JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Sorry I don't accept lunch meat as an answer.

Where are the references for White's peer reviews that you allege? What is your explanation for begging the question? What is your simple answer for whether you have once again asserted Jack White as an expert?
Click to expand...

I think there is one thing we can both agree upon. There are two kinds of photo experts -- those who agree with Jay and those who don't. Those who do agree are "experts" according to Jay; those who don't are not. Nuff said.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Apart from the entry wound to the back of the head, as Clark describes.
QUOTE]
TomTom awarded still another Pinocchio. Clark never asserted the wound to the back of the head was an entry wound.

"A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue." The words "In or out" does not mean "IN" but not "out."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
But again, that is back to front Robert. You are making the claim. It is your job to make it stick, not anybody elses job to refute it. This is called the burden of proof:

You claim Clarks testemony differs from the WC conclusion. It does not.
You claim the wound Clark discusses in the Press conference is a blow out to the back of the head. This has not been proven and the description fits the known exit wound.

Your claims are refuted to my satisfaction. Your claims have failed to convince me. Try harder or concede defeat.
Click to expand...

There is no convincing one who insists on keeping head in sand. I am not here to convince those who will not be convinced, but only to point out the true facts, and expose the brainwash. You can believe in whatever fairy tale you like.
 
Uh oh! Robert lied again, or failed to understand his own witness!

Clark didn't say the wound orginated at the back of the head?
You dead read the quote I posted from the press conference where Clark described the path of the wound?

Prey tell what do the words "back of the head" mean?
 
Robert Prey said:
TomTom awarded still another Pinocchio. Clark never asserted the wound to the back of the head was an entry wound.

"A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue." The words "In or out" does not mean "IN" but not "out."
Click to expand...

So why are you insisting it means a "blow out", an "exit" but not entry wound?

You must,from this statement obviously agree that the testemony does not rule out the wound described by the WC, or by your own logic all those times you posted this as evidence of an exit wound you are wrong, as Clark did not mean "out but not in".

Thank you for conceding that the statement does indeed agree with the entry wound as shown in the conclusions of the autopsy.
 
Robert Prey said:
A ridiculous remark. K's head was a mass of blood and tissue. No one could possibly know if there was or was not more than one shot.
Click to expand...

So your 40, 50, 60 or any number of witnesses, no matter how closely theyexamined the head, could possibly be expected to notice how many wounds there were? Or if there was, or brain tissue, or the quantity of brain tissue?

So any testemony from those witnesses is flawed and unable to offer precise or accurate information

Do you still insist they are best evidence?
 
Robert Prey said:
There is no convincing one who insists on keeping head in sand. I am not here to convince those who will not be convinced, but only to point out the true facts, and expose the brainwash. You can believe in whatever fairy tale you like.
Click to expand...

Robert, do you ever wonder if it is your head burried in sand?

Look at your statement about Jay. He doesn't consider experts to be people who agree with him. He considers them to be people with the formal training in the field of photography.

You could prove white had genuine photographic analysis skills by meeting my challenge of showing me a single peer reviewed article in a journal of photo analysis where whites expertise and conclusions are praised.


Do you consider yourself qualified to offer a professional medical opinion? Or legal expertise?
 
Robert Prey said:
I think there is one thing we can both agree upon. There are two kinds of photo experts -- those who agree with Jay and those who don't. Those who do agree are "experts" according to Jay; those who don't are not. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Why would you think I'd be so stupid as to agree with that? There are two kinds of photo experts in my book: those who know what they're talking about and those self-proclaimed photo "experts" who don't. Jack White is conclusively one of the latter, and I've presented copious evidence of it -- none of which you were able to answer.

In fact, your abject inability to explain or defend any of White's gaffes is what prompted you to disavow him as an expert (although you still maintained that his arguments were somehow still valid). And even now, as you insinuate that White is once again some sort of expert, you can't produce a shred of evidence for your new claim that White's findings were favorably peer-reviewed.

Pathetic.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Robert, do you ever wonder if it is your head burried in sand?

Look at your statement about Jay. He doesn't consider experts to be people who agree with him. He considers them to be people with the formal training in the field of photography.

You could prove white had genuine photographic analysis skills by meeting my challenge of showing me a single peer reviewed article in a journal of photo analysis where whites expertise and conclusions are praised.


Do you consider yourself qualified to offer a professional medical opinion? Or legal expertise?
Click to expand...

An appeal to Authority is Fallacious reasoning (argumentum ad verecundiam) For example, Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. For example, an airline pilot, sees what he believes to be UFO, and since the pilot is a trained observer, therefore, the fallacious conclusion is that UFO's must be real, because he is an "expert" trained in observation.
Thus, such advocates choose to exempt anyone who does not meet the "expert" qualifications he has erected instead of examining the validity of the findings of that person.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
If true, then YOU cannot know either.
Click to expand...


Correct. There may have been more than one shot to the head. But we do know that 40 plus medical witnesses have reported observing a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front.
 
Robert Prey said:
Correct. There may have been more than one shot to the head. But we do know that 40 plus medical witnesses have reported observing a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front.
Click to expand...

Please provide this mythical list of 40 plus medical witnesses, with citations.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So your 40, 50, 60 or any number of witnesses, no matter how closely theyexamined the head, could possibly be expected to notice how many wounds there were? Or if there was, or brain tissue, or the quantity of brain tissue?

So any testemony from those witnesses is flawed and unable to offer precise or accurate information

Do you still insist they are best evidence?
Click to expand...

Another ridiculous remark. K's head exploded the remnants of which surely must have resembled a rorschach test.


picture.php
 
Tomtomkent said:
So, looking at the diagram of the entry wound as described to the WC on the findings of the autopsy, how would you describe its location?

How does its location differ to that described by Clark?
Click to expand...

A tiny wound of entrance in the back of the head portrayed in the fictional Ryberg drawing does is not consistent wtih "a large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region." Obviously.

The Ryberg Drawing:

picture.php
 
Tomtomkent said:
So why are you insisting it means a "blow out", an "exit" but not entry wound?

You must,from this statement obviously agree that the testemony does not rule out the wound described by the WC, or by your own logic all those times you posted this as evidence of an exit wound you are wrong, as Clark did not mean "out but not in".

Thank you for conceding that the statement does indeed agree with the entry wound as shown in the conclusions of the autopsy.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Robert Prey said:
Correct. There may have been more than one shot to the head. But we do know that 40 plus medical witnesses have reported observing a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front.
Click to expand...

Those would be the 40 medical witnesses you haven't named.
The ones who were looking at a Rorschach test? The ones of whom it is "ridiculous" to expect to offer any detail?


Exactly why should we give credence to any number of witnesses if they can offer no detail?If the wound was indeed a Rorschach test, which could have any number of woundsand the presence of, and identification of tissues is unsound?


Ladies and gentlemen time and again Mr Prey stated that other forms of evidence were proven false by these statements. That they were the best evidence. But now not onlydoeshe still avoid discussing them in detail, he declares those details ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom