JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
That's what I figured. You could not and would not name just one.
Click to expand...

Cheap shot. And a convenient excuse not to address any of them.

Of course, all of the above is your own twisted gobbledeegook.
Click to expand...

Baloney.

For example, you know I was intimately engaged in the refutation of your claim that Jack White was as an expert photographic analyst. When you were unable to answer my arguments, you tried to backpedal and say you never claimed White was an expert. When this lie too was shoved under your nose, you tried to waffle around it.

Your presence in this thread is one lengthy exercise in denial.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a real problem that too many of your spurious claims can be pointed out.

So, what list of 40+ medical witnesses have you reffered to on several occassions?
 
Robert Prey said:
Seymour Weitzman's sworn statement.
Click to expand...

You mean this?

0433-001.gif


I must have not seen the section where he details manufacturer, model, finish type, markings, serial number, caliber, whether or not the rifle in question had been modified from it's original factory configruation (outside of the scope and mount, which he fails to identify make, model and markings as well) as well as how he determined his finding to be correct, and why his findings should be considered to be evidence, as in his training and experience in accurately describing a firearm taken into custody - all standard evidentiary details required for a statement to be considered viable in a court proceeding.

What you have is an officers opinion.

Worthless in court, even in '63.

ETA, just in case anybody doesn't know this, a notary affirms only the identity of the individual appearing before them, not the veracity of the person's statement.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Already done that. Deleted by the moderator.
Click to expand...

Wait, there was A list, but that too was a)not restricted to medical witnesses, b)had no citations or references to suggest they supported your conclusions in any way.

It was a list copied wholesale from a webpage listing ANY witness, including those that contradict your claims. It was in breach of the MA.

You also stated in a previous post this was a lie and that NOBODY posted a more complete list.

Which is Robert. Was the list there to be deleted, or is it a lie that it ever existed?

Once again you made two statements that void each other.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Wait, there was A list, but that too was a)not restricted to medical witnesses, b)had no citations or references to suggest they supported your conclusions in any way.

It was a list copied wholesale from a webpage listing ANY witness, including those that contradict your claims. It was in breach of the MA.

You also stated in a previous post this was a lie and that NOBODY posted a more complete list.

Which is Robert. Was the list there to be deleted, or is it a lie that it ever existed?

Once again you made two statements that void each other.
Click to expand...

The list included many more than the 20 or 30 medical witnesses already cited -- well over 40.
 
BStrong said:
You mean this?

[qimg]http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif[/qimg]

I must have not seen the section where he details manufacturer, model, finish type, markings, serial number, caliber, whether or not the rifle in question had been modified from it's original factory configruation (outside of the scope and mount, which he fails to identify make, model and markings as well) as well as how he determined his finding to be correct, and why his findings should be considered to be evidence, as in his training and experience in accurately describing a firearm taken into custody - all standard evidentiary details required for a statement to be considered viable in a court proceeding.

What you have is an officers opinion.

Worthless in court, even in '63.

ETA, just in case anybody doesn't know this, a notary affirms only the identity of the individual appearing before them, not the veracity of the person's statement.
Click to expand...

But when a person swears that something is true, that means in the opinion of the swearer, that it's true.
 
But when a person swears that something is true, that means in the opinion of the swearer, that it's true.
Click to expand...
Baloney.
I swear that this is the James Randi forum.
Is that my opinion or the truth?
 
Robert Prey said:
But when a person swears that something is true, that means in the opinion of the swearer, that it's true.
Click to expand...

Yep an opinion. Worthless in court to all intents and purposes.

Especially when, for example, the rifle itself, the photos of the rifle, the prints taken from the rifle, the ballistics reports, the bullet fragments, the documentation about the rifle, etc, all disagree with that opinion.

Robert seems to be obsessed with the idea that what a person says is more important than any other kind of proof. He is exactly wrong. A witness statement is the most basic kind of evidence because it is, by its nature, unreliable and biased. It has no controls, it has no prerequisites. It is just an opinion.

Robert would like to believe that any physical evidence can be discounted if somebody remembers something differently. In the real world it is the physical evidence that proves the mistakes or lies of a witness. Physical evidence does not change depending on how a question is asked. Physical evidence does not change over time as details are added subconciously based on what the subject learned, or thought they learned, later. Physical evidence is not subject to the faliabilities of basic psychology.

Legal systems recognise this. Science recognises this. Journalism and law enforcement recognise this. Robert does not. Because all he as are claims by witnesses, proven wrong by the physical and documentary evidence, and often by the very words of the witness.
 
Robert Prey said:
The list included many more than the 20 or 30 medical witnesses already cited -- well over 40.
Click to expand...

Which means what? (Apart from you having to apologise for this:)
Robert Prey said:
Baloney. No one on this board has presented a more complete, accurate compilation of medical witnesses.
Click to expand...
The list exists now? You are sure?

So stop jostling around. If you have 41 or medical witnesses who you think support your claims name them and give citations that you think show they support your conclusions.

Don't try and lie about me having changed your posts.
Don't try and lie about the word "Medical" being my spin when you used it yourself.
Don't try and change the subject to which list you may or may not have meant.

Show us the witnesses, show us the citations, and show us you understand the cherry picked fragments of their statements you will no doubt rely on.



You also realise that a list of "more than 20 or 30 names" copied and pasted from a website does not help your case?

It was a list of witnesses, NOT witnesses that support your conclusions. You CLAIM 40+ medical witnesses support your conclusions, but you have never shown this to be true.

Even if you are now claiming you meant that (now deleted for breaching the MA) list, you offered no hint of this in your repeated claims that 40+ MEDICAL witnesses "prove" your theory. You have never shown that ANY witnesses support your conclusions, and frankly, those you have tried to have been debunked over and again.
 
tomtom,
You are aware that Roberts just yanking your chain aren't you?
Have you noticed how he only responds to you and Jay?
He is getting a rise out of you both, hes just laughing at you.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
But when a person swears that something is true, that means in the opinion of the swearer, that it's true.
Click to expand...

Which means absolutely nothing from an evidentiary standpoint, absent actual physical evidence that supports the statement.

The various misidentifications of the Carcano as a Mauser are easily explained, I have provided photograpic evidence of the visual similarities between the two.

In the absence of evidence proving the presence of another rifle at the TSBD, and the well documented evidence of the Carcano from recovery at the scene to federal custody, the only logical and legally provable facts are that the Carcano was Oswalds, he used it to assassinate JFK, and it was recovered at the scene by DPD.
 
I'm laughing too. His ineptitude and desperation are priceless.
Click to expand...
But it isn't ineptitude and desperation at all, he's playing you.
Why do you think he only responds to your posts?
You're the only ones taking him seriously. :rolleyes:
 
You mean you don't consider there to be serious scholarship behind his methods?

I am waiting for the punchline to his argument, as the process so far has been like reality tv.

1) refer to 40 Medical witnesses
2) complain you never called them medical witnesses, and were general witnesses
3) say that nobody has ever posted another list.
4) decide they were medical witnesses, and from another list.
5) at all costs refuse to admit the contradiction and call others liars
6)...?

If the chain yanking is intended to get laughs, I am happy to see how silly he is willing to make himself look.

If it is a genuine attempt an argument I am willing to see how many double-backs he is willing to take. At this rate I am pretty sure that by page 212 he will be claiming to have argued it was LHO acting alone all along and we just didnt "get" his points.
 
If the chain yanking is intended to get laughs, I am happy to see how silly he is willing to make himself look.
Click to expand...
Hes not looking silly at all, hes an anonymous internet poster, hes just having a laugh at your expense when you keep getting frustrated at his ludicrous diversions.
Why do you keep putting so much effort into your posts at trying to debunk him when theres nothing to debunk.
Just have a few quips back and he will stop responding.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Which means what? (Apart from you having to apologise for this:)

The list exists now? You are sure?

So stop jostling around. If you have 41 or medical witnesses who you think support your claims name them and give citations that you think show they support your conclusions.

Don't try and lie about me having changed your posts.
Don't try and lie about the word "Medical" being my spin when you used it yourself.
Don't try and change the subject to which list you may or may not have meant.

Show us the witnesses, show us the citations, and show us you understand the cherry picked fragments of their statements you will no doubt rely on.



You also realise that a list of "more than 20 or 30 names" copied and pasted from a website does not help your case?

It was a list of witnesses, NOT witnesses that support your conclusions. You CLAIM 40+ medical witnesses support your conclusions, but you have never shown this to be true.

Even if you are now claiming you meant that (now deleted for breaching the MA) list, you offered no hint of this in your repeated claims that 40+ MEDICAL witnesses "prove" your theory. You have never shown that ANY witnesses support your conclusions, and frankly, those you have tried to have been debunked over and again.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom