JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[RoboTimbo]

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

A Link is not an argument. A link is a substitute for an argument.

LOL. Fringe reset.

 

[JayUtah]

Another swing and another miss. It was author James Randi who described Doyle as a leading intellectual as well as everything else you are desperately trying to discredit.

From James Randi, Flim Flam.

p. 59. "...eminent author and celebrity Sir Athur Conan Doyle, the creater of Sherlock Holmes."
p. 62. "Doyle, convinced of many irrationalities, has taken up the cause of spiritualism and become one of its leading lights. [paragraph] ...Probably there is no person better known in England or more widely respected."

Please quote from Randi's book where he has characterized Doyle as a "leading intellectual" as you say, and give a page number. Randi writes that Doyle was noteworthy, but that is not the same thing.

The autopsy pictures are not faked but the body pictured in the autopsy pictures -- the unvalidated bootleg photos, that is.

Yes, I know that is your claim regarding the autopsy photos. I know this because you've made the same claim many, many times yet have failed to prove it each time. If you are the one affirmatively claiming that the body depicted in the photos is some sort of stage prop or a real cadaver altered to show different injuries, then that is your burden or proof.

Your affirmative claim, your burden of proof. How you manage to think otherwise is baffling.

Keep in mind that your latest rehash of this topic was not limited to the autopsy photos until you decided to limit it that way. You have argued that other photos were doctored photographically, not photos of doctored props. Hence when people refer to the photographic and documentary record pertaining to this case, they are not limiting themselves to the autopsy photos only. Take care you do not fall into a straw-man argument you don't intend.

While you may have intended to raise the fairy photos as an illustration of how the autopsy photos may have been faked without doctoring negatives, you did also raise the point of "they fooled the experts," in a context where that argument would have been expected. Therefore don't be surprised if you are engaged on both points you bring up. It's hardly worth insulting your critics over an ambiguity you initiated.

That's the lesson of the Cottingley Fairies. Get it now????

Nah!

But you, Robert Prey, never insult your critics. You've said so yourself.

 

[JayUtah]

The autopsy x-rays and photos were never authenticated and specifically contrary to the observations of all the Parkland doctors and many others. Live with it.

Asked and answered. You simply choose not to accept the authentication.

 

[JayUtah]

A witness that agrees with scores of other witnesses.

Irrelevant when deposed decades after the fact.

You don't like that so you seek to discredit by resorting via ad hominem attack.

No, evaluating the credibility of a witness is appropriate when determining what value that witness testimony should have. A lay witness with a history of habitually misreporting or inventing fact is not a reliable witness.

Routine and predictable of those who lack valid evidence for their own views.

Translation: I cherry pick what I want and call the rest "invalid."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Lol at Roberts avoidance.

He is the arch-bishop of avoidance.

Right, Mr. Blow-out [sic]?

 

[HSienzant]

But you couldn't name ONE. What is it about the number ONE that you don't get?????

When I posted concerning ONE witness per post, you ignored them all.

I'm not going to bother to re-post them. As it stands now, you owe me responses for all those witnesses.

See the link where I put the single witnesses together in ONE post.

What is it about multiple points in ONE post you don't get?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

A witness that agrees with scores of other witnesses. You don't like that so you seek to discredit by resorting via ad hominem attack. Routine and predictable of those who lack valid evidence for their own views.

You still don't understand ad hominem, apparently.

Confronting the witness you in effect called to the stand with some of his own prior statements that are factually incorrect is not ad hominem, Robert. Pointing out to the jury his own family considers him senile isn't ad hominem, Robert.

Why don't you try to rehabilitate your witness, Robert?

Oh, you can't?

I understand.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

A Link is not an argument. A link is a substitute for an argument. If this is going over old ground, it is because someone else has dug it up.

I know you'd love to bury it, but it's important to remind you that we covered all this ground months ago, and you lost then. You don't have anything new, so why would you expect the outcome to be any different?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Another swing and another miss. It was author James Randi who described Doyle as a leading intellectual as well as everything else you are desperately trying to discredit. It's a simple lesson. The autopsy pictures are not faked but the body pictured in the autopsy pictures -- the unvalidated bootleg photos, that is. That's the lesson of the Cottingley Fairies. Get it now????

Nah!

Are you claiming the body of JFK was altered between Parkland hospital at 1:30pm and the autopsy at about 7pm? That makes no sense on a variety of levels, some of which we've already covered.

I'd love to hear your explanation for when and where Governor's Connally's wounds were altered. I'm pretty certain I raised that issue months ago, and I'm likewise pretty certain you avoided responding to it.

Further, positing shooters in front of JFK and the alteration of the body doesn't begin to explain what the conspirators plan would have been had JFK been wounded from the front in the shooting, been operated on in Dallas by the Parkland doctors, and lived to tell about it. Or if JBC had died and been subjected to an autopsy after being shot from the front. How do they alter the wounds of the two men then?


Hank

 

[Hans]

Are you claiming the body of JFK was altered between Parkland hospital at 1:30pm and the autopsy at about 7pm? That makes no sense on a variety of levels, some of which we've already covered.

I'd love to hear your explanation for when and where Governor's Connally's wounds were altered. I'm pretty certain I raised that issue months ago, and I'm likewise pretty certain you avoided responding to it.

Further, positing shooters in front of JFK and the alteration of the body doesn't begin to explain what the conspirators plan would have been had JFK been wounded from the front in the shooting, been operated on in Dallas by the Parkland doctors, and lived to tell about it. Or if JBC had died and been subjected to an autopsy after being shot from the front. How do they alter the wounds of the two men then?

Robert seems to very very afraid of such common sense question - and he refuses to acknowledge them.

One has to ask why the conspiractory elite came up with such a wide ranging, complex and contradictory way of shooting the president instead of doing what Oswald did, shoot him from behind using building he worked in. Why shoot him from the front and make it look like it came from the rear?

Care to explain Robert or shall we see you run away yet again, lol

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy x-rays and photos were never authenticated and specifically contrary to the observations of all the Parkland doctors and many others. Live with it.

You raised the point that the body was evidence. I responded that Finck, Humes, and Boswell had the body in front of them and determined the location of the wounds. You avoided that entirely to respond on my secondary point, that their conclusions were verified by other experts relying on the autopsy materials.

And your response above is entirely false.

The materials were authenticated. I asked you to tell me why you disagreed with the experts' assessment here. It is not contrary to the observations of all the Parkland doctors. That is another falsehood. Many of the doctors, as pointed out to you previously, gave statements entirely consistent with the autopsy report. You only pretend otherwise. See the link provided. I also pointed out you quoted the wrong man, and took a statement out of context to make your point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8967274&postcount=8366

 

[Hans]

When I posted concerning ONE witness per post, you ignored them all.

I'm not going to bother to re-post them. As it stands now, you owe me responses for all those witnesses.

See the link where I put the single witnesses together in ONE post.

What is it about multiple points in ONE post you don't get?

Hank

Robert you do know that Jesus is sadden when you lie about stuff like this why don't you answer Mr HSienzant question? - or are you admitting (again)that you are just trolling - and trolling as we know makes JC cry

 

[jargon buster]

One has to ask why the conspiractory elite came up with such a wide ranging, complex and contradictory way of shooting the president instead of doing what Oswald did, shoot him from behind using building he worked in. Why shoot him from the front and make it look like it came from the rear?

Its the same reason why Roberts having so much difficulty with this question.

Robert, if the film was altered, why was it altered to throw doubt on the lone shooter from the rear?

Robert claims the film is evidence of a shooter from the front/side (depending on what side of the bed he gets out of) and not a shot from the rear, now bear in mind he also claims the images to be doctored, the question is, why didn't they doctor it to eliminate any doubt that the shot did indeed come from the rear if they meant to frame Oswald?

TBH, the question has totally stumped him, he cant possibly answer it and remain in a favourable position.
He will carry on ignoring it.

 

[HSienzant]

A witness that agrees with scores of other witnesses. You don't like that so you seek to discredit by resorting via ad hominem attack. Routine and predictable of those who lack valid evidence for their own views.

He agrees with what others that said he talked to Jackie Kennedy at the airport?

What others affirm his statements concerning the photos he didn't take that he falsely claimed credit for?

What others affirm he and Jackie looked at the z-film together and he deleted ten feet of it?

None and none and none.

Given all that, and given these statements come four or more decades after the assassination, when his family claims he was senile, why should we believe any of his statements? I know you are desperate to inflate the witness count so you can make it appear insurmountable ("scores of witnesses"), but we both know your numbers are inflated, and this is just the latest example of your accepting anything that points to a conspiracy no matter how ludicrous, while rejecting anything that points to Oswald, no matter how well established.

Thanks for allowing me to expose your witness as not credible once again.

Hank

 

[Hans]

Its the same reason why Roberts having so much difficulty with this question.

Robert claims the film is evidence of a shooter from the front/side (depending on what side of the bed he gets out of) and not a shot from the rear, now bear in mind he also claims the images to be doctored, the question is, why didn't they doctor it to eliminate any doubt that the shot did indeed come from the rear if they meant to frame Oswald?

TBH, the question has totally stumped him, he cant possibly answer it and remain in a favourable position.
He will carry on ignoring it.

Yep I like how he ignores stuff and like a three old he thinks no one notices...I mean its just fricken' H I L A R I O U S!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Apparently it is impossible for people to have heard of conspiracy theories that have been around for years and for any one of many reasons add further misunderstanding or lies built upon others. Of it vaguely fits with anything already said it has to be true!

 

[HSienzant]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8967217&postcount=8365

Just a reminder that you owe me a response to this, Robert.

 

[jargon buster]

Yep I like how he ignores stuff and like a three old he thinks no one notices...I mean its just fricken' H I L A R I O U S!

Its obvious he doesn't really believe all the stuff he spouts, I don't understand why people spend time posting well thought out responses to his nonsense.
They claim its for other peoples benefit but TBH I don't think thats the case anymore. I don't believe anyone on this forum thinks he's anything but a troll.

 

[HSienzant]

And Tom Wilson, and Mara Zebest and others in the Birther thread. It's not really important to rehash those discussions except to note that Robert's engagement with expert testimony follows a very predictable story arc. He's just trying to throw another person on the pile.

Not trying to re-hash those discussions. However, I think it's important to remind Robert that we've covered this ground before ad infinitum (and cite the discussions) so any newbies coming onto this thread and reading the current page only don't think we're covering these points for the first time.

It speaks to Robert's credibility, in my opinion, if we point out how all these assertions of his were disproven months ago and he is just hoping it will come out differently this time.

I think the cites are important as they prove the point quite effectively. With over 200 pages of history in this thread, most people won't start from the beginning and read it all, I don't think.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Its obvious he doesn't really believe all the stuff he spouts, I don't understand why people spend time posting well thought out responses to his nonsense.
They claim its for other peoples benefit but TBH I don't think thats the case anymore. I don't believe anyone on this forum thinks he's anything but a troll.

I believe he believes it. I know - and have debated - scores of people who believe in a conspiracy to kill JFK, and for the most part they all think like Robert. If you don't think it's possible to believe the stuff he spouts, go to Dallas on 11/22/2013 and check out Dealey Plaza.

Or check out the Oswald Innocent Project (OIC) online.

There are some semi-rational types - like David Lifton - in that they try to think these things through logically and reach logical conclusions), but David's thought processes got derailed a while ago and he, accepting certain things as true that aren't, wound up creating an incredibly detailed and well-documented and well-thought out book entitled BEST EVIDENCE, which just happens to be totally absurd. I like him to a train off the tracks that has built up a lot of momentum and just goes crashing through everything in its path before it finally comes to rest somewhere.

Others, like Robert and Ralph Cinque, the creator of the OIC, happen to latch onto certain 'facts' and cling on for dear life, don't really think them through, and no amount of counter-evidence or counter-arguments will persuade them to let go. To me, those are more like weekend hikers lost in the woods. They often wind up going in circles, covering the same ground, and never can find their way out of the thicket they're lost in.

Hank