JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't, he's just pulling your leg, I actually thought you were aware of that.
Why do you think he ignores me yet plays with you because he knows you will keep posting walls of text?
 
jargon buster said:
No he doesn't, he's just pulling your leg, I actually thought you were aware of that.
Why do you think he ignores me yet plays with you because he knows you will keep posting walls of text?
Click to expand...


Well, like I said, he fits the same M.O. of the others I've debated (with a few exceptions), and I can't imagine they're all pulling my leg (maybe the joke's on me).

I'm assuming Robert is a typical conspiracy theorist, as I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Its because I don't respond to his trolling, I simply twist his words back on him and ask him to answer questions, he knows Im onto him so he just ignores me.
If he were a true CT loon he would be debating me as well, he isn't, because he doesn't.
 
jargon buster said:
Its because I don't respond to his trolling, I simply twist his words back on him and ask him to answer questions, he knows Im onto him so he just ignores me.
If he were a true CT loon he would be debating me as well, he isn't, because he doesn't.
Click to expand...

+1

When you actually break things into simple questions he can easily answer, they get ignored and he hopes they get buried in the avalanche of the next fringe reset.

He hardly responds to those kinds of questions. Anything that requies a construction of the days events goes unanswered.

I'm on the troll side with him.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Name one.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Speculation is speculation. Facts are facts. A large blow-out in the back of the head points to more than one shooter. Deal with it.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

I merely present facts. I leave declarations of victory to others who cannot refute them..
 
Robert Prey said:
Speculation is speculation. Facts are facts. A large blow-out in the back of the head points to more than one shooter. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Said with all the panache of troll in denial mode. Robert we know you're deliberately ignoring questions you cannot answer.

We are laughing at you and Jesus is very sad at your lying too!

lol
 
Robert Prey said:
I merely present facts. I leave declarations of victory to others who cannot refute them..
Click to expand...

Oh troll language for "I make stuff up, refuse to answer questions and try to sound smart"

Still laughing at you Robert I particularly like how Jay rips your weak comments into tiny little pieces, hilarious
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

A hack NYT reporter from the most discredited, biased newspaper in the country presents slanderous hearsay about a dead man who cannot respond nor sue. No need to respond to such an obvious attempt to discredit another anti WC witness I merely point out the fact that his observations of those original pics are consistent with 40 plus medical witnesses, particularly all of the Parkland doctors and the point out his live interview on TMWKK shoiwing a rational man, not a bit senile, who served in the State Dept.and US Information Agency under six Presidents. That would be enough to overcome any cowardly NYT weasel who would attempt to slander a dead man.
 
Robert Prey said:
A hack NYT reporter from the most discredited, biased newspaper in the country presents slanderous hearsay about a dead man who cannot respond nor sue. No need to respond to such an obvious attempt to discredit another anti WC witness I merely point out the fact that his observations of those original pics are consistent with 40 plus medical witnesses, particularly all of the Parkland doctors and the point out his live interview on TMWKK shoiwing a rational man, not a bit senile, who served in the State Dept.and US Information Agency under six Presidents. That would be enough to overcome any cowardly NYT weasel who would attempt to slander a dead man.
Click to expand...

Baloney, lol
 
Robert Prey said:
I merely present facts. I leave declarations of victory to others who cannot refute them..
Click to expand...

You present only the small subset of facts that seem to support your pre-existing belief. Among the facts you failed to present is evidence that anyone is "claiming victory." Remember? That's why you fled the last time. You got called on it and couldn't deliver.

While we're on that subject, I asked you to quote chapter and verse from Randi where he calls Conan Doyle a "leading intellectual." Since you declared victory over that ("Another swing and a miss..."), I'm really gonna have to press you for that.
 
HSienzant said:
There you go! We knew it wouldn't be long for you to resort to that.

Hank
Click to expand...

If you use the search function you'll find Robert has used that term 150+ times in response to well reasoned posts, ie ignoring them - it also works well to respond to his factless rants......lol

Hank do you actually think you'll ever get him to respond to your debunking of his medical witnesses?
 
Robert Prey said:
That would be enough to overcome any cowardly NYT weasel who would attempt to slander a dead man.
Click to expand...
But YOU are slandering a dead man. YOU are claiming that LHO was not capable of plotting the assassination. YOU are claiming that LHO was incapable of placing three shots on the target in the time available. YOU are slandering his marine training. YOU are claiming that he was to stupid to realise he was being set up.

Why do you slander a dead man? What kind of weasel are you?
 
abaddon said:
But YOU are slandering a dead man. YOU are claiming that LHO was not capable of plotting the assassination. YOU are claiming that LHO was incapable of placing three shots on the target in the time available. YOU are slandering his marine training. YOU are claiming that he was to stupid to realise he was being set up.

Why do you slander a dead man? What kind of weasel are you?
Click to expand...

A Mustela nivalis with a crippled debate component?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom