JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
BazBear said:
Yes, you have provided mountains of *something*. Citations are meaningless when the source has been discredited, when you cherry pick the source out of context, or when you mischaracterize what source actually says. You've done this repeatedly in this thread (and others), as anyone who takes the time to go back and read it can plainly see.
Click to expand...

You are late to the party. I don't think you have read anything. "Mischaracterize what source actually says"???? Name one.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Ok, robert. Give me a timeline of the shots from this other shooter.
Click to expand...


Here, I'll help you out, RP.

The other shooter's name is Fred Fingle from Fredricksburg, Formosa. He was there, in Dallas on that fateful day. Fill in the details.
 
Robert Prey said:
You are late to the party. I don't think you have read anything. "Mischaracterize what source actually says"???? Name one.
Click to expand...
Nope, we're not playing that game. You'll just ignore them, just as you ignored them every time you've been called out on them. FYI, I have read this entire thread, and did so before I ever posted to it, way back in March, on page 100. You'll note in the very next post you accused me of the exact same thing back then; of being a late comer (which I was back then) and of not reading the thread (which wasn't true then or now).
 
bobtaftfan said:
You obviously did not bother to read my articles on McAdams and Rahn before you wrote this (I provided links in my previous reply). Both articles focus on these men's arguments.

Some Comments on John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/vsmcadams.htm

Critical Thinking and the Kennedy Assassination: A Reply to Ken Rahn's Article "Twenty Simple Truths About the JFK Assassination"
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/critical.htm

My experience is that so-called "debunkers" spend huge amounts of time making ad hominem attacks and appealing to authority and not very much time dealing with facts and logic.
Click to expand...

After going to your first link, and seeing Dr. Dolce of the Army Wound Ballistic lab listed at the first source, I'm interested in how he supported any alternative theory other than order of hits - he believed Oswald was the shooter, and the shots came from the TSBD.

Should I read farther, or does it get any better?
 
BazBear said:
Nope, we're not playing that game. You'll just ignore them, just as you ignored them every time you've been called out on them. FYI, I have read this entire thread, and did so before I ever posted to it, way back in March, on page 100. You'll note in the very next post you accused me of the exact same thing back then; of being a late comer (which I was back then) and of not reading the thread (which wasn't true then or now).
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Nonetheless, you cannot back up your claim of false quotes, or mis-characterizations with even one example. Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Fair enough. Nonetheless, you cannot back up your claim of false quotes, or mis-characterizations with even one example. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

*Sigh* We have to go through all this again?

You know you won a stundie last time we listed all this and you said we couldn't just name one... Sheesh!

So feel free to link a single post where you name your 40+ Medical witnesses.
 
Robert Prey said:
Your umpteenth attempt at baloney.
Click to expand...

Your umpteenth dodge of a question or statement by calling it baloney while failing to provide:

40+ Medical Witnesses
Any photo-artefact on the Z film to prove fakery
Any photo-artefact in any autopsy or post mortem photo to prove fakery.
Any description of what the medical description of the wounds in the WC diagrams are. You repeatedly (and wrongly) told us what they "weren't", yet wont offer the simple description of what they are?
Any evidence that Miss Specter was claiming the photos she was shown under questioning were faked, given she only states they are not the sanitised and cleaned photos she took (acknowledging that there was a set taken without wax and cleaning, hence being less fake than her own).
Any evidence of a second or multiple shooters.
Any timeline of events.
Any evidence AT ALL that withstands scruitiny.

No fringe reset for you.
 
Oh God, the troll is back and people are feeding him. Trolls always win. Always. :(

This thread reminds me of the extremely depressing philosophical idea of the Eternal Return, that everything that has happened has happen before and will happen again in exactly the same way! :eek:

I hopped off this treadmill months and months ago and excuse me if I don't hop back on but sanity beckons. Please if you value humanity, let this pointless repetitious thread die.
 
Robert Prey said:
Fair enough. Nonetheless, you cannot back up your claim of false quotes, or mis-characterizations with even one example. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but in insisting a "witness" described a different rifle as being discovered in the TSBD and insisting that a one line description of same without any further elaboration constitues "proof," your credibilty suffers.

On that note, the above page I visited and referred to also threw up an interesting argument impugning the judgement of another Wound Ballistic Research lab employee, Dr. Martin Fackler.

The writer suggests that Fackler was fundementally wrong when he described the penetrative effect of the 6.5 Carcano round.

The various 6.5 military rounds (including the Carcano) have a singular ability to penetrate soft targets - the sectional density of the rounds is high, meaning they carry more energy downrange than similar weight projectiles of larger diameter.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_SD_list.htm

Currently, there is a newish caliber (6.5 Grendel) that is designed to take advantage of that feature, and increase the effectiveness of the M16 platform while retaining all the basic parts of the host rifle, other than magazine and bolt.

There are many 6.5mm "wildcat" cartridges designed to take advantage of the hugh SD of the projectile, primarily for long range (1000 yds) target use:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/6-5-284_6-5RemMag.htm

One of the most successful Elephant and other big game hunters of all time relyed upon two caliber rifles, the 7mm x 57mm Mauser and the 6.5mm x 54mm Mannlicher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._M._Bell

The 6.5 M cartridge is the same basic round as the Carcano, with a 1mm longer case and different shoulder angle iirc.

The writer of the information at the link argues from incredulity that a 6.5mm round could perform in the way the so-called "magic bullet" did, but offers -0- evidence in support of his position, other than arguments from individuals that did not examine the bullet, and provided no counter evidence for the assertion.

I've have many years behind me on rifles, a good bit of iit working with cartridges in the 6.5 class (6.5 Swedish Mauser 6.5 x 55 primarily) in both bolt guns and the semi-auto AG42 (one of the first direct inpingment gas operating systems, as in the M16/AR15) and have taken game with the cartridge as well - standard military ball FMJ projos perform excellently in penetration of anything short of actual steel armor.

In short, assertions but nothing to document and support the alternative theory.
 
Robert Prey said:
Fair enough. Nonetheless, you cannot back up your claim of false quotes, or mis-characterizations with even one example. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is read the thread, Robert, you'll find them fairly quickly. Pick whichever one you like (to ignore), as one seems to be your self-imposed limit.
 
BazBear said:
All you have to do is read the thread, Robert, you'll find them fairly quickly. Pick whichever one you like (to ignore), as one seems to be your self-imposed limit.
Click to expand...

So, you want me to pick for you YOUR one example of my 'mis-characterizations" of even one of the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head????????

Ridiculous.
 
Robert Prey said:
So, you want me to pick for you YOUR one example of my 'mis-characterizations" of even one of the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head????????

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well, yes your statements, assertions etc. have been ridiculous but us asking you to explain one allows you to stay within your limitation of only being able to deal with "one question at a time."
 
Robert Prey said:
So, you want me to pick for you YOUR one example of my 'mis-characterizations" of even one of the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head????????

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ok. I will ignore the 12 witnesses you have misrepresented, and nominate the 28 you keep claiming exist without naming, quoting, or supporting with evcidence.

The continued unsupported claim there ARE 40 MEDICAL witnesses whom you think support your claim (unlikely given your record so far) is evidence of your mischaracterisation of the evidence.


Provide the witnesses then we will decide if they support your claim. Stop leaning on an unsupported number.
 
Robert Prey said:
Fail.
Click to expand...

Right, while we are talking about "fails"....
Where is your list of 40 Medical witnesses?
Where is your evidence of the Z film being faked?
Where is your evidence of another shooter?
Where is your timeline of events or coherent summary of the conspiracy?



Yeah. So... You know you can read the thread and see that your falsehoods have been pointed out time and again. Stop pretending there has been a fringe reset.
 
I'm back again after taking break from the thread and surprised the issue of the 40 medical witnesses is still on the table.

What is it RP doesn't accept there?
 
pakeha said:
I'm back again after taking break from the thread and surprised the issue of the 40 medical witnesses is still on the table.

What is it RP doesn't accept there?
Click to expand...

That claiming to have 40 or 80 or a billion witnesses without naming all of them so we can scrutinize their statements (and not just his cherry picked and misunderstood quotes) is meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom