• 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.
BStrong said:
Robert is losing witnesses and "evidence" faster than a speeding bullet.
Click to expand...

That's because he's a dishonest (rhymes with "roll") and not a serious researcher or seeker of truth. An honest researcher, realizing that he had misspoken, would have no problem withdrawing his accusation after seeing that the impression others had drawn came legitimately from his exact words and not from some imagined plot to discredit him. But Robert is unable to admit any weakness, failure, or misstep because his approach to the JFK assassination is not to establish a viable alternative theory, but instead just to ridicule people for, as he considers it, believing the "official story." That's why he slipped up and called me ignorant as a non sequitur rebuttal to my evidence.
 
BStrong said:
Robert is losing witnesses and "evidence" faster than a speeding bullet.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately all his claims have been discredited over the last 174 pages.

Many of his claims of what "must" have happened contradict each other.

Almost all of them require that material physical evidence is discounted, but he has never been able to identify a single artefact of altering in any of the photographs and/or film. He seems to think "disagreeing with witness" equates to "proof of tampering". His one experiment he thinks is "exact enough" to discredit the backyard photos (which wouldn't need to be faked because his narrative has LHO holding the SAME RIFLE in OTHER PHOTOS) is the photo of the guy holding the stick in an entirely different pose to LHO in any of the back yard photos.

Robert is not losing any evidence or witnesses, he has none that support his conclusions and he is desperately trying to convince us he does. He has nothing left to lose as it has all been disintergrated over the last 174 pages of repetative hand waves and "baloney".
 
Robert made a 'pigs ear' of his stance when he said the shot that killed Kennedy came from the front AND the grassy knoll. :eek:
When he realised his error he then reverted to a 'multiple shooter' version of events. :rolleyes:
 
Tomtomkent said:
Unfortunately all his claims have been discredited over the last 174 pages.

Many of his claims of what "must" have happened contradict each other.

Almost all of them require that material physical evidence is discounted, but he has never been able to identify a single artefact of altering in any of the photographs and/or film. He seems to think "disagreeing with witness" equates to "proof of tampering". His one experiment he thinks is "exact enough" to discredit the backyard photos (which wouldn't need to be faked because his narrative has LHO holding the SAME RIFLE in OTHER PHOTOS) is the photo of the guy holding the stick in an entirely different pose to LHO in any of the back yard photos.

Robert is not losing any evidence or witnesses, he has none that support his conclusions and he is desperately trying to convince us he does. He has nothing left to lose as it has all been disintergrated over the last 174 pages of repetative hand waves and "baloney".
Click to expand...

So true.

He reminds me of an attorney on the losing side of a restraining order hearing.

When it was apparent he had no defense, he resorted to pointing out a misspelling of the plantiff's last name (one letter) on one line of the plantiff's statement - when he asked if the plantiff understood that he had signed the statement as being true under threat of perjury, the attorney then requested that the judge charge the plantiff with perjury for signing the statement that had a misspelling of his name - the judge was less than impressed.

About how the presentation of "evidence" from Robert impresses me.
 
JayUtah said:
That's because he's a dishonest (rhymes with "roll") and not a serious researcher or seeker of truth. An honest researcher, realizing that he had misspoken, would have no problem withdrawing his accusation after seeing that the impression others had drawn came legitimately from his exact words and not from some imagined plot to discredit him. But Robert is unable to admit any weakness, failure, or misstep because his approach to the JFK assassination is not to establish a viable alternative theory, but instead just to ridicule people for, as he considers it, believing the "official story." That's why he slipped up and called me ignorant as a non sequitur rebuttal to my evidence.
Click to expand...


NO. Not ignorant. Just woefully uniformed.
 
JayUtah said:
I quoted your exact, unaltered words from your post and asked you to reconcile them with your claim that your critics misapplied the qualifier. The qualifier appears verbatim in your post, and nothing you say makes that fact go away.
.
Click to expand...


The heading of the list in question again reads thus:

"O Ye Of Little Faith (and even less scholarship)
Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:"

This is the heading which you and Tom Tom claim included the word "medical"

And apology is due and owing.
 
Robert Prey said:
The heading of the list in question again reads thus:

"O Ye Of Little Faith (and even less scholarship)
Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:"

This is the heading which you and Tom Tom claim included the word "medical"

And apology is due and owing.
Click to expand...

We know the name of the list. We also quoted you, in other posts stating there were 40+ medical witnesses.

If this is not the list you meant, please name those 40+ medical witnesses who support your conclusion.
At the moment you have less than 40. Making your (unsupported) claim a lie.
It doesnt matter what the title of the list is. That makes no difference to your claims that 40+ medical witnesses match your conclusions.
 
Robert Prey said:
All claims discredited? Really? Name just one. You guys are a laugh riot.
Click to expand...
That the shadows in the backyard photos are impossible.
That JFKs brains are visible in the Z film.
That Jack White is an "expert" in photography.
That the cherry picked statements you misunderstand describe the wounds you think.
That LHO was a spy involved in spy planes.
That the "deathstare" photo was not a cropped and rotated version of the known autopsy photos. Ditto the wound you think it shows.
Claims that the black and white photo was a close up of an exit wound on the back of jfks head.
That you listed 40+ medical witnesses.
 
Mr. Prey:

Your bluster gains you nothing, save for a few chortles here and there. Please try to not be an ass just because others won't beam down to your heart-felt fantasy world.

Now, about my recent question...
 
Robert Prey said:
This is the heading which you and Tom Tom claim included the word "medical"
Click to expand...

No, I made no mention of any "heading." I quoted your unaltered post verbatim, highlighted where you yourself applied the qualifier "medical" to the witnesses you've been obsessing over for 170 pages, and asked you to reconcile this. You cannot, so you're trying to spin what I said.

You might have gotten some traction were it not for the fact that the nature of these witnesses has been an ongoing problem for you. This isn't the first time you've been caught pretending that your "40+ witnesses" are expert medical witnesses. You made that claim early on, and got caught relatively soon thereafter. And several times along the way you slipped up and made this same characterization despite the clear refutation.

It's not my fault you slip up and forget what's been refuted. Simply accept that -- once again -- you misspoke, and withdraw the accusation you made unfairly.

And apology is due and owing.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Tomtomkent said:
That the shadows in the backyard photos are impossible.
That JFKs brains are visible in the Z film.
That Jack White is an "expert" in photography.
That the cherry picked statements you misunderstand describe the wounds you think.
That LHO was a spy involved in spy planes.
That the "deathstare" photo was not a cropped and rotated version of the known autopsy photos. Ditto the wound you think it shows.
Claims that the black and white photo was a close up of an exit wound on the back of jfks head.
That you listed 40+ medical witnesses.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured. You could not and would not name just one. Of course, all of the above is your own twisted gobbledeegook.
 
Tomtomkent said:
We know the name of the list. We also quoted you, in other posts stating there were 40+ medical witnesses.

If this is not the list you meant, please name those 40+ medical witnesses who support your conclusion.
At the moment you have less than 40. Making your (unsupported) claim a lie.
It doesnt matter what the title of the list is. That makes no difference to your claims that 40+ medical witnesses match your conclusions.
Click to expand...

Already done that. Deleted by the moderator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom