is commenting on, and his analysis is of no useful value? You are correct, in this case that assessment is relevant.
 
Hank wrote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant
And this (Zavada vs your four 'expert' witnesses).

Question: And this is a mis-representation of fact??? Explain. What piece of "evidence" is a mis-representation of fact??
 
Tomtomkent said:
It is odd given the weight he places on testemony he has not even asked for details of what you may or may not have seen.

It is also odd he does not explain how his eyewitnesses who saw the shooting determined the direction of the shot came from the grassy knoll. Did they see the bullet in flight? The impact on the body? Given Roberts flawed "common sense" explanations of jet effect is it possible for them to be misinterpreting what they saw? Did they assume the bullet came in one direction becasuse of they way the body fell, or the direction of ejecta?

The same questions rise about his "medical" evidence: how can we validate the state of the body of JFK as Robert describes it as "best evidence" when we have NOTHING on which to base an assumption of honesty or accuracy?

A different standard could be forgiven if Robert at least showed he worked to a standard. If. Eye witnesses are best evidence, and a subjective unvalidated description is viable he should consisder all such evidence as viable. Everything in the WC shoulsd be considered reliable until shown otherwise, and your statement should be taken in as much detail as possible until unvalidated. It is a flawed standard, but is a step forwards by having a standard.

At the moment there are the sources that agree with Robert and those that MUST be faked, forged or lies by virtue of differing from his preordained outcome.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to cite some of your own "material' "Physical" evidence. ZZZZZ.
 
jargon buster said:
I didnt know the 40 plus medical witnesses saw a shooter on the grassy knoll?
I will have to revisit that part of the thread, where did you post that Robert?


Great so we can now discount the Z film as part of your evidence for a grassy knoll shooter.
For claritys sake please dont use it again.

"All" now is it?
What about the head wound as seen in the autopsy photographs?
Click to expand...

You are late to the party and need to bone up on the evidence. The people who shot and developed the autopsy photos have declared the ones in evidence to be fake.
 
Southwind wrote:

Witness statements, Robert, whilst in the written form are undoubtedly 'physical' in that they exist, certainly do not constitute 'physical evidence'. Do you know what 'physical evidence' actually means? [Why did I even ask that?!

Comment: Physical evidence is the body itself, now worm food and the autopsy photos and x-rays, the ones now in evidence, which have been declared fake by those who shot them. Physical evidence is also that which is challenged by TomTom but never provided by TomTom.
 
Tomtomkent said:
You have it the wrong way round again.

We know they are mistaken because we have documentary evidence in the form of the autopsy. We have photographic evidence in the form of the photographic record, including filmed footage.

Until you show us the physical body itself, and show us evidence of tampering on thefilms and photographs beyond "my prefered witnesses disagree"and some idiot who cant tell the difference between a stick pointed towards and away from a camera, we have no reason to suspect the witnesses you list have superhuman abilities of recall.

Memories are fragile. Psychology shows they are easily changed. They have to be verified by physical evidence, not the other way around.

Once again, we have stated the requirements for convincing us. If you are truly here to engage in a conversation like an adult, and actually intend to convince others of your pointwhy not just supply physical evidence to verify your assertion? Why make childish posts in which you substitute special pleadings for evidence that we don't find convincing?

The autopsy discredits your claims. The wounds described and photographed in the autopsy do not match those drawn by or described by your witness, nor are they compatible with a shot from the front. They describe, and show a small entry wound behind the ear and a massive ejection from the temple. This proves:
1) there is no blow out on the back of the head.
2) no entry wound compatible with the shot coming from the grassy knoll.
3) no wound indicative of a frangible bullet.
4) the Parkland doctors failed to accurately describe a wound proven to be present.
5) the blow out you insist was on the back of the head was not present.
6) the wound on the temple shows it was an exit wound by virtue of the direction of trauma.
7) the exit wound on the temple matches the z film and the rest of the photographic evidence.

Note that this forms a chain of evidence (not a chain of custody I am not using american legal parlance, I am using terminology that is clearly self explanitory and is accepted in my trade, if this confuses Robert I could not care less at this point, it would take an effortof will. To misunderstand the meaning) that also connects to the TSBD snipers nest.

Note also the following:

1)Robert offers no physical or documentary evidence to support what his witnesses to assert.
2) Robert offers no objective reasons to dismiss any evidence other than it conflicts with his witnesses. He fails to name a single liar or whitewasher present at the autopsy yet argues against their findings and has in the past declared the conclusions and evidence as fake. Thathe now wishes to reinterpret the descriptions to fit his own agenda matters very little, as his previous posts have not been retracted.
3) any interpretation of the autopsy by Robert has to be disregarded as in the past he hasdescribed himself as having a professional medical opinion based on his selfgiven credentials.
4) if the parkland doctors failed to describe, as robert claims, an exit wound on the temple that is present at the autopsy and is verified by the chain of evidence, their testemony has to be considered neglegent and dismissed.
5) that they describe a wound that can not be seen or verified by any physical evidence of any medium, makes their evidence suspect, and should be dismissed.
6) that there is evidence that nobody lifted JFKs head at Parkland, and thus there is no oppertunity for them to see the wounds described offers a reason to dismiss the claims as unreliable.
7) that other posters here have shown discrepencies between what Robert claims the quote describes and the content of the quotes (the temporal regions, the outer edge of the occipital bones etc, please endorse my poor spellings here) and that these match the original photos (with out roberts cropping and rotating) is reason to dismiss the assertions.
8) that robert has claimed the autoposy photos are fake, while posting them himself as evidence, and that he cropped and rotated them to try and suggest they show wounds matching his descriptions, is enough to dismiss his arguments as invalid.

And yet we have not. The posters here in this thread still partake in the discussion. And we all offer the same simple requirement; if Robert wishes to convince us of an assertion showus evidence that meets a simple requirement.

If Robert wants to prove the z film, or any other image was altered all he has to do is show us the artefacts left on any film by alteration. If he wants to claim he has medical evidence rather than show us some quotes and claims all he has to do is show us verifiable documentary evidence from Parkland to substantiate his claims. If he wants us to believe the body did not match the wounds described by the autopsy or the wc, show us photographic and documentary evidence to prove this..

If he wants to salvage his reputation and enter an adult conversation he should decide once and for all if the z film is altered and unviable, or if it is accurate enough to claimas evidence for frangible bullets. His contradictory claims are self defeating.
Click to expand...

All this has previously been covered.
 
jargon buster said:
Robert listed below is the evidence you have posted
......
........
............
.......





...... thats it.
Click to expand...

I too wonder why Robert feels we should cite any of his "evidence" when it has been made clear that none of what he offers reaches the standard we require.

Robert, look at what you cite as evidence. None of it is actually evidence.

For a hundred pages you have been asked to supply physical/material evidence to support your claims. The definition of those terms from our perspective was made clear.

If you have not supplied anything that matches those criteria, we do not consider it evidence.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I too wonder why Robert feels we should cite any of his "evidence" when it has been made clear that none of what he offers reaches the standard we require.

Robert, look at what you cite as evidence. None of it is actually evidence.

For a hundred pages you have been asked to supply physical/material evidence to support your claims. The definition of those terms from our perspective was made clear.

If you have not supplied anything that matches those criteria, we do not consider it evidence.
Click to expand...

What you ask for as "material/physical" evidence, you, yourself cannot supply. Memo: Fake autopsy photos don't count.
 
Robert Prey said:
Cop-Out.
Click to expand...

Feel what ever you want about it Robert. If you want the information it's already in this thread. I am not repeating it again so you can once again declare the autopsywas part of a conspiracy, wrong because it didn't agree with your witnesses (except when you redefine what was reported so it did...) etc.


I note you consider it a cop out to point out subjects are already covered, yet do so yourself in the same barrage of posts.

So, perhaps after one hundresd pages of groundless assertions you will name which members of the autopsy staff were dishonest/liars/part of the cover-up?

Then supply the documentary and physical evidence you have been lacking to support these claims?
 
You are late to the party and need to bone up on the evidence. The people who shot and developed the autopsy photos have declared the ones in evidence to be fake.
Click to expand...

Not to late to the party to see you glossed over the fact that the 40 witnesses at the hospital do not in any way indicate any evidence of a shooter on the grassy knoll.

But that is not the best evidence of a shot form the Knoll, only evidence of film forgery.
Click to expand...
And you also admit that the Z film isnt evidence of a grassy knoll shooter.

So where is your evidence of a grassy knoll shooter?

Surely you are not just relying on a few people who "think" a shot came from the grassy knoll?
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Still waiting for you to cite some of your own "material' "Physical" evidence. ZZZZZ.
Click to expand...

Already cited. But to repeat;

The photographic record of the autopsy.
The photographic record of the event itself including filmed evidence.
The rifle.
The cartridges.
The blood splatter on the car.
The bullet fragments.
Signed photographs of Oswald holding the murder weapons.
The revolver.
Fingerprints taken from the rifle.
Fingerprints taken from the cartidges.
Pieces of skull found in the plaza.

That you refuse to accept these is not my concern. Im not making assertions. You are.

My null hypothosis is that these material objects were not forged or faked and form a chain of evidence, untill you show me PHYSICAL evidence to discredit them. I am not interested in your opinions of them, or your opinion of what evidence is better. You are here to convince others of your assertion, and those are the minimum requirements to convince us of your claims.

Pretending these have not been offered or arguing how little others have provided is not the same as meeting your burden of proof. It is a childish and meaningless deflection..
 
Robert Prey said:
What you ask for as "material/physical" evidence, you, yourself cannot supply. Memo: Fake autopsy photos don't count.
Click to expand...

Again, a plethora of evidence has been supplied. Your unsupported assertion that they are faked does not interest me until you prove this to be so.

Remember Robert you are the one making assertions. If you want to convince me or anybody else of your assertions support them with evidence. It is irrelevant for anybody else, myself included, to supply evidence as the burden of proof is on YOU.

Perhaps you can't grasp the situation here. My possition is this:

I have seen the available material evidence for the incident. It is indicative of LHO shooting from the TSBD.

I have seen no counter material.

I have no reason to offer credence to unsupported witness statements that appear disproven by material evidence.

You claim I am wrong.

Good for you.

You claim I am a silly deep thinker with my head in the sand.

Good for you.

For one hundred pages you have argued I am wrong. All you have to do to make me agree I am wrong and reassess my opinion is support your claims with material evidence validaed by documentary evidence.

That was all you had to do on page one, it is all you need to do now.

I don't need to supply any evidence at all. Nobody else does either. We can state what evidence convinced us, we can state why we disagree with you, but we are at the default position. The Null. Nobody else has a burden of proof to disprove your theory, the burden is on your shoulders to convince us of forgeries. To convince us of a conspiracy. To convince us of other gunmen.
 
Robert Prey said:
Southwind wrote:

Witness statements, Robert, whilst in the written form are undoubtedly 'physical' in that they exist, certainly do not constitute 'physical evidence'. Do you know what 'physical evidence' actually means? [Why did I even ask that?!

Comment: Physical evidence is the body itself, now worm food and the autopsy photos and x-rays, the ones now in evidence, which have been declared fake by those who shot them. Physical evidence is also that which is challenged by TomTom but never provided by TomTom.
Click to expand...

You have shown CLAIMS they are faked, like you show claims of everything else. You have never shown anything that PROVES them to be faked.

Is this a discrepency so subtle you fail to understand it, or is it wilfull dishonesty?
 
Robert Prey said:
One point at a time please. How was the Mercer story proven false?????
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the memo:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0251a.htm

I cannot believe you are actually asking this question.

1. First off, I remind you there is no evidence that what Mercer saw was a rifle in a case. She said she saw tool boxes in an air conditioning truck, and saw a man reach over the tailgate of the truck and take 'what appeared to be' a gun case from the truck. You are simply assuming her assumption is correct.

2. By finding the cop (Joe Murphy) who was at the scene and interviewing him and establishing the supposed gunman with the supposed 'gun case' was actually long gone by the time of the assassination. Murphy stated "...it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.")

3. It makes no sense that putative assassins would actually be so brazen as to stop their truck in front of the knoll and stop traffic there (Mercer said "... the truck was blocking my passage"), attract the attention of the traffic policemen in the area ("...MURPHY ... stated these persons were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved prior to the arrival of the motorcade...")

Quite simply, there is no evidence that connects a stalled air conditioning truck to an attempt on the president's life, as the truck, and the men in it, were gone well before the President drove by.

So do you think the men in the air conditioning truck hand-delivered the rifle to the real assassin behind the fence in full view of the cops? Why couldn't he bring his own rifle to the assassination? I remind you that the railroad workers (like Sam Holland) on the overpass saw no shooter, and nobody with a rifle just after the assassination. I further remind you that YOU YOURSELF questioned whether the assassin had a rifle. I further remind you that your supposed best witness for this shooting (Ed Hoffman) has been exposed as someone whose story makes no sense, who didn't come forward for years, whose story changed repeatedly, and whose story is incapable of being resolved with those of actual witnesses like Sam Holland.

So let me just point out that your "coherent narrative" is still incoherent.

Can we get a simply answer on one small issue?
Did your grassy knoll assassin use a rifle or a handgun?
Or are you still undecided on that issue?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Still waiting for you to cite some of your own "material' "Physical" evidence. ZZZZZ.
Click to expand...


Me. I was physically there when LHO physically shot JFK right in his physical *********** head. Why then to you still pretend to believe this conspiracy nonsense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom