JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Here's one for you. What would you like to be "proved"? That he worked for US Steel for 30 years as a computer image specialist? That he has been accepted as an expert witness in Federal trials involving gunshot wounds? What? And just explain how such proof would alter your thinking regarding the one point I have alluded to, namely, the morticians wax and paint on the fake autopsy photos. Now if such "proof" would not alter your views, then what is the point?
Click to expand...

One question at a time, please. LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
The extrodinary claim is the Thomas Wilson was liar who never worked for US Steel
Click to expand...
The quite ordinary claim is that Robert Prey is a liar who can't back up that allegation.

and never was a witness in a Federal case involving gunshot wounds.
Click to expand...
Which Circuit and what is the case #?

That is such an extraordinary claim that it is you and your Amen Chorus of pooh-poohers who have the burden of proof and must provide the evidence. You haven't and you can't.
Click to expand...
That's still an idiotic thing to say. Have you ever had any luck with your inept and idiotic attempts at shifting the burden of proof????

Circuit and case # for Wilson's testimony????

Ask this doofus:


LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
That Wilson is a complete fraud is an extraordinary claim upon which you, and your Amen chorus of pooh-poohers have the burden to prove which you have not done. Moreover, the systems that Wilson uses Wilson himself attributed to NASA.
Click to expand...

Have you ever had any success with your puerile and infantile attempts at shifting the burden of proof????

Circuit and case #????
 
Robert Prey said:
Asking for a case number is a silly, sophomoric challenge. If such a case number were given, just how would that change your views of Wilson's work???? Of course it would not. Therefore, your challenge is just so much hot air.
Click to expand...

One question mark at a time or no dialogue. LOL.

Which circuit and case #, please???? Have you ever had any luck with your juvenile and looney attmpts at shifting the burden of proof????

LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
And the first rule of science is replication.
Click to expand...
You've been thoroughly schooled on the fact that it isn't. I understand that you've been schooled in a lot of things in this thread so it may have slipped your mind.

I've done it;
Click to expand...
Your pee stained doofus picture, you mean? Nope.

you haven't.
Click to expand...
But he has. I realize you're taking a severe spanking so you might not remember.



LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
All of the photo experts, eh? But you automatically dismiss anyone who believes the photos are fake to be photo 'experts". That would include Thomas Wilson, eh???
Click to expand...


You have yet to prove Wilson WAS a photo expert. It HAS been proven he was a crackpot. Wanna try again?
 
Robert Prey said:
Here's one for you. What would you like to be "proved"? That he worked for US Steel for 30 years as a computer image specialist? That he has been accepted as an expert witness in Federal trials involving gunshot wounds? What? And just explain how such proof would alter your thinking regarding the one point I have alluded to, namely, the morticians wax and paint on the fake autopsy photos. Now if such "proof" would not alter your views, then what is the point?
Click to expand...

The only reason to believe that the autopsy photos are doctored is because this guy's Magic Mortician Wax and Paint Detecting Machine said so, only when the results are "properly" interpreted by him -- the whacko who says he can even use it to see into Badge Man's eyeball.

Why should we believe such a machine exists and that it works? Because this guy Tom Wilson said so. And why should we accept his claim? Because he allegedly built such machines for U.S. Steel and he allegedly used that machine successfully in a federal criminal court case. Or so he says.

The only credibility for any of the claims in the first paragraph comes from first proving the claims in the second paragraph. Since you can't prove any of the claims in the second paragraph, and won't address any of the evidence showing that those second-paragraph claims probably aren't true, then we dismiss your claims in the first paragraph because they depend on it.

Got it?
 
Robert Prey said:
That Wilson is a complete fraud is an extraordinary claim upon which you...
Click to expand...

Nope. I simply reject your claim that he's an expert. I've given you the grounds for my objection, which you ignore. When you're ready to address what I've already put out there, then you can ask for more.

Moreover, the systems that Wilson uses Wilson himself attributed to NASA.
Click to expand...

Wilson makes conflicting claims. That's my point. At one point he says he got the algorithm from NASA, but provides no details. At another point he says he used these systems in his work at U.S. Steel. Which is it?

And where is the evidence -- either from you or from Wilson -- that any of these systems have been tested and validated for the uses Wilson put it to? Keep in mind that Wilson's JFK conspiracy theory colleagues eventually dumped him because he wouldn't reveal enough about what his system actually purported to do.
 
Robert Prey said:
Asking for a case number is a silly, sophomoric challenge.
Click to expand...

Give me anything. Give me the year the case was tried. Give me the U.S. court district or circuit where it was tried. Give the name of the defendant.

You're the one who brought this up, so trying to call it sophomoric now is pretty silly. You claim Tom Wilson is an expert forensic photo analyst. That's a claim that requires substantiation, and you know it. That's why you named him as a federal witness -- you explicitly said that if the U.S. Court system accepted him as an expert, then who are we to reject him?

But now you realize that you can't substantiate his expertise because you don't actually know whether he was an expert witness. And you can't find anyone else who knows. In fact no one in the entire JFK conspiracy theory club knows whether Tom Wilson really testified in court using his miraculous system.

And you know you're in trouble. That's why you're so egegiously backpedaling. You first tried to say that claims to expertise should be believed implicitly, but that got you in trouble when you realized it cut both ways. Now you're trying to shame your critics away from asking for evidence. You've backpedaled to a new position of saying that evidence of one's expertise won't matter.

If such a case number were given, just how would that change your views of Wilson's work?
Click to expand...

If I can find the case where Wilson supposedly testified, his voir dire regarding FR 702 (the federal rule of evidence that establishes the soundness of the methods he employs) will give us insight into how and when he validated his method for the purpose shown. And he would have had to give such testimony under oath.

Of course it would not. Therefore, your challenge is just so much hot air.
Click to expand...

Straw man. Try again, without putting words in my mouth.

The reason I don't believe Wilson is an expert is because you haven't given me any evidence that he is. Don't therefore claim that you don't have to provide any evidence because it wouldn't change my mind.
 
JayUtah said:
Give me anything. Give me the year the case was tried. Give me the U.S. court district or circuit where it was tried. Give the name of the defendant.

You're the one who brought this up, so trying to call it sophomoric now is pretty silly. You claim Tom Wilson is an expert forensic photo analyst. That's a claim that requires substantiation, and you know it. That's why you named him as a federal witness -- you explicitly said that if the U.S. Court system accepted him as an expert, then who are we to reject him?

But now you realize that you can't substantiate his expertise because you don't actually know whether he was an expert witness. And you can't find anyone else who knows. In fact no one in the entire JFK conspiracy theory club knows whether Tom Wilson really testified in court using his miraculous system.

And you know you're in trouble. That's why you're so egegiously backpedaling. You first tried to say that claims to expertise should be believed implicitly, but that got you in trouble when you realized it cut both ways. Now you're trying to shame your critics away from asking for evidence. You've backpedaled to a new position of saying that evidence of one's expertise won't matter.



If I can find the case where Wilson supposedly testified, his voir dire regarding FR 702 (the federal rule of evidence that establishes the soundness of the methods he employs) will give us insight into how and when he validated his method for the purpose shown. And he would have had to give such testimony under oath.



Straw man. Try again, without putting words in my mouth.

The reason I don't believe Wilson is an expert is because you haven't given me any evidence that he is. Don't therefore claim that you don't have to provide any evidence because it wouldn't change my mind.
Click to expand...

Take it up with Nigel Turner, Amazon.com and Lancer. That's where the info comes from and if it is false, then prove it.
 
JayUtah said:
The only reason to believe that the autopsy photos are doctored is because this guy's Magic Mortician Wax and Paint Detecting Machine said so,
Click to expand...

Oh, there are many more reasons to believe that the autopsy photos are fake, namely the persons who took and developed the originals who claim the ones in evidence are fake, plus the 40 plus on the scene witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head which is not seen in the alleged autopsy photos now in the public domain.
 
Oh, there are many more reasons to believe that the autopsy photos are fake, namely the persons who took and developed the originals who claim the ones in evidence are fake, plus the 40 plus on the scene witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head which is not seen in the alleged autopsy photos now in the public domain.
Click to expand...
Baloney
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom