JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Suggestion give Robert one time to answer the questions and if he refuses take that as his conceding the point(s)
 
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.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my post? I'm comparing two points of evidence. One is circumstantially unreliable because its existence and provenance cannot be ascertained and exists only as recollections of what some people said they saw. The other isn't. You reject the reliable evidence as somehow fake, while you hold to the evidence for which there exists only that second-hand rumor.

Why is your approach rational by any standard?
 
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...


No, my statement was the HSCA found LHO was the only shooter to hit the two victims:

"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.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
Suggestion give Robert one time to answer the questions and if he refuses take that as his conceding the point(s)
Click to expand...

I do that all the time. That doesn't mean he would take it as a concession. If he doesn't choose answer a question, the question never existed for him. Then three months later he'll raise the point again as if nothing had ever happened. This is why he's got such a palette of responses that basically mean he doesn't have to be accountable to anyone's questions. Yet somehow we've all got our heads in the sand...
 
Robert Prey said:
No. It's another laundry list. I'm not going to go through sources for all forty plus witnesses in one post. Already done that in the past 200 plus pages. One challenge at a time, please.
Click to expand...


No Robert. Don't lie. You never attempted to rebut those. As I noted, you ignored them the first time through as individual posts, you ignored them when I posted them as a collection, and now you ignore them again.

They are rebutted. Ignore them all you want. We both know why you will.

Hank
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
What does that have to do with my post? I'm comparing two points of evidence. One is circumstantially unreliable because its existence and provenance cannot be ascertained and exists only as recollections of what some people said they saw. The other isn't. You reject the reliable evidence as somehow fake, while you hold to the evidence for which there exists only that second-hand rumor.

Why is your approach rational by any standard?
Click to expand...

Your "reliable" autopsy photo evidence cannot be authenticated or even identified as being the body of JFK much less the unaltered body or unaltered photo of the body of JFK.
 
HSienzant said:
No Robert. Don't lie. You never attempted to rebut those. As I noted, you ignored them the first time through as individual posts, you ignored them when I posted them as a collection, and now you ignore them again.

They are rebutted. Ignore them all you want. We both know why you will.

Hank
Click to expand...

One challenge at a time or forget about it.
 
Robert Prey said:
Your "reliable" autopsy photo evidence cannot be authenticated or even identified as being the body of JFK much less the unaltered body or unaltered photo of the body of JFK.
Click to expand...

Shifting the burden of proof. That's just another way for you to say you think they're all fake, even though you can't prove it.

And no, don't try. This thread contains the debate already, and you abandoned it twice. Not going to play your fringe-reset game anymore.
 
Robert Prey said:
Your "reliable" autopsy photo evidence cannot be authenticated or even identified as being the body of JFK much less the unaltered body or unaltered photo of the body of JFK.
Click to expand...


Except they were authenticated and identified by the HSCA panel as of the body of JFK. Have you even read the report?

There's no evidence the body was altered prior to the autopsy. That's a fantasy by David Lifton.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Your "reliable" autopsy photo evidence...
Click to expand...

And by the way, I was referring to the Zapruder film, not the autopsy photos. That film exists. Everyone has seen it. But despite all that, you say it has to be fake.

But tell the story of another film that no one can produce, but which conspiracy theories say exists. The evidence? Two guys say they saw it. And whaddya know, it magically-allegedly contains smoking-gun evidence of a coverup. That film, according to you, is unquestionably real.

Sheesh.
 
JayUtah said:
Shifting the burden of proof. That's just another way for you to say you think they're all fake, even though you can't prove it.

And no, don't try. This thread contains the debate already, and you abandoned it twice. Not going to play your fringe-reset game anymore.
Click to expand...

Failing to prove authenticity, you challenge me to prove a negative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom