JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Really. Name one.
Click to expand...

One what? One lie or one accusation you've made of others lying?

(And remember, the rules is one question at a time)
Click to expand...

No. These...
Rules for all sections of the Forum (includes private messages & visitor messages and any other kind of post)


0. Be civil and polite.

1. You will not post anything that can be considered to be potentially criminal. The posting of computer viruses, child pornography, or links to computer viruses or child pornography is strictly prohibited. As are posts made under circumstances indicating a considered likelihood of inciting a violent or felonious act, or an intention or knowledge that its content will be used for, or in furtherance of, any criminal purpose. (Such posts will be moved offline and referred to the appropriate authorities.)

2. You will not post anything that is pornographic, obscene, or contains excessive reference to violence and/or explicit sexual acts. This includes representational artwork as well as photographic or video media and includes linking directly to such content from the Forum.

3. You will not post anything that demonstrates a clear and present danger to the welfare of another person, or otherwise tends to create alarm or apprehension that the welfare of any person is in imminent jeopardy. (Such posts will be moved offline and referred to the appropriate authorities.)

4. You will not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.

5. You will not "hotlink" unless it is explicitly allowed by the website.

6. You will not spam, flood or otherwise post in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum, this includes using disruptive formatting in your posts and also includes using the Forum for commercial purposes.

7. You may only have one Membership account. Only the person registering an account may use it.

8. You may only post a Member's personal information if it is both publicly available and is relevant to the ongoing discussion.

Additional Rules for posting in the JREF Topics, General Topics & Forum Topics sections


9. You will not post anything indecent. This includes content that depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in an offensive manner.

10. You will not swear in your posts. This includes using swear words in a disguised form, for example, by replacing certain letters in the word with another letter, character, or image.

11. You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads or start threads in the wrong section.

12. “Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.
Click to expand...

...are the rules. "One question at a time" is not one of them. So if you're asking for a lie, there's one right there.



ETA - I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this absurdity again. Why can't I listen to myself?

ETA2 - Well at least I'm not debating points about the JFK assassination since I think it's been clearly shown that Robert has no interest in a debate. I think pointing out his dishonesty is still worth a post or two.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The Limo's back seat.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6379[/qimg]
Click to expand...
You realise that head wounds bleed profusely, yes?

Have you had a person bleed out in your arms from a severe head wound? Yes or no?

Have you seen how much blood pours across the street? and your arms? and your clothes? and their clothes?

Have you had someone in your arms who died that way?

I have. You clearly have not.
 
abaddon said:
You realise that head wounds bleed profusely, yes?

Have you had a person bleed out in your arms from a severe head wound? Yes or no?

Have you seen how much blood pours across the street? and your arms? and your clothes? and their clothes?

Have you had someone in your arms who died that way?

I have. You clearly have not.
Click to expand...

Oh my, I'm sorry you had to go through that abaddon.
 
Robert Prey said:
While Maj. Pickard, Malcomb Thompson and Brian Mee do not have any published background in the analysis of backyard photos, I have noted that neither do any of the members of the House photo panel. So, they are all equal -- Peers.
Click to expand...

You're using the wrong definition of peer. In terms of peer review, it assumes the author is an expert in the appropriate field and the peers are other experts in that field.

By your logic, if a hairdresser writes a paper on quantum physics, should we find other hairdressers to review it rather than people who know anything about quantum physics?
 
abaddon said:
You realise that head wounds bleed profusely, yes?

Have you had a person bleed out in your arms from a severe head wound? Yes or no?

Have you seen how much blood pours across the street? and your arms? and your clothes? and their clothes?

Have you had someone in your arms who died that way?

I have. You clearly have not.
Click to expand...

Doesn't even need to be a fatal - head wounds bleed profusely, even if it's just an abrasion to the scalp.
 
Robert Prey said:
The Poll asks nothing about a "vague suspicion". But a true belief that not only was it a conspiracy, but the government had something to do with a cover-up. Exactly what I have been posting, except I have provided extensive, factual proofs that nobody, including you have been able to refute, while you and your Amen Chorus of pooh-poohers have been able to provide nothing.
Click to expand...
F-
 
Robert Prey said:
Except about sixty-six percent of the American people:

"A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (search) was part of a larger conspiracy, not the act of one individual. In addition, most Americans think there was a cover-up of facts about the 1963 shooting.
On the 40th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, a recent FOX News poll shows most Americans disagree with the government’s conclusions about the killing. The Warren Commission (search) found that Lee Harvey Oswald (search) acted alone when he shot Kennedy, but 66 percent of the public today think the assassination was “part of a larger conspiracy” while only 25 percent think it was the “act of one individual.” These new poll results are similar to previous surveys conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in 1967, 1975 and 1981, when about two-thirds also felt the shooting was part of a larger conspiracy."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
Click to expand...

100% of people in my household reject the JFK assassination conspiracies.

Common sense for the win!
 
EventHorizon said:
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to respond with the name of some sort of pork product.
Click to expand...
Oh, I have ("salami" and "olive loaf" being a couple of my finer intellectual contributions). But our little friend, remaining as boring as they come, is no longer worth the trouble of more than a couple keystrokes.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
How about these: Do they contradict each other?

And remember, there is no "rule" about one question, there is a self imposed restriction you place on yourself to dodge questions. Pleae do not pretend it is any kind of meaningful rule anybody else should pay the sleightest heed to.
Click to expand...


"...In or out.." translates to "no opinion as to in or out... not my job. I describe the wounds, you figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Except about sixty-six percent of the American people:


"A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (search) was part of a larger conspiracy, not the act of one individual. In addition, most Americans think there was a cover-up of facts about the 1963 shooting.
On the 40th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, a recent FOX News poll shows most Americans disagree with the government’s conclusions about the killing. The Warren Commission (search) found that Lee Harvey Oswald (search) acted alone when he shot Kennedy, but 66 percent of the public today think the assassination was “part of a larger conspiracy” while only 25 percent think it was the “act of one individual.” These new poll results are similar to previous surveys conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in 1967, 1975 and 1981, when about two-thirds also felt the shooting was part of a larger conspiracy."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
Click to expand...
I'd have to admit I was one of the 66%, and then I saw all your arguments get torn to shreds. Maybe you should go on a road show and that 66% would drop down considerably.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
You cited three people. Two of them did not review White's findings are are immediately disqualified. That they also have no published expertise in photo analysis is additionally damaging to your claim, but since Pickard and Thompson didn't review White's findings, you may not cite them as having peer-reviewed his work.
.
Click to expand...

Nor do the HSCA photo panel C.V. contain any mention what ever of experience or expertise in 'photo analysis." Pickard, Thompson, and Mee are thus equal or better to the HSCA panel.
 
abaddon said:
You realise that head wounds bleed profusely, yes?
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially if your brains are blown out the back of your head and blood profusely flows down the back of your shirt.


K's shirt

picture.php
 
Robert Prey said:
"...In or out.." translates to "no opinion as to in or out... not my job. I describe the wounds, you figure it out.
Click to expand...

Dr Clark (with a K, his forename started with a K, making him Dr C) made no inference, except when he did infer it was an entry or exit.

You contradicted yourself and we can all see it.
ROFLMAO
 
Robert Prey said:
Nor do the HSCA photo panel...
Click to expand...

Keep cranking that ol' distraction handle, Robert!

Do you have any proof for your claim? No, of course you don't. Any time someone asks you for proof, all you can do is lash out at someone else for their imaginary sins. You've learned well from your puppet master Fetzer.

Jack White has not been peer-reviewed favorably. As I'm reminding you for the fifth time: Pickard and Thompson did not address White; Mee is not anywhere close to being an expert.

It simply does not matter to your claim whether the HSCA, Jack Ruby, Stephen Hawking, Santa Claus, or anyone else has been peer-reviewed on the matter. You made the claim that White was peer-reviewed. We are discussing it because it is your affirmative claim specifically regarding Jack White.

Now put up or shut up.
 
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, especially if your brains are blown out the back of your head and blood profusely flows down the back of your shirt.


K's shirt

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6384[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could use you new found expertise on blood spatter analysis to describe exactly how you came to conclusion that stain is indicative of "brains blown out the back of your head"?

Why, for example are the stains not compatible with blood having flown from an entry wound on the back of the head? Or from pooling as JFK leant back? Exactly how did you calculate the volume, flow and splatter of the wound you think you have proven?
 
Robert Prey said:
Nor do the HSCA photo panel C.V. contain any mention what ever of experience or expertise in 'photo analysis." Pickard, Thompson, and Mee are thus equal or better to the HSCA panel.
Click to expand...

The HSCA was not a peer review article and did not peer review the findings of White? They have absolutely ZERO to do with your claim that White was favourably peer reviewed.


Robert, is there ANY peer review journal of photo analysis that contains a favourable review of White and his findings, or did you make an unfounded claim that was beyond your understanding?
 
JayUtah said:
Okay, here's my one question: Produce the verifiable name of at least one person other than yourself who believes that JFK was assassinated by a government conspiracy, and specifically cites you and your arguments as the reason for believing that.
Click to expand...

Jay Utah, et al. No matter what you all may say; in your heart, you know I'm right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom