JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

But I just proved that the HSCA stated they were not in any way authenticated.

Funny how none of the words you're trying to paste onto that finding actually appear in it. Funny how, despite your belief that they didn't authenticate the photographs, they went ahead and used them as evidence as if they had been of Kennedy.

You say the very opposite of what the Report says.

Check the last few pages, Robert. You don't have a very good track record of reading comprehension, nor a very good track record of accurately quoting your sources. You misquoted Randi over Arthur Conan Doyle, and in another case you had to doctor up a quote from me to save yourself. You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for what someone else has written or what he meant by it.

And Jay says it's all irrelevant, which goes to prove the adage, that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

No, Robert, your feeble arguments are not so self-evidently correct that any who dispute them must be, as you say, brainwashed. You were asked for evidence that, as you claimed, the HSCA had not authenticated the photos. Instead you gave us observations about their quality. From those observations, you went ahead to draw your own conclusion that the panel did not authenticate them, or shouldn't have. That is your conclusion, not theirs. You don't get to try to paste it back upon them, nor compel us to apprehend otherwise.

In fact, despite the stated difficulties in doing so, the panel did authenticate the photos as being of Kennedy. Trying to go back and revisit that decision, or make it yourself on behalf of all your readers, won't work.

That is why your quotation was irrelevant. You were asked for evidence of a decision. You instead tried to give us points from deliberation that led to the decision, and imply it went or should have gone another way than what actually happened.

There is just no way to make a person remove his head from the sand or from the brainwash in his head, if he refuses to cooperate.

No, Robert. Refusing to have a pasted-on meaning dictated to us is not a "refusal to cooperate." But do keep trying to tell us that everyone except for you is brainwashed and uncooperative.

 

[Hans]

7 HSCA 46

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0028b.htm

Others better than I have all ready pointed out that you're deliberately lying about this Robert - but we realize that you're a troll and you just have to do it don't you? tsk tsk

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0030a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0030b.htm

Robert how do you actually plan to win this 'discussion' with such lame attempts at childish deception?

Because of your obvious sins Jesus and Satan are holding hands now.

Tomtomkent, Jay and others are ripping you to pieces and I'm just making fun of your fumbling attempts to be a troll......lol

 

[jargon buster]

You're free to ignore this discussion at any time.

For someone as switched on as you Im surprised you haven't noticed it isn't actually a "discussion" at all.
Its Robert posting waffle and you taking it seriously.

 

[HSienzant]

- Not one of them contains information identifying the victim, such as his name, the autopsy case number, and the date and place of the examination.

7 HSCA 46

Yes, that is true. You are taking that out of context, as that is one of the issues they listed as having to overcome to authenticate them. But they authenticated them of JFK nonetheless. You may have photos of yourself that you could authenticate in court as photos of yourself. Those may have no information on them indicating the photographer, the subject, the time and date of the photo, but you could still affirm it is you in the photo.

Read the HSCA and tell me what they got wrong in the authentication process.

Bet you won't.

Bet you can't.

You're reduced to taking quotes out of context.

Hilarious.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

"In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and perhaps sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial. Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative."

7 HSCA 46

Again, this is the report listing what issues they needed to overcome to authenticate the photos. You are taking that out of context. Keep up the good work. I like exposing conspiracy myths as nonsense.

They did authenticate them.

 

[JayUtah]

For someone as switched on as you Im surprised you haven't noticed it isn't actually a "discussion" at all.
Its Robert posting waffle and you taking it seriously.

I am not bound by your impressions of how I take this discussion. I don't take your attempts to second-guess me any more seriously than I take Robert's. My reasons for participating in this thread are mine alone and are not subject to your attempts to discover them, nor to your moral approbation.

Seriously, the forum provides a feature that lets you never again see a particular thread. If the existence of this thread in its present form offends you, you are free never to set foot in it again. You may even disregard the thread on as fine-grained a basis as individual posters, with whose approach you may disagree. If your principal contribution to this thread is simply going to be your disapproval of the fact that others participate in it, I don't see why it merits attention either.

 

[JayUtah]

Others better than I have all ready pointed out that you're deliberately lying about this Robert

Indeed. The language of the finding is explicit. The photos and x-rays were affirmatively accepted as authentic by the HSCA, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is deliberaly dishonest. One may argue one's opinion that they should have concluded otherwise. One may argue one's opinion that the conclusion was not properly motivated. But one may not dispute what the conclusion is. That is set forth in black and white and is not in any material dispute.

In the course of my work I'm often required to issue findings in the face of ambiguous or conflicting evidence. Naturally that requires expert judgment, but it is not simply a matter of my opinion. Such a statement typically identifies the standard of evidence that will be applied and describes how it applies to this question. It sets forth a rationale for why that standard is applicable in this case and contrasts it with others that may be applicable, often including other examples of where it has been applied in similar situations. It then surveys the evidence and applies the standard to it. The findings are then the result of applying that standard -- which may identify contrary evidence but then note its failure to rise to the prescribed standard.

Simply saying, "These are the things we considered while making our determination," does not somehow say that the determination was not made, nor that it should have been something else.

 

[Hans]

Indeed. The language of the finding is explicit. The photos and x-rays were affirmatively accepted as authentic by the HSCA, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is deliberaly dishonest. One may argue one's opinion that they should have concluded otherwise. One may argue one's opinion that the conclusion was not properly motivated. But one may not dispute what the conclusion is. That is set forth in black and white and is not in any material dispute.

In the course of my work I'm often required to issue findings in the face of ambiguous or conflicting evidence. Naturally that requires expert judgment, but it is not simply a matter of my opinion. Such a statement typically identifies the standard of evidence that will be applied and describes how it applies to this question. It sets forth a rationale for why that standard is applicable in this case and contrasts it with others that may be applicable, often including other examples of where it has been applied in similar situations. It then surveys the evidence and applies the standard to it. The findings are then the result of applying that standard -- which may identify contrary evidence but then note its failure to rise to the prescribed standard.

Simply saying, "These are the things we considered while making our determination," does not somehow say that the determination was not made, nor that it should have been something else.

Well said Jay

_________________________________________________________

Robert may I suggest that you try the following for your next episode of being shot down in flames.

Why not cover how the Fritolay company had JFK shot because he was planning to block the production of Cheetos. Right up your alley and well within your demonstrated level of proficiency

Good luck

 

[jargon buster]

I am not bound by your impressions of how I take this discussion. I don't take your attempts to second-guess me any more seriously than I take Robert's. My reasons for participating in this thread are mine alone and are not subject to your attempts to discover them, nor to your moral approbation.

I couldn't care less what you think about me, and I couldn't care less if you want to be fuel for Robert's trolling.
You keep posting Jay
I will just keep poking fun at him and watch him avoid me, trolls do that you know, thats what gives them away, they only troll people who allow themselves to be trolled.
Take it how you like Jay, hes got your number.

 

[Robert Prey]

Check the last few pages, Robert. You don't have a very good track record of reading comprehension, nor a very good track record of accurately quoting your sources. You misquoted Randi over Arthur Conan Doyle,

No. I never even quoted Randi, but I will do so now:

""Two unsophisticated girls, unfamiliar with photographic trickery, with no motive at all, have photographed fairies and a gnome in a glen. The photogrpahs have been examined by experts and declared unquestionably genuine and beyond any possibility of fakery" -- James Randi from "Flim Flam", Page 20

Comment: Thus, the photgraphs of the fairies are just as true, just as honest and just as genuine as are the autopsy photos of JFK.

 

[Robert Prey]

Indeed. The language of the finding is explicit. The photos and x-rays were affirmatively accepted as authentic by the HSCA, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is deliberaly dishonest. One may argue one's opinion that they should have concluded otherwise. One may argue one's opinion that the conclusion was not properly motivated. But one may not dispute what the conclusion is. That is set forth in black and white and is not in any material dispute.

In the course of my work I'm often required to issue findings in the face of ambiguous or conflicting evidence. Naturally that requires expert judgment, but it is not simply a matter of my opinion. Such a statement typically identifies the standard of evidence that will be applied and describes how it applies to this question. It sets forth a rationale for why that standard is applicable in this case and contrasts it with others that may be applicable, often including other examples of where it has been applied in similar situations. It then surveys the evidence and applies the standard to it. The findings are then the result of applying that standard -- which may identify contrary evidence but then note its failure to rise to the prescribed standard.

Simply saying, "These are the things we considered while making our determination," does not somehow say that the determination was not made, nor that it should have been something else.

In other words, if the facts are in contravention to the "required findings," just disregard the facts. You would have fit right in as a HSCA "expert."

 

[JayUtah]

No. I never even quoted Randi...

You might just as well have. You said Randi described Conan Doyle as a "leading intellectual." I said no, Conan Doyle was an avowed mystic and spiritualist. Randi goes on for a whole page on this. Then in response you said:

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.

Naturally I have asked you to substantiate this claim from Randi's book. And just as naturally, you cannot do it. Randi did not describe Conan Doyle as an "intellectual," leading or otherwise. Randi describes him as a well-known celebrity and a spiritualist -- and a nut case, as we see below. It matters because you were trying to use Conan Doyle as a yardstick to show that even clever men could be fooled by simple tricks.

Why is it that every time you are asked to show that you have read and understood something properly, you shirk? Where did I "declare victory," as you claim? You couldn't find anything, so you had to blatantly doctor some quotes. Where did the HSCA decline to authenticate in the Kennedy x-rays and autopsy photographs "in any way," as you claim? Nowhere -- in fact they explicitly write otherwise.

but I will do so now:

Because you desperately need to draw attention away from how often you're getting caught lying in this thread.

"Two unsophisticated girls, unfamiliar with photographic trickery, with no motive at all, have photographed fairies and a gnome in a glen. The photogrpahs have been examined by experts and declared unquestionably genuine and beyond any possibility of fakery"

And you're busted again. You cherry-picked the quote away from the first sentence, which explains its meaning. Writes Randi:

"To sum up the case for the defense: Two unsophisticated girls, unfamiliar with photographic trickery, with no motive at all, have photographed..."

and he continues on as Robert has quoted, for a substantial paragraph -- summarizing Conan Doyle. Contrary to how Robert has misleadingly framed the quote, Randi is summarizing Conan Doyle's claims, made in his book on fairies. Randi is not expounding the facts as he sees them but rather the "facts" as Conan Doyle has claimed them to be. And Randi continues:

"Does all this sound convincing? Yes, quite, if you choose to believe that the facts are as presented: that the experts were really competent, that Doyle was a logical thinker, that the photographs could not have been fabricated by the girls, and that there was no motive to do so. But let us present some of that "earnest and honest criticism" so admired by Sir Arthur."

He then goes on to dismantle the case, in the process showing how Conan Doyle projected his eminently logical character of Sherlock Holmes onto himself and convinced himself he could do no wrong, intellectually speaking, and how he eschewed criticism and refutation. Not surprising then that Robert's cherry-picked quote (more from Doyle than from Randi) expresses just that naive self-assurance that Robert is desperately trying to pin on Randi.

An honest misquote? Hardly. Robert intentionally removed the context.

Comment: Thus, the photgraphs of the fairies are just as true, just as honest and just as genuine as are the autopsy photos of JFK.

How much redder are you going to let this herring get before we can drag you back to the subject?

You claimed the HSCA did not authenticate the photos and x-rays. You are simply lying. They did. If you want to argue that they shouldn't have, that's a discussion we've already had and you lost (twice). But if you're talking about the chapter-and-verse of what the HSCA wrote, you're simply, clearly, unequivocally lying.

 

[JayUtah]

In other words...

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

[Hans]

What Robert making stuff up and lying? Great snakes what a new and unexpected development! OMG

Ah Robert we know you're a liar, you do it all the time, you don't need to 'prove' it to us in each posting, lol

 

[Tomtomkent]

Comment: Thus, the photgraphs of the fairies are just as true, just as honest and just as genuine as are the autopsy photos of JFK.

Wait, so because some people said the faeries were genuine, the JFK photos are also faked?

OK. So we now know that the faerie photos are faked because of a variety of evidence sources, including in depth analysis of the photos. You can of course supply such evidence to validate your comparrison to the (authenticated) JFK photos?

And no, Jack White and fantasy computer processes don't count. Actual evidence please.

 

[Tomtomkent]

In other words, if the facts are in contravention to the "required findings," just disregard the facts. You would have fit right in as a HSCA "expert."

Those are indeed other words, but they are not other words for what Jay said.

Why don't you try discussing the points he actually raised instead of creating a straw man?

By the way. The JFK Autopsy photos were authenticated, I have never declared victory, I have not called myself a scholar, and Robotimo might still like to know what time it is in his photo. I would still like to know what level of confidence "using a protractor" translates to as well.

Are we gish galloping towards another fringe reset?

 

[vtbub]

Still think he's not trolling?

 

[jargon buster]

JayUtah wrote

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
No. I never even quoted Randi...
You might just as well have. You said Randi described Conan Doyle as a "leading intellectual." I said no, Conan Doyle was an avowed mystic and spiritualist. Randi goes on for a whole page on this. Then in response you said:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
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.
Naturally I have asked you to substantiate this claim from Randi's book. And just as naturally, you cannot do it. Randi did not describe Conan Doyle as an "intellectual," leading or otherwise. Randi describes him as a well-known celebrity and a spiritualist -- and a nut case, as we see below. It matters because you were trying to use Conan Doyle as a yardstick to show that even clever men could be fooled by simple tricks.

Why is it that every time you are asked to show that you have read and understood something properly, you shirk? Where did I "declare victory," as you claim? You couldn't find anything, so you had to blatantly doctor some quotes. Where did the HSCA decline to authenticate in the Kennedy x-rays and autopsy photographs "in any way," as you claim? Nowhere -- in fact they explicitly write otherwise.

Quote:
but I will do so now:
Because you desperately need to draw attention away from how often you're getting caught lying in this thread.

Quote:
"Two unsophisticated girls, unfamiliar with photographic trickery, with no motive at all, have photographed fairies and a gnome in a glen. The photogrpahs have been examined by experts and declared unquestionably genuine and beyond any possibility of fakery"
And you're busted again. You cherry-picked the quote away from the first sentence, which explains its meaning. Writes Randi:
Quote:
"To sum up the case for the defense: Two unsophisticated girls, unfamiliar with photographic trickery, with no motive at all, have photographed..."
and he continues on as Robert has quoted, for a substantial paragraph -- summarizing Conan Doyle. Contrary to how Robert has misleadingly framed the quote, Randi is summarizing Conan Doyle's claims, made in his book on fairies. Randi is not expounding the facts as he sees them but rather the "facts" as Conan Doyle has claimed them to be. And Randi continues:
Quote:
"Does all this sound convincing? Yes, quite, if you choose to believe that the facts are as presented: that the experts were really competent, that Doyle was a logical thinker, that the photographs could not have been fabricated by the girls, and that there was no motive to do so. But let us present some of that "earnest and honest criticism" so admired by Sir Arthur."
He then goes on to dismantle the case, in the process showing how Conan Doyle projected his eminently logical character of Sherlock Holmes onto himself and convinced himself he could do no wrong, intellectually speaking, and how he eschewed criticism and refutation. Not surprising then that Robert's cherry-picked quote (more from Doyle than from Randi) expresses just that naive self-assurance that Robert is desperately trying to pin on Randi.

An honest misquote? Hardly. Robert intentionally removed the context.

Quote:
Comment: Thus, the photgraphs of the fairies are just as true, just as honest and just as genuine as are the autopsy photos of JFK.
How much redder are you going to let this herring get before we can drag you back to the subject?

You claimed the HSCA did not authenticate the photos and x-rays. You are simply lying. They did. If you want to argue that they shouldn't have, that's a discussion we've already had and you lost (twice). But if you're talking about the chapter-and-verse of what the HSCA wrote, you're simply, clearly, unequivocally lying.

And here a photo of Roberts response when he read this post

 

[JayUtah]

Still think he's not trolling?

Of course he's trolling. He's been trolling about half a dozen threads for at least the past year.

 

[jargon buster]

And yet here you are still posting walls of text to debunk him.
Tell me Jay, do you go up to the guy in the street with the sandwich board with "the end is nigh" written on it explaining to him in great detail that he's wrong?