JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

I"ll retract it, because it's really closer to 50 or 60.

Not according to any proof you're willing to provide.

Now I've cited, with their documented statements, perhaps 30 or so...

Yes, but that number was reduced from "forty-plus" (a contention you still make) because it was quickly discovered that, despite your claims, your hallowed list of "medical witnesses" included both witnesses who weren't medical and witnesses who contradicted your beliefs.

...and referred to 40 plus that exist and listed many more names that were deleted by the moderator.

You simply copied a list of many witnesses. You did nothing to determine whether they were qualified witnesses or lay, or whether they said anything that supported your beliefs. You were caught by the moderator breaking the forum rules by copying wholesale from other sources. You were caught by us padding your list with irrelevant names.

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...

Faux bravado. You've been asked many times to produce these "witnesses." If you now refuse to do so, that's your problem. But the fact remains that you claim you have "forty-plus medical witnesses," but you refuse to produce their names and testimony. Therefore it constitutes yet another claim you've made which has been clearly refuted.

...with brush off comments like, "oh, that has already been thoroughly debunked." You have debunked nothing.

Nothing you're willing to acknowledge. You've been thoroughly refuted, but since you tend to respond to the most damning refutations with nothing more intelligent than "Baloney," I can see why those refutations have slipped your mind. Rest assured everyone else is seeing them.

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?

They don't mean what you say they mean. Because your ignorant representation of these medical concepts forms the core of your misinterpretation and mishandling of eyewitness testimony, I took it upon my self to correct you. I stated my qualifications in this area and wrote a detailed description which you have only now acknowledged even existed, much less rebutted. All the other readers seem to have agreed it was a more credible presentation than, "Because Robert Prey Says That's What It Means."

But the fact remains that you don't get to whine about being unable to change my mind when you don't even acknowledge or address what I say. Your lack of credibility is one-hundred-percent your own fault.

The witness evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head is simply overwhelming.

The documentary and photographic evidence of the wound is even more compelling. But since it goes against what Fetzer and his merry band have told you to believe, you need to come up with all these nonsensical fantasies for how the most reliable evidence must somehow be fake.

But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

And a man who maintains for 170 pages that we should dismiss physical and photographic evidence based on the faulty recollections of a few people was clearly convinced long before he examined any of the evidence. You reach a different conclusion than everyone else because of your bizarre notion of how to reconcile conflicting testimony, not because you're so much smarter than everyone else.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not according to any proof you're willing to provide.



Yes, but that number was reduced from "forty-plus" (a contention you still make) because it was quickly discovered that, despite your claims, your hallowed list of "medical witnesses" included both witnesses who weren't medical and witnesses who contradicted your beliefs.



You simply copied a list of many witnesses. You did nothing to determine whether they were qualified witnesses or lay, or whether they said anything that supported your beliefs. You were caught by the moderator breaking the forum rules by copying wholesale from other sources. You were caught by us padding your list with irrelevant names.



Faux bravado. You've been asked many times to produce these "witnesses." If you now refuse to do so, that's your problem. But the fact remains that you claim you have "forty-plus medical witnesses," but you refuse to produce their names and testimony. Therefore it constitutes yet another claim you've made which has been clearly refuted.



Nothing you're willing to acknowledge. You've been thoroughly refuted, but since you tend to respond to the most damning refutations with nothing more intelligent than "Baloney," I can see why those refutations have slipped your mind. Rest assured everyone else is seeing them.



They don't mean what you say they mean. Because your ignorant representation of these medical concepts forms the core of your misinterpretation and mishandling of eyewitness testimony, I took it upon my self to correct you. I stated my qualifications in this area and wrote a detailed description which you have only now acknowledged even existed, much less rebutted. All the other readers seem to have agreed it was a more credible presentation than, "Because Robert Prey Says That's What It Means."

But the fact remains that you don't get to whine about being unable to change my mind when you don't even acknowledge or address what I say. Your lack of credibility is one-hundred-percent your own fault.



The documentary and photographic evidence of the wound is even more compelling. But since it goes against what Fetzer and his merry band have told you to believe, you need to come up with all these nonsensical fantasies for how the most reliable evidence must somehow be fake.



And a man who maintains for 170 pages that we should dismiss physical and photographic evidence based on the faulty recollections of a few people was clearly convinced long before he examined any of the evidence. You reach a different conclusion than everyone else because of your bizarre notion of how to reconcile conflicting testimony, not because you're so much smarter than everyone else.

24 carat baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.



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.



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.



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.

More Baloney from a baloney expert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

24 carat baloney.

Yeah, that is pretty much all you ever have when your claims are scrutinised.

Not a good argument against any point Jay engaged you on in that post.

 

[Tomtomkent]

More Baloney from a baloney expert.

You know people can read this whole thread right?
You know your failed arguments that White had any expertise remain?

You know your word "baloney" looks more and more like an admission of having no answer?

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Let's begin at the beginning: Tell me what I don't understand or is mis-represented about this witness testimony.

Dr. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland
"There was a large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considrable loss of scalp and bone tussue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." -- Page 518, Warren Report.

Now tell me whether this is an accurate statement from Dr. Clark as signed and published on P. 518 of the Warren Report and then Perhaps Jay Utah can explain how a "Large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region .. and cerebral and cerebellar tissue extruding" " doesn't really mean what it says.

(Crickets still chirping)

 

[Robert Prey]

You know people can read this whole thread right?
You know your failed arguments that White had any expertise remain?

You know your word "baloney" looks more and more like an admission of having no answer?

On the contrary, that's your opinion. Others disagree. In fact White has shown considerable expertise in pointing out anomalies in the B/Y photos and his work has been positively peer reviewed by other photo experts. But focusing on the word "expert" instead of on the subject matter is a way of evading the truth and in fact is fallacious reasoning of which you and Jay are indeed "expert."

 

[Robert Prey]

Yeah, that is pretty much all you ever have when your claims are scrutinised.

Not a good argument against any point Jay engaged you on in that post.

I do not address multiple points. The entire rant is baloney.

 

[Tomtomkent]

On the contrary, that's your opinion. Others disagree. In fact White has shown considerable expertise in pointing out anomalies in the B/Y photos and his work has been positively peer reviewed by other photo experts. But focusing on the word "expert" instead of on the subject matter is a way of evading the truth and in fact is fallacious reasoning of which you and Jay are indeed "expert."

Wahites expertise is not a matter of opinion. He has made statements about the photographs. He has put his "method" on the record, and it is hugely and undoubtedly flawed. He admitted to the HSCA to having no understanding of the process or science behind photo analysis. He methodology involved placing a ruler on photos, was ignorant of perspective, and demonstratably wrong, as simple experiments repeated in this thread, proved.

You have it backwards. Jack White is proven to be no expert BECAUSE of, not INSPITE OF his methodology.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I do not address multiple points.

Why?

The entire rant is baloney.

Again, no argument against ANY point. Why can you not even select a single point and challenge it?

 

[JayUtah]

24 carat baloney.

More Baloney from a baloney expert.

And Robert is speechless once again. How typical. I love it when you ignore everything I say. It's so much more amusing to the other readers when you tell them how no one has ever refuted you.

Do the one again where you tell everyone how ignorant I am. That one's always funniest right after you've responded to one of my informative posts with nothing more intelligent than, "Baloney."

 

[JayUtah]

In fact White has shown considerable expertise in pointing out anomalies in the B/Y photos...

Nope. Previous debate incorporated by reference. No "fringe reset" for you.

But focusing on the word "expert" instead of on the subject matter...

Asked and answered. There is no merit to White's arguments unless he really is the expert you claimed him to be. He specifically structured his argument that way. This was debated at length previously and you lost. I will not repeat myself for you.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

The rifle bearing the serial # C2766 was shipped to Oswald's PO Box and he was photographed with it by his own wife, as she insists to this day. His palmprint and fingerprints were on it when discovered. He owned and possessed this rifle, and transported it to the Depository on the morning of the assassination.

Reply:

If you still believe in the fingerprint fairy tale, I can't help you. There were no identifiable fingerprints.

Actaully, you can see the fingerprints yourself on the photographs taken by J.C.Day on the afternoon of the assassination.

The prints aren't clear in these reproductions, but they are there.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0264b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0265a.htm

They were identified as Lee Harvey Oswald's by Vincent Scalise; a noted fingerprint examiner expert who was part of the HSCA forensice panel; working from the first day evidence of those photographs.

Pretending this evidence doesn't exist isn't exactly a good response -- we've covered this ground before.

For example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8184948&postcount=5643
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8189646&postcount=5729

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let's begin at the beginning: Tell me what I don't understand or is mis-represented about this witness testimony.

Dr. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland
"There was a large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considrable loss of scalp and bone tussue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." -- Page 518, Warren Report.

Now tell me whether this is an accurate statement from Dr. Clark as signed and published on P. 518 of the Warren Report and then Perhaps Jay Utah can explain how a "Large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region .. and cerebral and cerebellar tissue extruding" " doesn't really mean what it says.

(Crickets still chirping)

As has been explained before, what part of that description is not compatible with the conclusions of the WC. You are describing the entry wound on the back of the head, as remembered by a falliable witness.

Your point being? That a bullet left a large and gaping wound? What measurement of wound do you think is the MINIMUM size that could be described thus? What part of that description does not tally with the photos we have of the entry wound?

 

[JayUtah]

I do not address multiple points.

Oh, right. The other patented Robert Prey Panic Tactic^TM.

The entire rant is baloney.

Oops, you just addressed multiple points with your dismissal. I'm sure the good people here are very anxious for you to prove that any of it is baloney. See, after 170 pages of watching you bob and weave and generally twist in the wind, they don't put any stock in your blanket dismissals that amount only to frantic denial.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Uh oh.... Kind of hard to examine the back of the presidents head when:

Mr. SPECTER - Was the President ever turned over while he was in the emergency room?
Dr. CLARK - Not in my presence; no, sir.

 

[JayUtah]

Pretending this evidence doesn't exist isn't exactly a good response -- we've covered this ground before.

Robert is cranking hard on the "fringe reset" handle. He left for a few weeks and is now back with the same old claims from months ago, as if none of the intervening debate had ever taken place. All we're waiting for now is for him to turn to the wings and say, "Quick! Play me off, Johnny!" [ cue: frenetic ragtime piano music ]

 

[HSienzant]

Film of the rifle discovered in place in the TSBD as well as photographs taken within the TSBD as well as when the rifle was removed from the depository were studied by the HSCA [House Select Committee on Assassinations] photographic panel and were determined to show a Mannlicher Carcarno, not a Mauser. The HSCA photographic panel determined it was not just any MC, but Oswald's MC, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

A Mauser and Carcano are easily confused at a glance.

Baloney.

Robert, please do tell me what of the above is incorrect. Please cite the source for your assertions. If you don't cite a source, we'll know you're just stuck for an answer and have to resort to the everpresent "baloney" to have any response.

Most likely this man who left the TSBD (which Craig stated was about ten minutes after the assassination) was newsman Robert MacNeil (of the MacNeil - Lehrer PBS newscast), who did run into the TSBD shortly after the assassination to make a phone call to report on the shooting. He did state in his book The Right Place at the Right Time that after making the call he did flag down a passing motorist and hitch-hiked to Parkland Hospital. Oswald in custody said he took a bus and then, when the bus got stuck in traffic, took a cab to his roominghouse. The bus transfer Oswald obtained when he left the bus was found in his shirt pocket after the assassination. Assuming Craig was not mistaken means assuming Oswald lied and the bus transfer was planted or forged. I think that's an unreasonable position.

Let me know if you cannot find this information online and I will cite it for you.

Let me know if you have any questions about these items and whether we can move on to the remainder of your list or if you want to discuss these further.

Hank

I noticed you did not "baloney" the point about Robert MacNeil. Was this an oversight on your part?

 

[HSienzant]

I like to think that they saw the wound on the top of the head and it's dripping and leaking in the direction of gravity and his wet hair is going the direction of gravity and the wound is obviously not in the front, that is, forehead region and so it has slowly migrated further and further back.

You mean like this?

 

[HSienzant]

If you want to make sure the President ends up dead, you do not leave the job to a lone nut shooter with a bad rifle and checkered accounts of his shooting expertise. You make sure the assassination is successful by having more than one shooter in diverse locations.

No, you're ignoring a very simple possibility.

Why not have just ONE expert shooter with a really good rifle shooting from behind?

Since you're framing the patsy anyway [I believe it's your contention that it wasn't Oswald's rifle, but a plant that was found in the TSBD -- it's tough to tell, because the last time I brought it up you just "baloney'ed" the whole point], why not frame the patsy for owning a really good rifle?

Then all the bullets are traceable to that weapon, and the weapon is traceable to the patsy. Voila, no planted bullets necessary, no altered photos necessary, no altered body, no intimidated witnesses, no changed testimony, no need to kill witnesses... etc. ad nauseum. Don't you agree this scenario would be MUCH simpler to pull off than the one you conjecture?

And to make sure you throw the public off the track from demanding a thorough investigation,, by the frame up of a patsy and then make sure he quickly ends up dead before he has a chance to defend himself and shed light on the real perps. Obviously.

How could he shed light on the real perps if he's a patsy? If he can shed light on the real perps, he must have been part of the conspiracy at some level. Ergo, he would have been a conspirator, not a patsy.

You need to think this through a little better, Robert.