JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Taking passages out of context in order to confuse is not a very good idea.
Click to expand...


This is your entire M.O.

The fact is that we can have an endless fusallade of contradictory quotes. This only serves to prove the hazy nature of eye witness testimony. As has been repeatedly stated, this is why other forms of evidence are so important. We don't have to rely on people who admit to not actually examining the wound, or only getting a limited chance to view Kennedy's head, or 30-year old memories. There are videos, photos, and autopsy reports.

Continue your charade. For those looking for the truth, this thread contains some very good references that seem to elude you.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. That's why I list many, many witnesses, not just one or two. EAch corroborating the other.
Click to expand...

Only when "properly" interpreted by you. Several people have noted material dissimilarities among witness statements, but you explicitly declined to consider them. You don't get to do that and simultaneously maintain that you have solidarity among your witnesses.

Witnesses can indeed b[e] mistaken.
Click to expand...

Not in your world. Any time someone substantiates that a witness may be mistaken, you accuse him of claiming the witness is a "liar." This is what makes your approach simplistic. You aren't prepared yet for a meaningful examination of eyewitness testimony.

But when you have 40 plus, the chances of that are virtually nil and you know it; I know it; we all know it.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're wrapped up very tightly in the same circularity you've perpetrated on us for the past several months. You present "forty-plus" witnesses as if they were a single phalanx of undeniable truth. But people then rightly point out that this doesn't work; you still have to examine each witness in turn. You agree, then when flaws in each individual witness are found, you buttress that by trying to refer back to the supposed consensus among the witnesses.
 
BStrong said:
For people who need help to figure out if a fart goes with a blue hat, a signed statement might be sufficient, but individuals with some knowledge of the subject matter will in all likelyhood expect actual evidence.

A "signed statement" means -0-
Click to expand...

Ah, so here we go again. Another claim that Dr. McCelland is a liar. Just like all the other 40 plus medical witnesses, eh?
 
JayUtah said:
Only when "properly" interpreted by you. Several people have noted material dissimilarities among witness statements, but you explicitly declined to consider them.
Click to expand...

No. What I consider is what is consistent in their statements. The actual amount of brains or tissue oozing, or extruding, or missing -- irrelevant to the consistent observation of a large blow-out wound in the back of the head. That's what is pertinent and what you do not wish to accept.
 
Monza said:
This is your entire M.O.

The fact is that we can have an endless fusallade of contradictory quotes. This only serves to prove the hazy nature of eye witness testimony. As has been repeatedly stated, this is why other forms of evidence are so important. We don't have to rely on people who admit to not actually examining the wound, or only getting a limited chance to view Kennedy's head, or 30-year old memories. There are videos, photos, and autopsy reports.

Continue your charade. For those looking for the truth, this thread contains some very good references that seem to elude you.
Click to expand...

Nothing so "hazy" as destroyed autopsy notes, and missing autopsy photographs.
 
Robert Prey said:
"No documentary evidece...." except a signed statement to that effect...
Click to expand...

The one signed statement does not have absolute evidentiary authority. You don't seem to realize this.

...plus JT';s own admission that the drawing reflects Dr. M's Warren Commission testimony.
Click to expand...

Circular. The drawing was commissioned precisely to visualize the verbal description. The question is not whether the illustration accurately captures the verbal description, but whether the illustration accurately depicts the wound in Kennedy's head.

And finally, geez, are you guys ever desperate to dwell on such minutia.
Click to expand...

This is the diagram in which you place so much trust. It is dishonest of you now to downplay its importance when its accuracy and authority comes into significant question. You measure the importance of evidence based on how well it supports your existing belief. Shame!

It's Dr.M's diagram, one way or another. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get to bluster your way past every disputation.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. What I consider is what is consistent in their statements. The actual amount of brains or tissue oozing, or extruding, or missing -- irrelevant to the consistent observation of a large blow-out wound in the back of the head. That's what is pertinent and what you do not wish to accept.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting you cherry-pick your witness statements, keeping only the parts that are consistent and omitting the parts that differ.

We win.
 
Robert Prey said:
As regards to medical witnesses, no one has been able to refute any of the witnesses I have cited.What you would need to do is show a mis-quote.Otherwise your argument is worthless.
Click to expand...

Showing a misquote makes my argument worthless? It's not the misquote that is the problem, it is context and looking at further clarification of what they meant. In some cases, you have to look at what was being said before or after.

Any attempt to show that there is more to your cherry-picked quotes are ignored.

So this:
Straw Man said:
Paul Peters had the chance to look at all of the evidence, courtesy of PBS's programme, NOVA. The photographs did not show any "Blow-out" of the back of the head. Paul Peters had the opportunity to look at these, and he said "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."
Click to expand...

does not refute the quote you decided to choose? He looks at the autopsy photos and agrees that's basically how he remembers the President.
 
Robert Prey said:
"No documentary evidece...." except a signed statement to that effect, plus JT';s own admission that the drawing reflects Dr. M's Warren Commission testimony. And finally, geez, are you guys ever desperate to dwell on such minutia. It's Dr.M's diagram, one way or another. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

So the documentary evidence supporting the statement is... the statement?
Get real Robert.

If it wasn't drawn by McC, wasn't "dictated by" McC, and was comissioned with out his knowledge or input it is not his.

What you call "minutia" are pertinant issues that discredit your "evidence".

Deal with THAT.
 
Robert Prey said:
...of a large blow-out wound
Click to expand...

Several people have asked you for the precise medical definition of this word. Kindly provide it, within the meaning of your claim.

...in the back of the head.
Click to expand...

Actually no, each witness has described the location of the wound differently using different words. You seem to have chronic difficulty understanding what those words mean. I know you've read my discussion on this topic, but for some strange reason you decline to comment or acknowledge it.

That's what is pertinent and what you do not wish to accept.
Click to expand...

No, what we don't wish to accept is your rather clumsy browbeating. A lively discussion has occurred on the subject of each of your witnesses, but you seem disinterested in it.
 
Robert, will you ever tell me which parts of the skull are damaged by the wound depicted in the WC illustration?

Go on, describe the locations of the entry and exit wound in terms of the parts of the head effected.
 
Witness No, 13, Nurse Doris Nelson

Nurse Doris Nelson:

"...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, now there you go again. So now I'm a liar??? That's a pretty sweeping statement.
Click to expand...

A pretty sweeping statement. But not the one I made.

The witness statements you make do not say what claim they say. One wonders why we would assume you were making a deliberate falsehood over self delusion, confirmation bias,or inept understanding. I don't attribute malice where failure is more likely.
 
Thread needs a clean out as there are a lot of MA beaches so I'm closing it until a mod has the time, as usual don't try to continue this discussion elsewhere whilst this thread is closed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
So, LHO was the only shooter we have evidence for, and the medical testemony all seems to point to entry wounds from behind, with a large exit wound on the side of the head.

Are we all agreed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom