JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
C
For example, you know I was intimately engaged in the refutation of your claim that Jack White was as an expert photographic analyst.
Click to expand...

A claim that Jack White was or was not an expert photo analyst is not a matter of fact but an opinion. You understand the difference???
Nah.
 
A claim that Jack White was or was not an expert photo analyst is not a matter of fact but an opinion. You understand the difference???
Nah.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's an unsubstantiated position based on nothing.
However if he had a reputation and was qualified in the field of photo analysis it would be a fact.
 
An opinion? No it was a claim, that White is suitably qualified and informed to validate his "deductions".
Each of these qualifiers have been refuted.

If the claim was not intended to show a relevant fact, and thus convince us to it, what was the point of making it in this thread?
 
Robert Prey said:
A claim that Jack White was or was not an expert photo analyst is not a matter of fact but an opinion. You understand the difference???
Nah.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, and you don't. The claim that someone is an expert is a putative allegation of fact, and a proposition that courts rule on a thousand times a day in the form of admissibility. You cannot testify as an expert witness in court if you are not admissible as one, and I posted the criteria for such admissibility which you assiduously ignored, claiming it was my irrelevant opinion. You made exactly that same sort of argument regarding you other "expert" witness.

You made the claim that White was an expert in photo analysis. You did so expecting us to take that as a fact and to treat his evidence accordingly. You made an impassioned case for his expertise, which you lost and then disavowed. It's not as if you simply drew another opinion: you were refuted.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, I do, and you don't. The claim that someone is an expert is a putative allegation of fact, and a proposition that courts rule on a thousand times a day in the form of admissibility. You cannot testify as an expert witness in court if you are not admissible as one, and I posted the criteria for such admissibility which you assiduously ignored, claiming it was my irrelevant opinion. You made exactly that same sort of argument regarding you other "expert" witness.

You made the claim that White was an expert in photo analysis. You did so expecting us to take that as a fact and to treat his evidence accordingly. You made an impassioned case for his expertise, which you lost and then disavowed. It's not as if you simply drew another opinion: you were refuted.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Your "refutation" is just another opinion.
 
Robert Prey said:
Nonsense. Your "refutation" is just another opinion.
Click to expand...

So, you think it is an "opinion" that there are qualifiers to be met for admission as an expert witness in court?

You think it is a matter of opinion if somebody meets the qualifiers and minimum standards set down by the person you are discussing an issue with?

Hmm

I think, as the poster who has argued with me before that statements are invalid of they would not stand in a court of law,and who made so much of the "slam dunk" witnesses, you should clarify your stance.


Do you still believe you hold a professional medical opinion by the way?
 
Tomtomkent said:
I think, as the poster who has argued with me before that statements are invalid of they would not stand in a court of law,and who made so much of the "slam dunk" witnesses, you should clarify your stance.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially since the standard I posted is exactly the standard a court of law uses to determine whether someone is admissible as an expert witness rather than a lay witness. Robert dismissed it as "just my opinion."

Robert is living in a rich fantasy world. In the real world there are legal standards on expert witnesses, and Jack White doesn't even come close. Not even remotely close. We went through this months ago, of course. And Robert twisted, turned, backpedaled, lied, and finally tried to drop the subject. Now months later after his failed attemped at a "fringe reset," he's back to trying to establish White as an expert (if only in one person's opinion) so that he doesn't have to admit it's something he flip-flopped on.
 
Robert is living in a rich fantasy world. In the real world there are legal standards on expert witnesses, and Jack White doesn't even come close. Not even remotely close. We went through this months ago, of course. And Robert twisted, turned, backpedaled, lied, and finally tried to drop the subject. Now months later after his failed attemped at a "fringe reset," he's back to trying to establish White as an expert (if only in one person's opinion) so that he doesn't have to admit it's something he flip-flopped on.
Click to expand...
Jay............., hes taking the urine, stop keep accusing him of all this lying, he's just having a laugh. :rolleyes:
 
jargon buster said:
Jay............., hes taking the urine, stop keep accusing him of all this lying, he's just having a laugh. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's become obvious. The guy who here claims LHO couldn't have made the shot from a bench rest is the same guy elsewhere claiming an armed civilian could have interviewed during the Denver movie shooting without any chance of causing greater injuries or deaths.
 
Robrob said:
It's become obvious. The guy who here claims LHO couldn't have made the shot from a bench rest is the same guy elsewhere claiming an armed civilian could have interviewed during the Denver movie shooting without any chance of causing greater injuries or deaths.
Click to expand...

I've posted in that thread.

I believe that Robert represents the standard antigov.org mindset.

LHO couldn't have killed JFK, blah, blah,

An armed citizen in Aurora would have blah, blah.

I've been carrying for years as a professional, and the only thing I would have tried to do in that situation given the facts as reported would be to cover my girls body with mine.
 
BStrong said:
I've been carrying for years as a professional, and the only thing I would have tried to do in that situation given the facts as reported would be to cover my girls body with mine.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said better myself.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, especially since the standard I posted is exactly the standard a court of law uses to determine whether someone is admissible as an expert witness rather than a lay witness. Robert dismissed it as "just my opinion."

Robert is living in a rich fantasy world. In the real world there are legal standards on expert witnesses, and Jack White doesn't even come close. Not even remotely close. We went through this months ago, of course. And Robert twisted, turned, backpedaled, lied, and finally tried to drop the subject. Now months later after his failed attemped at a "fringe reset," he's back to trying to establish White as an expert (if only in one person's opinion) so that he doesn't have to admit it's something he flip-flopped on.
Click to expand...

Jack White is your Red Herring, not mine. Jack White's expertise has nothing whatsoever to do with the conspiracy to assassinate the President, but only the subordinate conspiracy to frame up a Patsy. Nor does your opinion as to whether he was an "expert" have any validity in judging his conclusions regarding the B/Y photos which have been proven to be forged by any number of photo experts.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
So there is no reason at all to believe there are 40 medical witnesses who support your claim.

I think we all know what is baloney here.

Going to retract the statement or just pretend it was never made, again.
Click to expand...

I"ll retract it, because it's really closer to 50 or 60. Now I've cited, with their documented statements, perhaps 30 or so and referred to 40 plus that exist and listed many more names that were deleted by the moderator. I could go to the trouble to list more but what would that prove to one who refuses to accept witness statements in their own words with brush off comments like, "oh, that has already been thoroughly debunked." You have debunked nothing. And as for Jay Utah, what could possibly change the mind of a self-proclaimed cranial anatomy "expert" who claims that words such as Occiput and Posterior do not mean what they mean???

The witness evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head is simply overwhelming. But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
 
Robert Prey said:
I"ll retract it, because it's really closer to 50 or 60. Now I've cited, with their documented statements, perhaps 30 or so and referred to 40 plus that exist and listed many more names that were deleted by the moderator. I could go to the trouble to list more but what would that prove to one who refuses to accept witness statements in their own words with brush off comments like, "oh, that has already been thoroughly debunked." You have debunked nothing. And as for Jay Utah, what could possibly change the mind of a self-proclaimed cranial anatomy "expert" who claims that words such as Occiput and Posterior do not mean what they mean???

The witness evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head is simply overwhelming. But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Click to expand...

Baloney. LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
I"ll retract it, because it's really closer to 50 or 60. Now I've cited, with their documented statements, perhaps 30 or so and referred to 40 plus that exist and listed many more names that were deleted by the moderator. I could go to the trouble to list more but what would that prove to one who refuses to accept witness statements in their own words with brush off comments like, "oh, that has already been thoroughly debunked." You have debunked nothing. And as for Jay Utah, what could possibly change the mind of a self-proclaimed cranial anatomy "expert" who claims that words such as Occiput and Posterior do not mean what they mean???

The witness evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head is simply overwhelming. But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. The act of listing wont convince people, not because they refuse to believe oyou, but because time and again you have been shown that you don't understand, or misrepresent their testemony.


A list of names, with out citation, as you have offered before is worthless. Basic researchshowed the list was just copied and pasted, and the majority of names on the list did not agree with your conclusions.

So, for the last time of asking, before being set in opinion you are a liar, will you offer a list of citations proving the claim of 50 or 60 medical witnesses whose evidence supports your conclusions?

Nope? So that adds to the list of lies;
1)that you have 40 medical witnesses
2) that you didnt say medical
3) that I altered your posts
4) that nobody posted a list (that you posted yourself!)


Four lies, to avoid conceding a simple mistake in a post. Four lies because every list youoffer is so easy for the rest of us to fact check.
5) that those witnesses listed support your conclusions.
6) that such claims have not been debunked.
 
Robert Prey said:
Jack White is your Red Herring, not mine.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You called him out specifically as an expert and told us we had to respect that expertise. But when challenged and refuted, you could not establish him as an expert and dishonestly pretended you'd never made any such claim.

Jack White's expertise has nothing whatsoever to do with...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You asked us to name some claims you'd been refuted on. This is a big one that you argued for several pages. Since now you can't argue with the fact of your so-called expert having been refuted, now you're backpedaling and trying to diminish the significance of it.

Nor does your opinion as to whether he was an "expert" have any validity in judging his conclusions...
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You based the validity of his conclusions solely on your contention that he was an expert. Your inability to show how White met any criteria of expertise -- even those you named yourself (because you steadfastly refused to name them) -- solidly undermines those conclusions.

But it didn't stop there. Not only did we show that White was no expert, we provided many examples of his ineptitude to demonstrate the he didn't even have ordinary skill, much less expert skill.

White's arguments have no merit aside from that based on his claims to expertise. Absent that claim, his arguments are merely assertions.

...the B/Y photos which have been proven to be forged by any number of photo experts.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean all those other pseudo-experts that were also refuted?

You've taken your eye off the ball. You asked us to name claims you'd made that had been refuted. You can't argue with the fact that your self-proclaimed experts were refuted, so now you're trying to shift the discussion back to what your faux experts were allegedly expert about. That's bad form, Robert. Simply admit that you disavowed White after you claimed he was an expert. That's what we're talking about right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom