JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

Deferring is not agreeing.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defer?s=t

de·fer [dih-fur] verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
verb (used without object)
1. to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion (usually followed by to ): We all defer to him in these matters.
verb (used with object)
2. to submit for decision; refer: We defer questions of this kind to the president.

Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English deferren < Latin dēferre to carry from or down, report, accuse, equivalent to dē- de- + ferre to bear1

Synonyms
1. accede, submit, acquiesce, capitulate.​

Care to explain how Thompson could "yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" to the panel without also agreeing with them?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Baloney.

Liverwurst.

Really, can you imagine anyone anywhere taking you seriously? Would you take someone like you seriously?

Two questions, I know. Sorry to tax you.

 

[BazBear]

Liverwurst.

Really, can you imagine anyone anywhere taking you seriously? Would you take someone like you seriously?

Two questions, I know. Sorry to tax you.

Reg, I wonder if two questions will get you two slices of Robert's favorite cold cut?

 

[bynmdsue]

There's 95 posters in this thread making 5 500 posts. The thread has over 83 000 views. That's a whole lotta lurkers. I wonder how many have been swayed by RP's masterful arguments and rhetoric.

 

[LSSBB]

There's 95 posters in this thread making 5 500 posts. The thread has over 83 000 views. That's a whole lotta lurkers. I wonder how many have been swayed by RP's masterful arguments and rhetoric.

Do a poll. Worked in the ApolloHoax thread. I myself was on the fence and RP's arguments getting demolished pushed me off into the LHO Did It Alone side.

 

[HSienzant]

Thomson says originals are better, in contrast to all the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board who think that copies are just fine, so long as their conclusions as to the copies are correct, and all other cited conclusions of other experts are not, for not having examined the "originals." Double-standard time for the poor Lone Nutters who have now painted themselves into a corner.

As so is Hesrchel Womack, Malcomb Thompson, Jack White, by Mg. John. Pickard, and Paul Hoch, Everyone in the world but you and that other fellow. Sounds to me like you are so wound up in your own self importance, that you can only turn a deaf ear to the opinions and theories of others, lest your own theories are exposed as mere theories.

Nope. The only one on this forum saying the copies were just fine has been you - and only you - all along.

You cited Malcomb Thompson's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Jack White's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Paul Hoch's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Mg. Pickard's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Womack's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited your own opinions, and you certainly never studied the originals.

On the other hand, I have consistently pointed you to two studies, both of which studied the original first generation photographic materials.

There was the FBI study of the photographic materials in 1964. The FBI concluded there was no evidence of tampering in any of the photos (they did not see the the third view - "133C").

There was the HSCA photographic panel study of the photographic materials in 1978. The HSCA experts concluded there was no evidence of tampering in any of the photos (they did see the third view - "133C").

You ignored those legitimate conclusions every time and cited the conclusions of those who never saw the first generation materials.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Baloney. The HSCA statement is a false conclusion and not a quote from Thomson. Deferring is not agree-ing.

First, your statement that "The HSCA statement is a false conclusion" is your own conclusion and is not backed up by any facts in evidence.

Secondly, you want to quibble over language because you have no legitimate case.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defer[2]

Definition of DEFER
transitive verb
: to delegate to another <he could defer his job to no one — J. A. Michener>
intransitive verb
: to submit to another's wishes, opinion, or governance usually through deference or respect <deferred to her father's wishes>

To submit to another's opinion out of respect... that seems to cover it pretty effectively.

Thomson was saying, in effect, 'you know better than me, you studied this far more than I did, I will submit to your opinion as mine is not as knowledgeable'. However you want to define it, that is certainly not disagreement with the HSCA photographic panel's conclusions, Robert.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Do your own homework...

Bravo, Robert! You are doing just great. Another Standard Conspiracy Addict's answer for years has been the one you just gave. "Do your own homework"! Classic.

Pointless and irritating, with just a hint of condescension.

I rank it ahead of baloney, but just behind fiddlesticks.

Those rebuttals by you really have us on the run.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

NO. He couldn't turn a full 180 degrress to see K with his arms up but we all could see it on the Z film.

• So after insisting multiple times that Connally insisted "until the day he died" that he and Kennedy were struck by separate shots;
  
• And after insisting multiple times that you indeed cited that evidence of Connally's insistence;
  
• And after insisting that you even proved it;

You now admit that was ALL a charade; Connally insisted on no such thing; you never cited it; and you never proved it!

You admit now he never even saw Kennedy, which is what I have been telling you for two weeks (so of course Connally could draw no conclusion what shot Kennedy was hit with).

So instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing for wasting our time with your nonsensical arguments not supported by any evidence, you now change the point entirely, to what YOU THINK YOU SEE IN THE FILM YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED IS FORGED BY CONSPIRATORS!

Brilliant logic, Robert. I am stunned into silence by that line of argument.

Not really. Your argument is standard CT Logic 101:

• If caught with no evidence, talk about something else.
• If caught in a lie, bluster, and accuse your opponent of lying.
• If you opponent cites the films or photos, call them faked. But don't hesitate to site the same evidence if you see something you can interpret to fit your conspiracy beliefs.
• And of course, if stuck for a response, say 'Baloney' or 'Fiddlesticks' or 'Do your own research'!

Hank

 

[Southwind17]

Please answer the question regarding the 'sunken' cheeks.

The point currently in question, Robert, concerns the number of shots, not the nature of them. Now, are we not agreed that the first shot to hit somebody was the shot that hit Kennedy, but not the head shot?

Fixed that for you, Robert. Care to have another go now?!

Please summarise the 'facts' that you consider are relevant to evaluating the number of shots fired. If necessary we can then compare the theory espoused by everybody here (three shots), except you, against those facts to review how that theory stacks up. Thank you in advance, Robert.

What's your definition of a 'photo expert', Robert?

There's no 'theory', Robert, only physics. Please explain, in your own words, why you consider the explanation doubtful.


Robert, this quotation has absolutely no relevance to my explanation as to how the characteristics of the two photos demonstrates a difference in camera distance. Why, exactly, have you posted this?

So, Robert, what you're insinuating here is that we simply cannot rely on, and hence draw any meaningful conclusions from, the b/y photos, right? So the only sensible thing to do then, surely, is ignore them. Agreed?

Robert - don't you think it's rude of you to completely ignore many of the questions that people are asking you here - questions which, if answered satisfactorily by you, would either support your claims or otherwise show them to be unfounded?

Well, Robert, rude?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Stupid is as stupid does.

Absolutely.



What shape is the chin on the above pee stained doofus???? Can you detect any photomanipulation????

 

[Southwind17]

With reference to the video interview posted by Robert, at the point when Connolly states that he turned to his right after hearing the first shot (2:52) the Zapruder film is showing Kennedy clearly holding his throat. Staying with the Zapruder film, Connolly does then turn to his right (and in my opinion does actually turn so far as to look at Kennedy (2:56) notwitstanding that he states that he "didn't catch him in the corner of my eye"). At time 3:21 in the video Connolly seems to be looking almost directly at Kennedy, in my view. Indeed, he seemed to be speaking as he started to turn to look over his right shoulder, presumably directed at Kennedy, and is quite possibly still speaking to Kennedy at time 3:21. Connolly seems to get hit by the bullet at around 3:23 in the video as he's turning back to his left - a good few seconds after Kennedy was hit in the back/throat.

Actually, I've just watched the video interview again and there appears to be either some confusion on the producer's part and/or some dishonest editing. Connolly talks about shuffling in his seat to get comfortable, which I believe occurred before or around the time of the left turn into Dealy Plaza. He states that he heard the first shot immediately thereafter, putting the limo much farther up the road than the corresponding section of the Zapruder film shows in the video.

Connolly's turning to the right that is shown in the Zapruder film now, after more viewing, appears to be his reaction to being hit. You can actually detect him flinching immediately before he turns at exactly the same time as Kennedy reacts to being hit.

So, what Connolly describes in the interview as his turning to the right after hearing the first shot seems to have been ascribed to an unrelated part of the Zapruder film showing him turning to the right as a reaction to being hit by the same bullet that first hit Kennedy.

Yes, you got it. I was about to write a long piece explaining why the voiceover does not necessarily go with the video at the point they are aligned. But it seems you have figured it out on your own.

When Connally is turned half in his seat and appears to be looking full at the President, he's already a victim of a gunshot wound that went through his trunk, through his wrist, and struck his leg. He is probably in shock, and although he appears to be looking at the president, his thoughts and his focus are most likely on his own wounds and the pain he is feeling. That is why he fails to remember looking at the President. Connally's turn to the right (which he said came after the first shot) approximately coincides with the little girl running on Elm coming to a stop. Whether she is reacting to a shot, I don't know, I am just using that as a handy reference point. As you note, that is further back up Elm street and earlier in the sequence than Robert believes. If the shot was fired at approximately frame 160, then the second shot would be at Z224 - nearly 3.2 seconds after the first shot. This shot wounded both men. The third shot then struck JFK in the head in Z313, 4.8 seconds after the second shot.

Robert, I'm wondering whether you've reviewed the Connolly interview that you posted in light of the foregoing. I'd specifically like you to comment on Connolly's clearly detectable flinch and grimacing at exactly the same time that we see Kennedy gets hit in the back/neck. I'd like to hear an explanation for that, Robert, that's more plausible than what the evidence strongly indicates, i.e. Connolly and Kennedy being hit by the same bullet.

 

[Walter Ego]

It's Alive, It's Alive!

Gawd, is this insanity still going on! I've had this thread on ignore for weeks and decided to take a peek to see if this Frankenstein monster I innocently birthed is still twitching.

I would feel guilty for making the OP but who could have anticipated something like Robert Prey? (I do note that while some of the original participants have drifted away Robert has acquired a new set of enablers.)

Anywho, the diehards can continue to carry on with whatever they think they are accomplishing. As for me, it's a beautiful Spring day and I'm going outside to smell the daisies.

 

[Southwind17]

Gawd, is this insanity still going on! I've had this thread on ignore for weeks and decided to take a peek to see if this Frankenstein monster I innocently birthed is still twitching.

I would feel guilty for making the OP but who could have anticipated something like Robert Prey? (I do note that while some of the original participants have drifted away Robert has acquired a new set of enablers.)

Anywho, the diehards can continue to carry on with whatever they think they are accomplishing. As for me, it's a beautiful Spring day and I'm going outside to smell the daisies.

You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the OP ...

 

[Robert Prey]

You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the OP ...

Seems to me Walter has changed his OP which was filled with words like "Loons" and "Wacktards" applied to anyone who might have the notion that LHO was not the Lone Nut killer. I merely challenged him for some evidence that Oswald even fired single shot. Still waiting.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, I'm wondering whether you've reviewed the Connolly interview that you posted in light of the foregoing. I'd specifically like you to comment on Connolly's clearly detectable flinch and grimacing at exactly the same time that we see Kennedy gets hit in the back/neck. I'd like to hear an explanation for that, Robert, that's more plausible than what the evidence strongly indicates, i.e. Connolly and Kennedy being hit by the same bullet.

The flinch was due to hearing a shot. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, Robert, rude?

One question at a time, please.

 

[Robert Prey]

• So after insisting multiple times that Connally insisted "until the day he died" that he and Kennedy were struck by separate shots;
  
• And after insisting multiple times that you indeed cited that evidence of Connally's insistence;
  
• And after insisting that you even proved it;

You now admit that was ALL a charade; Connally insisted on no such thing; you never cited it; and you never proved it!

You admit now he never even saw Kennedy, which is what I have been telling you for two weeks (so of course Connally could draw no conclusion what shot Kennedy was hit with).

So instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing for wasting our time with your nonsensical arguments not supported by any evidence, you now change the point entirely, to what YOU THINK YOU SEE IN THE FILM YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED IS FORGED BY CONSPIRATORS!

Brilliant logic, Robert. I am stunned into silence by that line of argument.

Not really. Your argument is standard CT Logic 101:

• If caught with no evidence, talk about something else.
• If caught in a lie, bluster, and accuse your opponent of lying.
• If you opponent cites the films or photos, call them faked. But don't hesitate to site the same evidence if you see something you can interpret to fit your conspiracy beliefs.
• And of course, if stuck for a response, say 'Baloney' or 'Fiddlesticks' or 'Do your own research'!

Hank

Connally never said he "insisted" anything till the "day he died." which would obviously be a post mortum quotation, and be eligible for Ranidi's million dollar prize. But he did insist till the day he died that he was hit by a separate shot.

 

[Robert Prey]

Bravo, Robert! You are doing just great. Another Standard Conspiracy Addict's answer for years has been the one you just gave. "Do your own homework"! Classic.

Pointless and irritating, with just a hint of condescension.

I rank it ahead of baloney, but just behind fiddlesticks.

Those rebuttals by you really have us on the run.

Hank

So McAdams doesn't have all the answers laid out for you???

 

[Robert Prey]

First, your statement that "The HSCA statement is a false conclusion" is your own conclusion and is not backed up by any facts in evidence.

Secondly, you want to quibble over language because you have no legitimate case.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defer[2]

Definition of DEFER
transitive verb
: to delegate to another <he could defer his job to no one — J. A. Michener>
intransitive verb
: to submit to another's wishes, opinion, or governance usually through deference or respect <deferred to her father's wishes>

To submit to another's opinion out of respect... that seems to cover it pretty effectively.

Thomson was saying, in effect, 'you know better than me, you studied this far more than I did, I will submit to your opinion as mine is not as knowledgeable'. However you want to define it, that is certainly not disagreement with the HSCA photographic panel's conclusions, Robert.

Hank

Le'ts be very clear. We don't know what Thompson said. Only what the HSCA said he said. And the HSCA has gone on record as a serial liar.