JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way I am assuming the answers to the questions Robert ignored:
The ones who were looking at Rorscharch test?
The ones he hasn't listed and cited?
The ones who can't agree on details? (Like the presence of a brain or not).

I am assuming those are all "Yes those ones", in the absence of actual answers.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Based on Mr. Prey's posts in this forum (at least those I've read), it seems he has taken ignorance to a near artform.

Remember folks...if there's debris anywhere to the president's rear, it can only mean a shot from the front.

L...O...L.

My word, is it no wonder there are harsh critics of the public educational system when such a product as our little friend is the result?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Robert Prey is doing some sort of performance art here. He has to be. Or maybe it's some sort of social experiment. Nobody could possibly believe the nonsense he's posting and he knows that. I think he's just trying to see how riled up he can make people.
 
JayUtah said:
No, I gave you the reasons why I don't accept Mee. Please address them and don't make up new straw-man ones that you wish I had used instead.

.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you said Mr. Mee couldn't be trusted because he was being paid??? On that basis, you'll have to dismiss the entire HSCA photo panel.
 
BStrong said:
Right up there with your Mauser 7.65 "witnesses"

Man you should have paid attention to the late great Herb Caen's advice on "sources"

"Check 'em and lose 'em."

You should have lost your "sources" a ways back in this thread, but you hang onto them like a remora.
Click to expand...

I got 'em. But you guys ain't even got one!!
 
EventHorizon said:
I'm pretty sure Robert Prey is doing some sort of performance art here. He has to be. Or maybe it's some sort of social experiment. Nobody could possibly believe the nonsense he's posting and he knows that. I think he's just trying to see how riled up he can make people.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course that's possible. As indicated by this thread (and several others), he is so demonstrably unwilling to engage in critical thinking or legitimate discussion it's a wonder to behold.

If what you say it true, well, everybody needs a pastime.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
,"The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum."
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/enduri~1.htm
Click to expand...

Robert I asked if you could varify Clark said this. You claimed you could because of his signiature being on the WC report. But I can't find Clark using the words "blown out" in his WC testemony at all.

I can only find them used by him in an unverified "interview" by a citizen journalist.

Surely you have "Pinnochioed" and told me that you verified a statement after the WC because he signed his testemony in the WC?

Which page and line of the WC features Clark using the words "blown out"?


And I may be ye of little faith, because you have earned none. Ye of little evidence.
 
Robert Prey said:
The same one as peer reviewed the HSCA panel.
Click to expand...

The HSCA has never claimed a peer review process.

You claimed White was reviewed well in peer review.

In which photo analytical journal were these reviews published? Name and issue please.
 
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, I think you said Mr. Mee couldn't be trusted because he was being paid?
Click to expand...

Link to the post where I said he was being paid.

I will repeat my reasoning, since you seem to have baloney stuffed in your ears. None of Mee's claimed training includes the appropriate science. Further, when he tried to apply the science, he applied it incorrectly in exactly the same way a layman typically does when approaching these problems. Finally, his comments are postured as a requested defense of White against his critics, not a review of White's methods. For those reasons Mee's statements do not constitute a peer review.

I do not accept Mee as an expert in photogrammetry. That is one type of analysis -- a type that White attempted and got massively wrong. Mee's ignorance of it may make him a peer of White, but that's my point: no one in the photographic analysis industry takes Jack White seriously, but there are a number of amateurs and pretenders who will happily subscribe to White's opinion.
 
Robert Prey said:
The same one as peer reviewed the HSCA panel.
Click to expand...

The point is not whether some other findings may have or should have been peer-reviewed. The point is your claim that Jack White was peer-reviewed. You have made that claim in an attempt to bolster White's credibility, and it is that claim we are testing. It stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what impropriety you may imagine elsewhere.

But here you admit in a roundabout way that there has been no such review, as we (your critics) understand the term. It would have saved us all a lot of trouble if you had simply conceded the error, rather than try to change the subject. Honestly it's quite hard to keep you on the right subject.
 
JayUtah said:
Link to the post where I said he was being paid.
.
Click to expand...

You inferred it.

"Keep in mind Mee's endorsement was solicited, so he spends a great deal of time, at the interviewer's request, trying to salvage White's dismal performance in front of HSCA."

Paid or not, he was just as "solicited" as were the well connected lackeys on the HSCA photo panel.
 
JayUtah said:
The point is not whether some other findings may have or should have been peer-reviewed. The point is your claim that Jack White was peer-reviewed. You have made that claim in an attempt to bolster White's credibility, and it is that claim we are testing. It stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what impropriety you may imagine elsewhere.

But here you admit in a roundabout way that there has been no such review, as we (your critics) understand the term. It would have saved us all a lot of trouble if you had simply conceded the error, rather than try to change the subject. Honestly it's quite hard to keep you on the right subject.
Click to expand...

They were peers. They reviewed his findings. Thus, "peer reviewed". Just as rigorous as printed in some publication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom