JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Good, so can you actually explain the difference is then?



And based on the evidence that has been adduced from the TBD, ballistic examination of the bullets, and the autopsy, that would be that there was a single shooter, who shot from the 6th floor of the TBD.



Sorry, no credible evidence of additional shooters has been adduced. The entry wound has been determined to have come from behind and above. And based on the terrain there is no other place where any additional shooters could have been. Your "mountain" is less than an anthill, let alone a molehill.



You've been given gov't training in how to write as unclearly as possible, haven't you?

Like many others on this board, you really need to distinguish between facts and conclusions unsupported by any facts.

 

[JayUtah]

Except for the 40 plus medical witnesses...

40 plus on the scene medical witnesses is hardly "scant'...

No, Robert. As explained to you ad nauseam, "Forty medical witnesses" does not substantiate that the evidence which isn't "forty medical witnesses" must necessarily be false.

You infer from your single-minded selective treatment of the evidence that photographic and documentary evidence to the contrary "must be" fake ... somehow. That is not the same as showing that it is fake. In fact, you admit you cannot, but try to argue that you don't have to.

You infer from the same single-minded cherry picking that there "must be" a shooter in front of the President. But this is not the same as showing evidence of the shooter. Nor can you address the contrary evidence against such a proposition; you simply assume it must "somehow" work out, since you have so strongly inferred what "must be" the case.

Every time someone asks you for evidence of your inferred conclusions (you know, to confirm that it actually happened that way), you simply repeat the inference: you cite the "forty medical witnesses" and thus demonstrate you have no real idea what it means to prove something. When we ask for evidence of photo fakery, you have to be able to provide it without mentioning "forty medical witnesses," otherwise it's just the inference. When we ask for evidence of a shooter ahead of JFK, you have to show evidence without referring to "forty medical witnesses." That's how proof works, instead of inference.

You cannot distinguish the concept of "was" from the concept of "must have been." Please learn the difference between inference and evidence.

...of the knee-jerk make believe world of the professional pooh-pooher.

Robert Prey never insults people. Or so he believes.

 

[JayUtah]

Like many others on this board, you really need to distinguish between facts and conclusions unsupported by any facts.

Heal thyself. Your beliefs that there was a shooter ahead of the president and that all the photographic and documentary evidence were faked are a "conclusion unsupported by any facts," because they are inferences that merely follow from your begged premise. You infer from belief what must be the case. You do not show by evidence what was the case.

 

[Robert Prey]

Heal thyself. Your beliefs that there was a shooter ahead of the president and that all the photographic and documentary evidence were faked are a "conclusion unsupported by any facts," because they are inferences that merely follow from your begged premise. You infer from belief what must be the case. You do not show by evidence what was the case.

The Evidence remains at 40 plus witnesses to your zero. You are out of ammo. Nuff said.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The rational thinker knows the difference between speculation and rational theory backed by evidence. There is only one rational theory as to the simple question as to one shooter as versus more than one, and a mountain of evidence in support the latter. As to the whos and the whats, and the hows and the other whys and wherefores, that ventures into the realm of speculation.

Robert your entire narrative is speculation.
You have yet to supply any objective evidence.
You ignore evidence speculating it maybe faked or maybe shows faked objects.
Objects you can not show to be faked.
You illustrated this with pictures of faaeries that can be proven objectively to be of two dimensional drawings on cut out paper.

You do yourself no favours by pretending others are speculating.

 

[Robert Prey]

None of the three expert agencies classed the photos as authentic. Two stated they could not see how they were staged, and the other said there were signs of faking.

And Doyle? He was a spiritualist...I would hardly class him as "the leading intellectual of the day". I mean, there were many better placed candidates for that in 1920.

"Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859–1930), best known as the author of Sherlock Holmes stories but also a devout spiritualist, was entirely convinced by a set of photographs apparently showing two young girls from Cottingley in Yorkshire playing with a group of tiny, translucent fairies. To demonstrate his unshakeable belief in the spirit world, he published The Coming of the Fairies in 1922. Doyle's book lays out the story of the photographs, their supposed provenance, and the implications of their existence.
Featuring an original extract from a 1920 article from The Liverpool Echo about Doyle and the fairy photographs, this quirky and fascinating book allows us to get inside the mind of an intelligent, highly respected man who happened to believe in fairies."

http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/the-coming-of-the-fairies/arthur-conan-doyle/9781446358382

 

[Tomtomkent]

But the Best Evidence is the body.

The best evidence would be the body.
Not descriptions of the body.
As neither of us is about to have access to the body we will settle for the best available evidence which are the autopsy, film, photographs and documents.

Until you can supply objective evidence for your narrative these remain the best available evidence.

As you are unable to discredit them they trump subjective memory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Evidence remains at 40 plus witnesses to your zero. You are out of ammo. Nuff said.

Provably wrong as it has been shown less than 40 of your listed witnesses were medically trained, less than 40 described what you thought and more than zero confirmed the wc conclusions.

Also a redundant statement as we have an objective and documentary record to overwrite subjective descriptors.

Please be more truthful in future.

 

[HSienzant]

".. we turned on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him... (IV, H-132-133)

... after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and to start to my left before I felt anything.

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet...

Mrs. Connally stated that she had the time to turn, after a shot had been fired, but previous to the moment when her husband was hit:

... I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle.

I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck."

... Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. (IV, H-147)


* * *

"Beyond any question, and I'll never change my opinion, the first bullet did not hit me. The second bullet did hit me. The third bullet did not hit me."

Doug Thompson later revealed that in 1982 he asked Connally if he was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed John F. Kennedy. "Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this. Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x302357

All this was rebutted previously. Read the thread. Here's just one link pointing out some of the questions with the issues you raised initially, then backed away from.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8167149&postcount=5220

Here's the rebuttal on the Thompson state. That too was debunked six months or more ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8245296&postcount=6566

You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you keep reposting nonsense deemed highly questionable as to its veracity half a year ago or more.

No fringe reset for you.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

The best evidence would be the body.
Not descriptions of the body.
As neither of us is about to have access to the body we will settle for the best available evidence which are the autopsy, film, photographs and documents.

Until you can supply objective evidence for your narrative these remain the best available evidence.

As you are unable to discredit them they trump subjective memory.

The body, the autopsy film, and the autopsy photos are either destroyed, six feet under, or hidden in a locked closet. Thus, the original witnesses offer the Best Evidence. Tell me in what court of law in America or England or any place where witnesses are not considered Evidence?????The Court of the Queen of Hearts, perhaps .

 

[Robert Prey]

All this was rebutted previously. Read the thread. Here's just one link pointing out some of the questions with the issues you raised initially, then backed away from.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8167149&postcount=5220

Here's the rebuttal on the Thompson state. That too was debunked six months or more ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8245296&postcount=6566

You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you keep reposting nonsense deemed highly questionable as to its veracity half a year ago or more.

No fringe reset for you.

Hank

I do not jump to somone's suggestion that I should go hopping along someone's suggested cyber bunny trail, unless that person first states a point.

 

[Robert Prey]

Provably wrong as it has been shown less than 40 of your listed witnesses were medically trained, less than 40 described what you thought and more than zero confirmed the wc conclusions.
.

But you couldn't name a single one.

 

[HSienzant]

The existence of the film in terms of what they show has also been corroborated by the stills seen by White House Photographer Joe O'Donnell taken by Robert Knudson which included photos of Kennedy on his stomach, revealing the large back of the head wound. Subsequently, these pictures were seen again, but very different. See the explanation by Joe O'Donnell at about 22:08 in Men Who Killed Kennedy, Episode 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rznWuemqXms

The O'Donnell nonsense is a new claim by you, but easily shown to be less than reliable:

Mr. O’Donnell’s family said “his claims to fame – made in television, newspaper and radio interviews, as well as on his own amateurish Web site – were not out of greed or fraud, but the confused statements of an ailing man in his last years. The only thing stolen, his widow and one of his sons said, was the soundness of his memory. While he was not formally diagnosed with a mental illness, he clearly became senile, his family said.”

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/09/truth-about-joe-odonnell.html

You're reduced to quoting a senile man who took credit for other's work and who also created some big - again, easily disproven - whoppers surrounding the assassination, like conversing with Jackie Kennedy just after she disembarked from Air Force 1 in Washington and gotten into the ambulance and before it took off for Bethesda. That entire scene was broadcast live, and tape survives to this day. No such encounter occurs.

Conclusion: O'Donnell's statements about the assassination are not reliable.

No big deal -- as far as I can tell, he might be one of your better witnesses.

As Dale Myers writes in the article cited above:

Is this how conspiracy theorists get to the truth of the matter? You bet it is, and has been for the better part of four decades. And you can also wager that the conspiracy crowd will continue to play these kinds of shell games with the true facts as long as they can – just as they have with the testimony of the late Joe O’Donnell. Count on it.

You are doing just that.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

40 plus witnesses

But you couldn't name a single one.

Nuff said.

LOL

 

[Border Reiver]

I do not jump to somone's suggestion that I should go hopping along someone's suggested cyber bunny trail, unless that person first states a point.

Robert, I know you will ignore this, but Hank did state why said links were there - to remind you that the points you were raising had previously been raised by you and throughly dealt with. His point is a subtle one I'm sure you'll agree - that you really have no interest in anything that contradicts your previously established positions.

 

[HSienzant]

I do not jump to somone's suggestion that I should go hopping along someone's suggested cyber bunny trail, unless that person first states a point.

The point is the cyber trail exists, and it shows your claims were disproven previously. Frankly, I don't care whether you do click on the link or not. But it is there, and it shows we covered all that ground, and it ended badly for you.

Hank

 

[TheRedWorm]

The Evidence remains at 40 plus witnesses to your zero. You are out of ammo. Nuff said.

No, the evidence is 76,411 to your puny 40. You brought a spitball to an M1A2 Abrams tank fight.

 

[HSienzant]

But you couldn't name a single one.

I named several months ago, provided the info, which you promptly ignored.

I then put them all together in one post for ease of reference, called you out on it numerous times, and you again declined to even try to rebut them.

Remember this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8966279&postcount=8358

Hank

 

[Tolls]

"Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859–1930), best known as the author of Sherlock Holmes stories but also a devout spiritualist, was entirely convinced by a set of photographs apparently showing two young girls from Cottingley in Yorkshire playing with a group of tiny, translucent fairies. To demonstrate his unshakeable belief in the spirit world, he published The Coming of the Fairies in 1922. Doyle's book lays out the story of the photographs, their supposed provenance, and the implications of their existence.
Featuring an original extract from a 1920 article from The Liverpool Echo about Doyle and the fairy photographs, this quirky and fascinating book allows us to get inside the mind of an intelligent, highly respected man who happened to believe in fairies."

http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/the-coming-of-the-fairies/arthur-conan-doyle/9781446358382

And?
How does that change what I said?

You did know that Doyle had been hired to write an article about fairies for some paranormal rag at the time the Cottingley photos were released? They were a godsend to a man who believed all that nonsense. Are you surprised?

I'd hate to think you were bringing all this up without actually knowing anything about Doyle's hobbies.

 

[JayUtah]

The Evidence remains at 40 plus witnesses to your zero.

No, the evidence remains "forty 'medical' witnesses" to everything else. If it weren't that way, you wouldn't be frantically trying to explain it all away.