JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
When have you ever seen a introductory bio that mention expert witness experience ever bother to list case numbers?
Click to expand...

You're the one trying to limit the examination of Wilson's alleged expertise to bios and editorial blurbs. I'm opening the field wide up, and I've even presented information from sources other than book jackets. What have you done, except to consistently pass the buck to your conspiracy theorist pals?

If you doubt the man's credentials, then take it up with...
Click to expand...

I'm taking them up with the man who touted those credentials -- namely you. There was no mention of Turner, Amazon.com, or anyone else until you were pressed to substantiate your claims. Then and only then did you mention these other people, revealing your hype to be nothing more than hearsay. If you don't check your sources, that's not our fault.

The assumption is that the bio is true.
Click to expand...

You may assume whatever you want. But don't try to pass off your assumption as proof when asked for it. I don't accept your assumptions, therefore I don't accept your claim that Wilson is an expert.

No one has ever questioned this in ten years time.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

If you or your Amen Chorus question it. then the burden is on you to prove it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Fail.

You have to prove the info is correct. It's your claim that Wilson's a photographic expert who can see things in the photos no one else can see due to the systems he developed at U.S.Steel.

Prove it.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you didn't want me taking up the question with you, then you shouldn't have repeated their claims as if they were yours. So you admit that your evidence of Wilson's expertise is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay?
 
Robert Prey said:
It this little exercise has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination then it is off point.
Click to expand...


Humor me for the moment and answer the question, will you?

It will eventually have a lot to do with the JFK assassination, as it is going to be about how to assess evidence (and what is evidence and what is not). I think you know that, which is why you dodged answering the question.


Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Oh, there are many more reasons to believe that the autopsy photos are fake...
Click to expand...

Except that you trotted out Wilson when all those other reasons were refuted. Now the focus is on Wilson, whose "magic" machine is supposed to give is irrefutable scientific proof. You were the one who laid out that line of reasoning, so don't get mad now that it has failed on you. Sometimes arguments fail.

See, you never consider the possibility that the facts just don't support your belief. You never for a moment think you might possibly be wrong. This is why you cling in a most amusing fashion to the silliest of arguments.

A conscientious researcher would simply say, "Yes, you're right; I haven't verified Wilson's credentials and I don't know anyone who has. Therefore I can't be sure he's the expert I once said he was." Good grief, even Jack White reached that point with Wilson.
 
Robert Prey said:
The extrodinary claim is the Thomas Wilson was liar who never worked for US Steel and never was a witness in a Federal case involving gunshot wounds. 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...


Robert,

All you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof.

All we have done is ask for the evidence.

After we ask for the evidence three times, you turn around and make absurd claims like we've said he never worked for US Steel or never was a witness in a federal case. Nobody has said that, and you aren't very good at lying about this.

All we've done is ask for the evidence of the fact that he testified as an expert witness. That's not an extraordinary claim - that's what reasonable people do before they make up their minds - they look to assess the evidence.

Either you have it or you don't.

You've already admitted it's only a claim of Wilson's expertise, not a fact, and you only have the assumption that the claims are true*, so I think we can see this has ended in another dead end for you, and you are reduced to having to claim that we have to disprove your assertions.

Hank

________

* like these different quotes by you where you define it as a claim, and where you say it is only presumed true):

Robert Prey said:
...The assumption is that the bio is true...
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
When you have several separate sources post the bio of their subject, one presumes it to be true...
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
It is an claim that is made at the introduction to his book at Amazon.com and is also a claim that is made as an introduction by the Nigel Turner in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."...
Click to expand...
 
How would I go about proving that someone had not testified as a witness in a federal case? Would I have to survey every case in every district of every circuit of the U.S. court system for all the years in which that person was alive, reading every docket and every brief? What if I found no record of that testimony? Would I be able to say I had proven he hadn't testified? Or would I have proven only that records of his testimony have still somehow eluded me?

See, there's a reason the burden of proof is always upon an affirmative claim. And no, it is not an affirmative claim to say that so-and-so hasn't testified as an expert in court; that's a negative claim no matter how you dress it up.

Now one doesn't have to testify in court in order to be an expert. But in Wilson's case, that's what's being put forward as part of the substantiation for his expertise. Hence that's what has to be proven in order for the expertise to be substantiated successfully. The pro-Wilson crowd is certainly welcome to withdraw the "expert witness in federal case" claim. Or they can prove it. But to leave it as a presumption and expect that to convince others is ludicrous.
 
infocusinc said:
Did they, Really? Come on now Robert, you know that is not true.

Floyd Reibe tells us in his ARRB depo that the images are correct and Stringer signs an affidavit in 1966 after looking at the photos and states he took them.

You wanna try again or are you going now to wiilly wonka Lifton, Livingstone or god forbid Horne?
Click to expand...

Yeah, well when you mention those names, you know in advance just how full of it your comments are.

But just to keep the other Lone Nutters informed...

"Photographer Floyd Riebe, who took pictures of the body during the autopsy, said the photographs released by the government are phony and not the photographs we took...these films are doctored one way or another." --
Reuters dispatch by Jean King, May 29, 1992."

"We called the Navy photographer, John Stinger to testify. To our amazement he disowned the brain photographs in the Archives..."

-- Doug Horne, AARP interview with Dick Russell, in "On the Trail of the Assassins" page. 290.

"A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination
 
JayUtah said:
How would I go about proving that someone had not testified as a witness in a federal case? Would I have to survey every case in every district of every circuit of the U.S. court system for all the years in which that person was alive, reading every docket and every brief? What if I found no record of that testimony? Would I be able to say I had proven he hadn't testified? Or would I have proven only that records of his testimony have still somehow eluded me?

See, there's a reason the burden of proof is always upon an affirmative claim. And no, it is not an affirmative claim to say that so-and-so hasn't testified as an expert in court; that's a negative claim no matter how you dress it up.

Now one doesn't have to testify in court in order to be an expert. But in Wilson's case, that's what's being put forward as part of the substantiation for his expertise. Hence that's what has to be proven in order for the expertise to be substantiated successfully. The pro-Wilson crowd is certainly welcome to withdraw the "expert witness in federal case" claim. Or they can prove it. But to leave it as a presumption and expect that to convince others is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why Wilson is so troubling to you. I only mentioned his analysis of the autopsy photos and that put you and your fellow pooh-poohers in a panic. Fact is, his analysis of the autopsy photos is not needed to prove them fake. That is already established beyond any doubt. What Wilson demonstrates is how they are fake, in part, a head laden with morticians wax and paint. Nor have you admitted that even with court case numbers, you would change your Lone Nutter's faith in the WC fable.
 
HSienzant said:
Robert,

All you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof.

All we have done is ask for the evidence.

After we ask for the evidence three times, you turn around and make absurd claims like we've said he never worked for US Steel or never was a witness in a federal case. Nobody has said that, and you aren't very good at lying about this.

All we've done is ask for the evidence of the fact that he testified as an expert witness. That's not an extraordinary claim - that's what reasonable people do before they make up their minds - they look to assess the evidence.

Either you have it or you don't.

You've already admitted it's only a claim of Wilson's expertise, not a fact, and you only have the assumption that the claims are true*, so I think we can see this has ended in another dead end for you, and you are reduced to having to claim that we have to disprove your assertions.

Hank

________

* like these different quotes by you where you define it as a claim, and where you say it is only presumed true):
Click to expand...

HOw would documentation of Wilson's expert witness change your Lone Nutter view of the WC fable????
 
And yet the affidavit was still signed. In 1966. And. You quote. Recollections nearly thirty years later.

So where is the physical evidence. Surely that is the best way to decide which of the conflicting statements isactually supported by reality. Is there any material evidence of the autopsy photos being faked?
 
JayUtah said:
Except that you trotted out Wilson when all those other reasons were refuted. Now the focus is on Wilson, whose "magic" machine is supposed to give is irrefutable scientific proof. You were the one who laid out that line of reasoning, so don't get mad now that it has failed on you. Sometimes arguments fail.

See, you never consider the possibility that the facts just don't support your belief. You never for a moment think you might possibly be wrong. This is why you cling in a most amusing fashion to the silliest of arguments.

A conscientious researcher would simply say, "Yes, you're right; I haven't verified Wilson's credentials and I don't know anyone who has. Therefore I can't be sure he's the expert I once said he was." Good grief, even Jack White reached that point with Wilson.
Click to expand...

The facts proving the autopsy photos are fake have not been refuted. Only in your dreams. Those who took and developed them have dis-owned them and the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, refute them.
 
HSienzant said:
Humor me for the moment and answer the question, will you?

It will eventually have a lot to do with the JFK assassination, as it is going to be about how to assess evidence (and what is evidence and what is not). I think you know that, which is why you dodged answering the question.


Hank
Click to expand...

You are off point. That's it.
 
JayUtah said:
If you didn't want me taking up the question with you, then you shouldn't have repeated their claims as if they were yours. So you admit that your evidence of Wilson's expertise is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay?
Click to expand...

Just as everything in your own alleged "expertise" is unsubstantiated.
 
HSienzant said:
Fail.

You have to prove the info is correct. It's your claim that Wilson's a photographic expert who can see things in the photos no one else can see due to the systems he developed at U.S.Steel.

Prove it.
Click to expand...

No. I only claim what Nigle Turner, Amazon.com and Lancer have claimed. Only the desperation of Lone Nutters in a panic would be concerned about such nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom