JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Hans]

None.

Is there any evidence LHO was in any way truthful when claiming to be a patsy?

It's interesting that Robert tells lies and misrepresents data, makes up stuff, etc and then lies about doing it - kinda like LHO appears to have done. It's strange that a demonstrated liar finds it impossible to believe someone else might also be a liar? How deliciously odd!

Great comedy gold Robert

Due to your violation of biblical standards of behaviour Jesus and Satan are doing unmentionable things

 

[Robert Prey]

T
But you lied also about the HSCA's evidentiary assessment of the photographs and x-rays, which is the only matter that's remotely on-topic. That's a black-and-white lie. You said one thing, and the ink of the HSCA findings says diametrically the opposite. You can't get any lie-ier than that.

.

So I merely quote directly from the HSCA Report, and you call it a lie?

Re: The Autopsy Photos:

"- They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

- Some of them were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

- In many of them, scaler references are entirely lacking, or, when present, are positioned in such a manner that it is difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features from anatomical landmarks.

- 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


Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness -- Bible

 

[Robert Prey]

So where is the evidence of any alteration or reconstruction in any autopsy photographs other than the sanitization that one of the photographers discussedwith the HSCA? (Robert should know all about this as he selected lines from her testimony stating the photographs she was shown were not the particular ones she took but for some reason neglected to quote her explanation of why).

There is none.

So where is the evidence of any alteration to any photographic or film evidence at all?

There is none.

How do you create a latent print you then retrieve with powder froma corpse?

You can't.

Where is the evidence that objective evidence was buried, destroyed or concealed?

There is none.

Where is the evidence for any other shooters?

None.

Does Robert have 40 medical witnesses that describe anything that is not contained in the WC,autopsy or other docuentary record?

Provably not, as has been shown. Contradctions and mutualy exclusive descriptionshave never been rationlised either. Testimony changes and alters over time. Memory is faliable, subjective description is faliable, and subjective understanding of others is faliable.

Is there any evidence LHO was in any way truthful when claiming to be a patsy?
Nope.

Was he a spy?
No. And if he was why didhe bumble into being a patsy so happily?

So there remains no objective or documentary evidence of a cover up, a second shooter, or any complicate party other than LHO? With the exception of unansweredquestions about the Cubans egging him on, there is no evidence of faked, altered or otherwise manipulated evidence and the later claims of witnesses, be they medical,technical or any other kind, can be shown to be false for understandable and mundane reasons with out a false dichtomy of if they were liars or mistaken.

Does anybody other than Mister Prey disagree?

Talk to yourself much?

 

[abaddon]

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness -- Bible

Then why do you do it?

 

[Robert Prey]

"In the absence of contradiction, the lies and liars win. This is particularly true for the JFK assassination, as even I have encountered otherwise sensible people who only know the CTs."

GRM: In my 27 years of researching the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case, I've experienced this scenario a hundred times over. Prior to researching the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case, my true crime obsession was the JFK case. I corresponded with several book authors from both sides of the fence and found the claims of conspiracy theorists to be without merit. Those who believe in MacDonald's innocence have formulated a propaganda machine that uses the media and discussion boards to put forth a variety of dubious claims.

Trust me, if the only responses to the lies put forth by MacDonald advocates were CID/FBI investigators/lawyers affiliated with the DOJ, journalistic vultures like Errol Morris would have obtained enough financial backing to create a documentary arguing for MacDonald's innocence. Whether it be Lee Harvey Oswald or Jeffrey MacDonald, responding to the unsubstantiated claims of those who advocate for psychopaths is a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

"As mentioned upthread, it also educates the general audience"

GRM: Exactly. I created a website on the MacDonald case in 2007, and educating the general public was the main reason why I got the site up and running.

"not only on the primary topic, but on related topics such as photogrammetry"

GRM: Speaking of photogrammetry, didn't Jack White ask the HSCA to explain to him what photogrammetry was? Classic.

"Finally, there's the entertainment factor."

GRM: Absolutely. I've only recently posted on this thread, but I get the same kind of enjoyment out of rebutting Robert's nonsense as I do when responding to MacDonald groupies on MacDonald case discussion boards.

I'm impressed.

 

[Robert Prey]

You're still obsessed with fairies apparently because they provide you with an endless series of cheap-shot personal attacks against your critics. Since it's the third time through most of the JFK stuff at least it's providing variety -- if entirely off-topic. What Conan Doyle thought of some old photographs has nothing to do with the fact that your attempts to discredit or undermine the objective evidence in the case in favor of your cherry-picked subjective opinions have fallen flat again.

Obsessed with fairies??? Oh, no. You miss the point. I'm obsessed with your obsession with "experts." The "experts" in the case of the Cottingly Fairies determined the photos were genuine. Just like your bought and paid for JFK photo experts who determined the autopsy photos as well as the backyard photos were genuine. Your cherry-picked reverence for "experts" seems to have a checkered history.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So I merely quote directly from the HSCA Report, and you call it a lie?

Re: The Autopsy Photos:

"- They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

- Some of them were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

- In many of them, scaler references are entirely lacking, or, when present, are positioned in such a manner that it is difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features from anatomical landmarks.

- 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


Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness -- Bible

And who does the HSCA claim is in the photos?

Perhaps you can not differentiate between discussion of quality for use and authentification, the rest of us can.

Please hilight any post where your direct quotes were called lies, or retract your personal attack against jay. That i am reporting by the way.

 

[Tolls]

The "experts" in the case of the Cottingly Fairies determined the photos were genuine.

No they didn't.
None of the three expert groups asked to analyse the photos classed them as authentic or genuine.

The only people who did were Doyle and the chap from the Theosophical Society whose name eludes me.

Will you please stop lying (and yes, it is lying) about this.

 

[jargon buster]

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

lol

 

[JayUtah]

So I merely quote directly from the HSCA Report, and you call it a lie?

Straw man. You tell us the HSCA did not "in any way" authenticate the photos and x-rays, and that is what I call a lie. The HSCA explicitly authenticated them, as you well know by now. Now, as then, you're pointing to a different section of the report where the authentication process was discussed and trying to interpolate it to say a different thing.

 

[JayUtah]

Obsessed with fairies?

Yes, quite. You're trying to shift goalposts from your obvious misrepresentation of the HSCA findings, so you're now trying to tell us that while they indeed did what we said they did, they somehow shouldn't have. Fairies seem like a nice distraction.

Regarding the HSCA you started with "That's not what the experts said," and now you've moved on to "Well, the experts said that, but they were wrong." Hence you're trying to find other (but irrelevant) examples of "experts being wrong" so that you don't have to deal directly with the case at hand. "Well if all the geniuses in Victorian England were wrong about the fairy photos," your argument goes, "then these other experts decades later could have been wrong about the autopsy photos."

Your fairy story is neither correctly related nor applicable. You're just winding everyone up about a tangential issue so that your backpedaling over the HSCA findings doesn't seem so obvious. Hence you ramble on about fairies and you re-quote other portions of the HSCA writings that seem to (but don't) say a different thing.

I'm obsessed with your obsession with "experts."

My obsession? I think you mean yours. In all the threads on this forum I haven't discussed or brought up a single expert except for those pseudo-experts you mentioned.

Although I read this thread for several months, I started posting in it only when you started singing the praises of Jack White, telling us he was a highly respected expert and we had to obey his findings. Then months later you spent ten pages trying to cram Tom Wilson's nonsense down our throats. In the Birther thread you paraded out Mara Zebest and that Oregon farmer who's also a Volvo mechanic and an photo analyst, as well as a host people you claimed up and down, left and right were experts and had to be respected as such.

Try again, Robert. That straw man won't dance. I only rebut the arguments you give us. And if you noticed that my rebuttals deal with the question of experts, then you'd better take a step back and look at your arguments.

The "experts" in the case of the Cottingly Fairies determined the photos were genuine.

Nope.

Just like your bought and paid for JFK photo experts...

Sour grapes.

Your claim that the autopsy photographs and x-rays "were never authenticated" is a bald-faced lie, and you have been shown the black-and-white ink proving it. The rest is just frantic misdirection, goalpost-shifting, and handwaving.

 

[Robert Prey]

Your claim that the autopsy photographs and x-rays "were never authenticated" is a bald-faced lie, and you have been shown the black-and-white ink proving it. The rest is just frantic misdirection, goalpost-shifting, and handwaving.

You call these exact words from the Report, a "lie." I'll cut you some slack and call it your own Orwellian Doublethink.

"- 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

 

[Robert Prey]

No they didn't.
None of the three expert groups asked to analyse the photos classed them as authentic or genuine.

The only people who did were Doyle and the chap from the Theosophical Society whose name eludes me.

Will you please stop lying (and yes, it is lying) about this.

"The photographs have been examined by experts and declared unquestionably genuine and beyond any possibility of fakery." -- J. Randi, "Flim Flam" P. 20

 

[Robert Prey]

It's interesting that Robert tells lies...":

Name one.

(Crickets chirping)

 

[JayUtah]

You call these exact words from the Report, a "lie."

No I do not, and I'll thank you to stop trying to put words in my mouth. I told you twice before what I considered to be a lie, and clearly I'll have to tell you again. You said the HSCA had "in no way authenticated" the HSCA photos. That statement of yours is a lie.

I do not, nor have any time time, declared that your irrelevant excerpts from other portions of the findings are "a lie." You simply want them to stand in lieu of the plain declaration of the HSCA's decision. They do not. HSCA explicitly authenticated the photos and x-rays and you have been shown the plain, simple sentences in which that finding was expressed.

 

[JayUtah]

Name one.

I gave you three examples yesterday. Why didn't you address them then?

 

[Hans]

Name one.

(Crickets chirping)

Already posted Robert please try harder

 

[JayUtah]

"The photographs have been examined by experts and declared unquestionably genuine and beyond any possibility of fakery." -- J. Randi, "Flim Flam" P. 20

Asked and answered. And frankly I'm surprised you would attempt the same cherry-pick after I exposed your dishonesty on this point yesterday.

This statement is from Randi's summary of Doyle's affirmative claims. It expresses what Doyle believed, not what was actually the case. Doyle believed the people who he had shown the photographs were experts and had certified them as real. Randi spends the rest of the chapter showing how Doyle's beliefs -- including this statement -- were factually in error.

Now what was that again about my supposed obsession with experts?

 

[Hans]

Asked and answered. And frankly I'm surprised you would attempt the same cherry-pick after I exposed your dishonesty on this point yesterday.

This statement is from Randi's summary of Doyle's affirmative claims. It expresses what Doyle believed, not what was actually the case. Doyle believed the people who he had shown the photographs were experts and had certified them as real. Randi spends the rest of the chapter showing how Doyle's beliefs -- including this statement -- were factually in error.

Now what was that again about my supposed obsession with experts?

Oh man Robert is trying fringe resets on things that happened less than 36 hours ago? Now that's sloppy trolling. Robert look on page 134-145 of 'Trolling for Dummies', it covers the basics of how to do a proper reset, parameters and criteria and a few ways to word it right.

 

[Robert Prey]

Asked and answered. And frankly I'm surprised you would attempt the same cherry-pick after I exposed your dishonesty on this point yesterday.

This statement is from Randi's summary of Doyle's affirmative claims. It expresses what Doyle believed, not what was actually the case. Doyle believed the people who he had shown the photographs were experts and had certified them as real. Randi spends the rest of the chapter showing how Doyle's beliefs -- including this statement -- were factually in error.

Now what was that again about my supposed obsession with experts?

Exactly. Doyle's obsession with professed experts. Just like your obsession with professed experts as versus non-experts, but absolutely no common sense.