JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
We can discuss all the witnesses you want, but many of those were discussed previously, and all you did was make the font larger and more colorful when reiterating your initial claims after they were rebutted. Others you simply ignored entirely. You tried claiming before that the line-outs throughout your listing is dishonest and no evidence was ever produced to show why they should be removed. Do you remember the post below?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

Robert?

I do believe you've owed me some responses for a good six months or more.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
We can discuss all the witnesses you want, but many of those were discussed previously, and all you did was make the font larger and more colorful when reiterating your initial claims after they were rebutted. Others you simply ignored entirely. You tried claiming before that the line-outs throughout your listing is dishonest and no evidence was ever produced to show why they should be removed. Do you remember the post below?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=6190

Robert?

I do believe you've owed me some responses for a good six months or more.

Hank
Click to expand...

It's a dead link. Not found. I will ignore compound questions. One challenge at at time, please.
 
Robert Prey said:
I figure most people can understand that the words "rear" and "back of the head" are factual, while the word "entry wound" is editorial.
Click to expand...

So how did they miss part of the wound only to find it later? Did they not see the whole of the "rear" and "back of the head"?
 
ANTPogo said:
Who didn't manage to hit Kennedy. All the shots that hit Kennedy, as determined by the HSCA, came from behind and were most likely fired by Oswald from the 6th floor of the Book Depository.
Click to expand...

Contradictory and inconsistent conclusions is what you get from a political committee. No matter. The whole HSCA fiasco has been trashed by the ARRB and many of those who tried to worked in it including Gaeton Fonzi and its even naive director, Robt.Blakely.
 
HSienzant said:
Please post the evidence that Pitzer shot any film - still or motion - of the autopsy. I'm not aware he was even at the autopsy.

Ditto for Dennis David. What do you have that either - or both - of these men were at the autopsy other than the word of Dennis David?

Here's the most complete JFK autopsy listing I know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#Personnel_present_during_autopsy

What's your source for the claim these two men had anything to do with the autopsy?
Hank
Click to expand...

I do not claim the men had anything to do with the autopsy. Only that they both observed a film showing an entrance wound in the right temple and a large blow-out in the back which Dennis David presumes was shot by Pitzer from the gallery.
 
Robert Prey said:
Contradictory and inconsistent conclusions is what you get from a political committee.
Click to expand...

That same political committee whose judgment you say we should respect when it tells us there was more than one person shooting. When the actual findings contradict your claims, then and only then do you try to undermine their sincerity.

Just like in one of your threads, administrative doctors are the most adept, skilled, and knowledgeable, but in another of your threads, administrative doctors are mere pencil-pushers.

Will the real Robert Prey please stand up?
 
HSienzant said:
They believed another gunman on the knoll shot at but missed the president. Their conclusions does not contradict what I wrote:

"And of course, the HSCA did review the autopsy photos and x-rays, and did confirm the Commission got that right - the shooter that struck both men fired from behind and above the President and they confirm[ed] the Commission's conclusion that all those shots were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sniper's nest window."

My statements were not factually incorrect. They were absolutely correct, and you are just lying again, Robert.

Unless you are stating that what follows your "Factually incorrect:" is what is actually factually incorrect.

Then you're telling the truth, as there was no other gunman, and that HSCA conclusion was wrong.

Hank
Click to expand...

As previously noted, the HSCA was a fiasco and its conclusions internally inconsistent and contradictory. Your statement was the HSCA LHO was the only shooter. That is contradicted by the other HSCA statement.
 
Robert Prey said:
I do not claim the men had anything to do with the autopsy. Only that they both observed a film showing an entrance wound in the right temple and a large blow-out in the back which Dennis David presumes was shot by Pitzer from the gallery.
Click to expand...

No.
You claimed both were witnesses. Now you claim they both happened to see the film.

Can you quote both of them baring witness or not?

What you have is one guy claiming that somebody else saw something. Either provide both baring witness to what you describe, or reduce your number of witnesses by one.
 
Robert Prey said:
Only that they both observed a film [...] which Dennis David presumes...
Click to expand...

So if two people see a film whose origin they cannot determine and whose existence cannot be demonstrated, they're all of a sudden "expert witnesses," even though it's patently hearsay.

But if the entire world sees a film shot by someone everyone saw standing right there, that film must be fake.

Wow. Just ... wow.
 
Robert Prey said:
As previously noted, the HSCA was a fiasco and its conclusions internally inconsistent and contradictory. Your statement was the HSCA LHO was the only shooter. That is contradicted by the other HSCA statement.
Click to expand...

Therefore neither are of use for adding or detracting weight to your argument and you withdraw your previous statement?
 
JayUtah said:
So if two people see a film whose origin they cannot determine and whose existence cannot be demonstrated, they're all of a sudden "expert witnesses," even though it's patently hearsay.
Click to expand...

In court of law, hearsay though sometimes allowed, is often not. But this is not a court of law, It is a court of Common Sense. Under the circumstances of Pitzer's "suicide," his association with an JFK autopsy film, and a former Black Ops officer who was asked to murder him, it is not irrational to suspect foul play for the purpose of protecting the official WC lie.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's a dead link. Not found. I will ignore compound questions. One challenge at at time, please.
Click to expand...

Fixed the link.

i raised each of these points individually. You ignored them all as individual posts. I grouped them together and posted one link containing all the links you ignored. You say you want them individually. Your artificial limitations here fool no one Robert.

Hank
 
JayUtah said:
That same political committee whose judgment you say we should respect when it tells us there was more than one person shooting. When the actual findings contradict your claims, then and only then do you try to undermine their sincerity.

Just like in one of your threads, administrative doctors are the most adept, skilled, and knowledgeable, but in another of your threads, administrative doctors are mere pencil-pushers.

Will the real Robert Prey please stand up?
Click to expand...

No.I do not respect the conclusions of the HSCA, though some of its investigators, I do respect.
 
HSienzant said:
Fixed the link.

i raised each of these points individually. You ignored them all as individual posts. I grouped them together and posted one link containing all the links you ignored. You say you want them individually. Your artificial limitations here fool no one Robert.

Hank
Click to expand...


Like I said.I do not respond to compound questions. If you have a single point. state it. Nor do I jump at the suggestion to go down some cyber bunny trail where I have to figure out what the point is? If you have a point, state it, then provide a link.
 
Robert Prey said:
In court of law, hearsay though sometimes allowed, is often not. But this is not a court of law, It is a court of Common Sense. Under the circumstances of Pitzer's "suicide," his association with an JFK autopsy film, and a former Black Ops officer who was asked to murder him, it is not irrational to suspect foul play for the purpose of protecting the official WC lie.
Click to expand...


No reason for quotes around suicide.

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/homicide.html
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/homrecon.html
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/WBP-Resolution/

No evidence of his association with a JFK autopsy film.

Please provide what you've got, if anything. Mostly, it's a story from one man, with no evidence to support it.

No evidence anyone was ever asked to murder him.

It's a story told by one man, who has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Bottom line, Pitzer doesn't belong on your list, and neither does Dennis David. Neither had any connection with the autopsy or any autopsy film.


Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom