JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
That's correct; this is one of the central tenets of conspiracism. On any question where expertise applies, the conspiracist tries to shift the debate from the validity of the exposed knowledge to the trustworthiness of the proponent. An expert may be highly informed and well experienced, but the conspiracist will dismiss his evidence because it is allegedly tainted by working for the wrong people, and will insinuate that the expert is simply lying.

Similarly the conspiracist's expertise is trustworthy because it is untainted by the Powers That Be, even though the expertise itself is really only layman's supposition. This is done because one's ability to show proper understanding is generally not debatable once he has submitted to a test of it; you either know your stuff or you don't. But one's socio-political allegiance, however, can be endlessly haggled over, on no better evidence than speculation.



Indeed, which is why Robert declines to name the "peers" that have reviewed White's work. We know full well that White's true peers are simply other ignorant amateurs. But he wants to equivocate "peer" to mean those who are provably skilled and qualified in the field. Despite his earlier protests that doing so would constitute a fallacious appeal to authority, he is still trying to paint Jack White as an expert in photographic analysis.

We already went through this. Robert doesn't think any of his critics are qualified or experienced, so he writes them off as "self-proclaimed experts." But yet he was completely unable to discuss any subject regarding photographic interpretation himself. He doesn't have the capacity to judge who is an expert and who is not. Therefore charlatans like Jack White could laugh all the way to the bank, safe in the knowledge that their victims would lack the technical knowledge to expose them, and that he could spin any real criticism into a political argument.



Jack White's fanboy phenomenon was indeed amusing. No matter how many times his ignorance was exposed, no matter how many times he was caught blatantly lying, there were still plenty of people willing to pat him on the shoulder and tell him it was okay, the Big Bad Government is just picking on him.

Most conspiracy theorists who rely on photographic interpretation fall into the same question-begging error. They assume they already know all they'd need to know about photography, so when something happens in an image that they don't understand (or think they do, but don't), then their answer is always that it "must" be due to some tampering or fabrication. They never accept the answer that they don't see what they expect to see because their expectations are wrong. That is, they beg the question of their own competence and experience. In fact they beg it so egregiously that the question of validating their expectations never arises!

Hence gullible folk like Robert try to tell us that the strength of White's claims is "in the evidence itself," and not in White's alleged expertise. So they tell us that attacking White's expertise is a red herring -- an appeal to authority. That fails for two reasons. As I wrote at length earlier, it fails first because White absolutely believed himself to be an expert, and upon the basis of that expertise to have found things wrong with the photos. That is, White had no problem claiming his prodigious skill as a photo interpreter was the basis on which the evidence rested.

Second, it fails because White is right about how his expertise affects the strength of his claim. According to Robert, the evidence we should be paying attention to are the so-called "anomalies" in the backyard photos. But they're only "anomalies" because White says they are. What is an "anomaly?" It's the departure of an observation from its expected condition. What one expects from a true photograph depends largely on what training and experience one has had in the aspects of photography that pertain to the expectation. It's possible (nay, likely) for one's expectations to be in error if one is not properly trained and experienced.

But Robert would have us believe that these "anomalies" stand on their own, alone, irrespective of the knowledge and skill of those who are pointing them out. Robert wants the world to believe they exist completely independently of anyone's opinion, and that they are obviously self-evident. Like every other deluded person in the world, Robert cannot tell us why something should be the way he says it should be. I can speak at length about what I expect to see in true photographs. Robert just wants us to believe his claims are self-evident. That's consummate begging of the question.

No, White tells us these are "anomalies" because they violate his expectations. And he further tells us his expectations are valid and pertinent because he is an expert in photography and in the mathematical and physical laws that govern how objects appear in photographs. Except that he demonstrates all the time that he is no such person. Hence we can go on to show that what he calls "anomalies" are really just things about true photographs that Jack White doesn't understand because he has never been properly trained, tested, or experienced.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
JayUtah said:
And I'm still waiting for my Jack White, is-he-an-expert-or-isn't-he response.
Click to expand...


Jack White is your Red Herring. Right now the discussion deals with the conspiracy to kill the President. Jack Whites findings have no relevance to that. Get it?
Nah!
 
Robert Prey said:
That's all water under the bridge. Jack White's findings have nothing whatsoever to do with the conspiracy to kill kennedy. They do have something to do with the frame-up of a Patsy in the Court of Public Opinion. But the medical witnesses that prove a shot from the front -- that's what I challenge naysayers to focus on -- proof that the assassination was indeed a conspiracy as proved by the testimony of 40 plus medical witnesses. .
Click to expand...

When are you going to list those 40 plus medical witnesses?
Why should we believe their testemony is proof of anything?
Claims are not proof. They are the simplest, least reliable, form of evidence and are disproven by material evidence.

You have no evidence of a cover up.
No evidence of a shot from the front. Or the Grassy Knoll. Or anywhere else.

You certainly do not have proof.

Repeating the same example yet again: How can it be proof when one guy says there are no brains and another says he inspected brains?

How can it be "proof" it is revised later? Was it not "proof" when there were no brains? Or is "proof" now the testemony has been changed to some brains being left? Will it still be "proof" if it changes again?
 
Robert Prey said:
Jack White is your Red Herring. Right now the discussion deals with the conspiracy to kill the President. Jack Whites findings have no relevance to that. Get it?
Nah!
Click to expand...

So you are claiming the photographs of LHO holding the murder weapon are not relevent?

Baloney. They are relevent as they are evidence the rifle that fired the fatal shots was his.

Besides which, if you now think it is relevent or not you made the claim of White being an expert. Do you now retract the claim?
 
HSienzant said:
Why do you write stuff that has been disproven months ago?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

I listed quite a few names from your list of experts that didn't belong. Most of those gave testimony (or statements) fully consistent with the Ryberg drawing.

The above link shows several of those, along with the links to the original posts on each. You ignored most of that information entirely, or baloney'ed it.

Hank
Click to expand...

I'll just refer to the first example, since I do not address multiple questions:

MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD--In a contemporaneous note dated
11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration
on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing
a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation
and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that
the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit
#392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said,
""Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the
cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..."
(WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and
occipital wound was a wound of exit: "...the wound with the exploded
area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I

A great laceration on the right side -- temporal and occiptal -- even to the extent that the cerebellum and protruded from the wound-- that is totally consisent with a shot from the front and a blow-out in the back of the head..

"Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and Occiptal Wound was a wound of exit."

Do you not understand that this quote does not support your view but contradicts it? Do you no know where the occiput and the cerebellum are located????
 
Tomtomkent said:
Oh right...



So he didn't change it... except for the change he made?


So how about you tell us which of your witnesses is telling the truth about the amount of brain matter that was left. The guy who thought there was enough brain matter to try and save JFKs life and to identify which tissues had been displaced where, or the guy who thought there was only a handful of macerated tissue?

You see Robert, this continues to be an excellent illustration of why witness testemony is flawed. You claim there is no conflict. Not true. You want to believe, and maybe even convinced yourself that there is a single correlation: That they describe your undefined "blow out" to the back of the head. But even if that were true (which it's not as anybody reading Clarks full testemony can see) they still contradict each other. They still disagree on the amout of brain matter in JFKs head and the extent of damage. Your continued claims there is no contradiction just doesn't wash. One aspect you think they agree on does not excuse the contradictions.
Click to expand...

The contention that each and every medical witness must testify to the exact amount of brain matter left in the head of the assassinated President even from Parkland to Bethesda or not be credible is ludicrous. But they are all consistent that a substantial amount of brain matter was missing. That cannot be denied and is completely antithetical to the conclusions of the WC as exemplified in the Ryberg drawing. And you know it; I know it' We all know it.
 
Robert Prey said:
I'll just refer to the first example, since I do not address multiple questions:

MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD--In a contemporaneous note dated
11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration
on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing
a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation
and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that
the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit
#392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said,
""Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the
cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..."
(WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and
occipital wound was a wound of exit: "...the wound with the exploded
area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I

A great laceration on the right side -- temporal and occiptal -- even to the extent that the cerebellum and protruded from the wound-- that is totally consisent with a shot from the front and a blow-out in the back of the head..

"Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and Occiptal Wound was a wound of exit."

Do you not understand that this quote does not support your view but contradicts it? Do you no know where the occiput and the cerebellum are located????
Click to expand...

Do you know where the temple is?

What do you think the word TEMPORAL oft repeated in that post means?

Tell me Robert, would you agree that in the autopsy photographs the known exit wound extends from the temporal region to the fringe of the occiputal bone?

If not, how would you describe it?
 
JayUtah said:
I'm sure the readers believe you, because there's such an outpouring of support for your position and such a chorus of thanks for how much you've enlightened them. Oh wait, that praise is for your critics. Robert Prey: A Legend In His Own Mind.
Click to expand...


Hey, Mr.Expert. Try to digest this:'

Truth stands alone It does not need any support. But brainwash, on the other hand, does.
 
JayUtah said:
And what "truth" are you trying to prove? You have no testable theory. You've presented nothing beyond what your conspiracy authors have been peddling to the paranoid and gullible for the past forty years: a vague accusation that, "the Warren Commission was somehow wrong!" It's cute that you, White, Fetzer, and all those others want to play amateur detective. But the fact remains that you have absolutely nothing beyond some vague handwaving accusations of impropriety here, patently false and desperate accusations of forgery there, and a big huge chip on your shoulder. None of that impresses anyone.
Click to expand...

I have 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head, indicating a shot from the front and conspiracy. You, on the other hand, have none -- zero.
 
Tomtomkent said:
It certainly is.

It's much easier to point out that a man who says the brain was completely gone, then changed his story to say it hadn't changed his story. A handful of brains is not no brains.

It is also easy to point out that a doofus holding a stick differently to LHO is not evidence of how LHO should have been in shadow.

It is easier to note you have not been able to produce a single photo-artefact in any autopsy photo, photo of JFK in the plaza, or frame of film that indicates the emulsion has been cut or composited or painted, than it would be lie about having evidence of forgery or fakery.

Why it is also easier to point out that the latent fingerprints taken from the rifle are in a powder medium and not ink, and could not be taken from a corpse. Gosh, justifying that lie must be a burden.

Perhaps we should discuss the laws of physics againand your claim that the z film shows the mass ejecta form an exploding bullet hitting JFK from the front. Perhaps now is the time to ask once again how all that ejecta got out of the small hole you claim it left, in the pattern you claim.

I dare say with the facts stacked against you it is no wonder you resorted to contradicting your own witness on how much "creative license" his co-writers took, cropping and rotating images to misrepresent them, or resorting to the word "baloney" or seeking meaningless reasons not to address inconvenient rebuttles.


It truly is far simpler for those of us with the facts on our side.
Click to expand...

I would hold you to the single topic at hand -- the medical witnesses of which I have offered many,and you have offered none.
 
Robert Prey said:
The contention that each and every medical witness must testify to the exact amount of brain matter left in the head of the assassinated President even from Parkland to Bethesda or not be credible is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

So it is ludicrous to suggest that two witnesses who you claim to have provided the best evidence should agree on if the amount of brain matter?

Would you expect them to agree if there was a brain or not?

Laughable. You claim these witnesses are the best evidence Robert. Surely the best evidence should, at the very least offer a consistant and accurate record?

What other details should we not expect the witnesses to agree on? LMAO
 
thedopefishlives said:
Then why haven't you? All you have presented is some mildly ambiguous witness testimony - much of it many years after the fact, and thus tainted by the simple fact that the human brain has no error checking or correction on memories - that you have taken away from the context of the physical evidence. Care to debate that physical evidence, Robert? Are you ever going to address JayUtah's points concerning Jack White's expertise in photographic analysis, or lack thereof?
Click to expand...

Nov.24, 1963 is not many years after the fact. Obviously, you are another who has a lot of opinions, but no scholarship to back it up.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Do you know where the temple is?

What do you think the word TEMPORAL oft repeated in that post means?

Tell me Robert, would you agree that in the autopsy photographs the known exit wound extends from the temporal region to the fringe of the occiputal bone?

If not, how would you describe it?
Click to expand...

It is you who needs an anatomy refresher. The the word "fringe" is another of your made up words. "occipital wound was a wound of exit" Moreover, the temporal lobe is not the "temple."


picture.php
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
I would hold you to the single topic at hand -- the medical witnesses of which I have offered many,and you have offered none.
Click to expand...

Where's your list of 40 Medical witnesses Robert? With citations.

And I will hold you to the claims you have failed to substantiate throughout the course of this thread!

Where are those peer reviews of Whites findings from a photo analytical journal?

Where are the photo artefacts indicative of the autopsy photos being forged or faked?

Where are the signs of cutting or compositing in the back yard photos?

Where is your evidence that the latent prints taken from the rifle were ink and not latent?

How exactly, if your claim about a frangible bullet in the Z film is true, can the ejecta have left the skull from the small entry wound you suggest JFK had on the front of his head?

Care to revist your evidence that LHO was a heroic spy?

Why was your model in the now infamous "doofus" photo holding the stick in a completely different pose to LHO holding the rifle?

What time is it in the RoboTimbo Shadow photo?

I hold you to those and many more Robert.
 
Robert Prey said:
Jack White is your Red Herring.
Click to expand...

No. You were once again singing his praises less than a week ago. You made some assertions then that I've been trying to follow up on with you since then. You refuse to answer my questions, though -- expressly so. So that ranks you Numero Uno on the fingers-in-the-ears list.

Right now the discussion deals with the conspiracy to kill the President.
Click to expand...

No. You're not the Conversation Cop of this thread. I have questions on the table about statement you made recently, and I would like to have them answered. If you don't wish to answer them then say so, so that the readers can clearly see your evasion.

Jack Whites findings have no relevance to that. Get it? Nah!
Click to expand...

I stated above that I don't agree with your ad hoc severance of the various questions in your conspiracy theory. Now address my statements or admit that you cannot or will not.
 
Robert Prey said:
It is you who needs an anatomy refresher. The the word "fringe" is another of your made up words.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5908[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You realise that regions of the head are different from areas of the brain? Do you for example know the extents of the occipital bones compared to the occipital lobe? How about the temporal areas?

Don't worry Robert. When you are ready I am sure a teacher will arrive.

LMAO.

Now do try to answer the question:

Do you agree that the exit wound in the autopsy photos stretches from the temporal region to the fringe (that means border, limit, edge, extent, etc. I know you struggle with these simple terms Robert, don't be afraid to point out when you don't understand them, just remember a word being outside your vocabulary is not the same as being "made up") of the occipital?

If not, care to describe what regions you DO think it covers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom