JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
No. That post is a complete and total fabrication and I suspect you probably know it. I've never even once posted on that board. Never even knew it existed. Your post is a blatant lie.
Click to expand...

You are implying that someone impersonated you on usenet and said the exact thing you were saying on the Obama birth certificate thread in the same time period? That does not seem..... plausible to me. And there are multiple posts by Robert Prey on alt.assassination.jfk, and I think at least one predates anything on JREF.
 
Rich_C said:
You are implying that someone impersonated you on usenet and said the exact thing you were saying on the Obama birth certificate thread in the same time period? That does not seem..... plausible to me. And there are multiple posts by Robert Prey on alt.assassination.jfk, and I think at least one predates anything on JREF.
Click to expand...

No. Never said any such thing on any of those threads. Never said anything about a JREF conspiracy regarding the thread; never said anything about Randi and the CIA. But you claim otherwise. Prove it.
 
A number of posts have been sent to AAH. Please remember Rules 0 and 12. Do not insult other members.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Rob, can you give me your timeline? I really want to know what you think went down that day.
 
Robert, it may be plausible (although unlikely) that someone posting under the same name as you on the same topic at the same time may, in fact, be another person. However when that imposter makes the same exact unique factual error elsewhere as you did here, that plausibility evaporates. It is less your screen name that belies you than your unique style of committing (or feigning) error.

So lest we get derailed further, will you settle the questions and publicly disavow here and now what that other "Robert Prey" said on Usenet?

Specifically...

1. Do you agree that the moderators here are not merely shills?
2. Do you agree that this thread was briefly closed for the moderator to remove uncivil content, as plainly announced in this post, rather than for the suppressionist reason the imposter claimed?
3. Do you acknowledge that upon re-opening this thread, which occurred less than two weeks after its closure, your pro-conspiracy content remained?
4. Do you agree that James Randi is not a CIA operative since 1970 or any other time?

And before you attempt it, "One question at a time, please" would be pretty much a slap-in-the-face non-answer to this polite request for clarification.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. Never said any such thing on any of those threads. Never said anything about a JREF conspiracy regarding the thread; never said anything about Randi and the CIA. But you claim otherwise. Prove it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it's a coincidence that there is someone over there using the same name as you, and seems to be involved with this thread?

JMO, but wouldn't it be up to you to prove that this person is not you?
 
Robert Prey said:
No. Never said any such thing on any of those threads. Never said anything about a JREF conspiracy regarding the thread; never said anything about Randi and the CIA. But you claim otherwise. Prove it.
Click to expand...
Well Robert, at least in this case no one can prove it was you, or was not you.

However, why would an imposter say the same things you were saying here, at virtually the same time?

Why would an imposter copy your posting style and tone? (not to mention ideas and beliefs)

I'd have to say I find an the idea of an imposter posting those things highly implausible.
 
bobtaftfan said:
There are many very educated, credible, serious people who posit a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. And Dale Myers' research contains a great deal of error, distortion, and faulty logic.

You might want to check out Dr. G. Paul Chambers' recent book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination.

You might also check out the following articles:

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/malice.htm
Click to expand...


Is this Michael Griffith, or are you just citing his articles?

Hank
 
Last edited:
BazBear said:
Well Robert, at least in this case no one can prove it was you, or was not you.

However, why would an imposter say the same things you were saying here, at virtually the same time?

Why would an imposter copy your posting style and tone? (not to mention ideas and beliefs)

I'd have to say I find an the idea of an imposter posting those things highly implausible.
Click to expand...

By the standards with which some have judged the WC, Military Inteligence, and the likes in this thread, apparently all we need to do is suggest Robert would say he didn't make both posts and imply that because it can't be proven and he is obviously part of a whitewash it is fair to accuse him of lies with out evidence.

Luckily not everybody in this thread follows the CT troll mindset.
 
JayUtah said:
Not as credible as the "Lee Harvey Oswald did it" accusation.
Click to expand...
To take this even further, as far as I have seen there's been no credible evidence found or presented that implicates Jackie, while there is a virtual mountain of credible evidence that implicates Lee Harvey Oswald, and also seems to indicate that he almost certainly acted alone.
 
BazBear said:
To take this even further, as far as I have seen there's been no credible evidence found or presented that implicates Jackie, while there is a virtual mountain of credible evidence that implicates Lee Harvey Oswald, and also seems to indicate that he almost certainly acted alone.
Click to expand...


Ironically, there is more of a direct link betweeen Lee Oswald and Jackie Kennedy than between Oswald and the mob, Oswald and the CIA, Oswald and just about anyone else you could name.

The link is George DeMohrenschildt, who knew the Bouvier family when Jackie was a child and knew Lee Oswald when he lived in Dallas in 1963.

If one is going to make a case for Jackie being behind the assassination, they would have to do it through Geo. DeM.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Ironically, there is more of a direct link betweeen Lee Oswald and Jackie Kennedy than between Oswald and the mob, Oswald and the CIA, Oswald and just about anyone else you could name.

The link is George DeMohrenschildt, who knew the Bouvier family when Jackie was a child and knew Lee Oswald when he lived in Dallas in 1963.

If one is going to make a case for Jackie being behind the assassination, they would have to do it through Geo. DeM.

Hank
Click to expand...


"Hey kid, when you grow up and marry the president, shoot him." :D
 
TheRedWorm said:
"Hey kid, when you grow up and marry the president, shoot him." :D
Click to expand...


I was thinking more along the lines of the extremely bizarre possibility that Jackie reached out to George DeMorenschildt and asked if he knew anyone willing to shoot JFK for her, snd George said, 'Why yes, I do. Why do you ask?"

Unless one goes there. there's no chance whatsoever that Jackie did it.

One conspiracy theory dismissed. Only 9,265,427 to go.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
I was thinking more along the lines of the extremely bizarre possibility that Jackie reached out to George DeMorenschildt and asked if he knew anyone willing to shoot JFK for her, snd George said, 'Why yes, I do. Why do you ask?"
Click to expand...
This one makes more "sense" than 99.999999999% of the JFK CTs I've seen. Of course that also means it's not bat-crap-crazy complicated enough to have caught on with the CTists. :D
 
One clear indication of a cover-up in the JFK case is the 6.5mm "fragment" seen in the autopsy x-rays. When given the chance to study the x-rays with the aid of detection equipment, Dr. David Mantik discovered that the 6.5mm fragment consists of a smaller fragment and an overlaid image. This confirms an 11/22/63 FBI report on the autopsy that stated that the back-of-the-head fragment was the "second largest" fragment on the x-rays, whereas on the autopsy x-rays it is the largest fragment.

Incredibly and suspiciously, the 6.5mm fragment is not mentioned in the autopsy report. There is no way all three autopsy doctors could have failed to notice this fragment on the lateral x-rays. We know they didn't because Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/22/63 FBI report on the autopsy, and the only way they could have known about the fragment was if one of the autopsy doctors told them about it. So why didn't Humes, Finck, or Boswell mention this obvious fragment in the autopsy report? Two probable reasons, and they aren't mutually exclusive: they were ordered not to mention it or they realized that the fragment was problematic for the lone-gunman scenario.

The Suspicious 6.5mm Fragment
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/65fragment.htm

More on the Suspicious 6.5mm Fragment
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/moreon65fragment.htm
 
Bob, please, if you think anyone other than LHO shot prez Kennedy, please give me a timeline of who(even if this person is just 'shooter 2') fired the shots from where, and why. I have yet to see any conspiracy advocate even attempt to do this.
 
bobtaftfan said:
One clear indication of a cover-up in the JFK case is the 6.5mm "fragment" seen in the autopsy x-rays. When given the chance to study the x-rays with the aid of detection equipment, Dr. David Mantik...
Click to expand...

Discussed multiple times already in this thread, the most recent in April of this year.

Also, I notice your source for all your claims is one web site, which we're all familiar with. Can we assume your arguments are all just going to be regurgigoogles of that site?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom