JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't "authenticate" a thing with a conclusion. You authenticate a thing with facts. And the facts are devoid of any support for authentication.
 
Robert Prey said:
Name one.

(Crickets chirping)
Click to expand...

That the autopsy photos were not authenticated.

Here is anther ONE: That I declare victory.

Here is another ONE: That more than 40 medical witnesses substantiate your claim.

Need I continue providing more examples, any of which are but one?
 
Robert Prey said:
You don't "authenticate" a thing with a conclusion. You authenticate a thing with facts. And the facts are devoid of any support for authentication.
Click to expand...

Which facts prove the photos are not authentic?
None of the statements you post void the anthropological study. They question if the photos are fit for submission to court, not authenticity.

See, you bore false witness again.

Oh, and for the record, yes an authority judgement does deem items authentic by conclusion.
 
Robert Prey said:
Exactly. Doyle's obsession with professed experts. Just like your obsession with professed experts as versus non-experts, but absolutely no common sense.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. I discuss only the experts you attempt to bring to the table in support of your points. Only when those "experts" are roundly debunked do you change horses and appeal to "common sense" instead.
 
Robert Prey said:
You don't "authenticate" a thing with a conclusion. You authenticate a thing with facts. And the facts are devoid of any support for authentication.
Click to expand...

Still trying to change the argument. You deliberately misrepresented the conclusions of HSCA. Trying to tell us they should have instead decided the way you would have is just wishful thinking, and a distraction from your aforementioned lie.

Can you explain why you told us the HSCA had not authenticated the JFK photos and x-rays when they very clearly say they did?
 
So, some unanswered questions that may require some common sense to answer:

How can a film like the Z film be altered with out trace using the technology of the time?
How did the ejecta visible leave through the small hole Robert describes?
As it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that it is JFK in the (authenticated) autopsy photos what methods were used to create the "fake" injuries with out evidence?
When and where were the photo evidence faked?
How does one create LATENT prints from a corpse tobe collected by a powder medium?
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. I discuss only the experts you attempt to bring to the table in support of your points. Only when those "experts" are roundly debunked do you change horses and appeal to "common sense" instead.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. You have repeatedly placed you imprimatur on the HSCA photo "experts" as having approved as authentic the fake back yard photos as well as the completely un-authenticated autopsy photos.
 
Robert Prey said:
You have repeatedly placed you imprimatur on the HSCA photo "experts" as having approved as authentic the fake back yard photos...
Click to expand...

No. Nowhere in this thread have I referred to HSCA or anyone else as "experts" in whom I place my confidence. In fact you went into considerable apoplecty trying to bait me into accepting such a burden of proof. Thankfully I'm attentive enough not to fall for such amateur debate tricks. So kindly do not insinuate that I actually did what you desperately and unsuccessfully tried to bait me into doing.

The only one invoking expert testimony in the examination of the backyard photos is you, in claiming they were proven to be fake. That testimony was discussed and refuted, and will not be revisited again simply because you're bored.

...as well as the completely un-authenticated autopsy photos.
Click to expand...

And the lie repeats.

It is a simple factual determination. Did a certain assembly say a certain thing? You say they didn't, but the records of the assembly say they did. You're simply wrong. And now you're trying to pollute that very straightforward determination with tangential issues such as whether their statements were justified.

As I've said repeatedly for the past several pages, the question of what happened is not affected by questions of whether it should rightly have happened another way.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Which facts prove the photos are not authentic?
Click to expand...

There are no photos extant that are not bootleg photos. The alleged actual photos remain in a locked closet. Nonetheless, if you believe in the bootleg photos, which of these two of the back of K's head is real?

picture.php


picture.php
 
JayUtah said:
No. Nowhere in this thread have I referred to HSCA or anyone else as "experts" in whom I place my confidence. In fact you went into considerable apoplecty trying to bait me into accepting such a burden of proof. Thankfully I'm attentive enough not to fall for such amateur debate tricks. So kindly do not insinuate that I actually did what you desperately and unsuccessfully tried to bait me into doing.
Click to expand...

So you do not accept the HSCA photo expert's conclusion that the B/Y photos and the autopsy photos are genuine. Or do you take the "fifth" on this as well???It's one or the other. Take a stand.
 
Robert Prey said:
So you do not accept...
Click to expand...

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

Take a stand.
Click to expand...

Do not attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You have told us that these photographs, x-rays, etc. must be fake. You tell us this must be so because they seem to contradict the testimony of certain witnesses you have arbitrarily identified as giving evidence that is of overriding authority, reliability, and accuracy. However that determination of fakery is just an inference. It's what follows from your desired belief. That is not therefore an evidentiary determination.

At one point you accepted the burden to prove the photographs etc. were fake and mounted an argument consisting of nothing but pseudo-experts giving their uninformed opinions (e.g., Jack White). This argument was refuted for lack of foundation, whereupon you abandoned it and instead tried to tell us that "common sense" dictated the photos must be fake -- in other words, begging the question.

Now it seems you have dropped the burden of proof altogether and are desperately trying to cajole others into picking up a contrary burden of proof for some imagined counterargument you say we must inevitably profess.

Sorry, Robert. This sort of amateur debate trickery doesn't really get you anywhere.
 
Robert Prey said:
There are no photos extant that are not bootleg photos. The alleged actual photos remain in a locked closet. Nonetheless, if you believe in the bootleg photos, which of these two of the back of K's head is real?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7361[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7362[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Why do you imply only one or other can be by asking which,when you show two images that can be of the same head. Perhaps you would be less confused if you orientated the extreme close up correctly and did not use the cropped image.

This has been discussed at length.

Also, if you state the actual autpsy photos contain different material and are not those in the public domain, on what grounds can you plausibly dispute the HSCA authentification?

Do you often dispute the authenticity of images you are not privy to?
 
Robert Prey said:
Au contraire. You have repeatedly placed you imprimatur on the HSCA photo "experts" as having approved as authentic the fake back yard photos as well as the completely un-authenticated autopsy photos.
Click to expand...

Please quote Jay calling the HSCA experts.
 
Robert Prey said:
There are no photos extant that are not bootleg photos. The alleged actual photos remain in a locked closet. Nonetheless, if you believe in the bootleg photos, which of these two of the back of K's head is real?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7361[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7362[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Lso, please answer the question you quoted. Which facts prove the autopsy photos are not authentic. If they are bootleg copiess you have yet to provide any fact that shows they are not copied of the authentic originals, nor that those in the locker are authentic.

I assume if you could offer any you would have. You have not. My conclusion will remain you can not.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Lso, please answer the question you quoted. Which facts prove the autopsy photos are not authentic. If they are bootleg copiess you have yet to provide any fact that shows they are not copied of the authentic originals, nor that those in the locker are authentic.

I assume if you could offer any you would have. You have not. My conclusion will remain you can not.
Click to expand...

No. I don't partake of your fallacious challenge to prove a negative.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

A fallacious assumption that asserts that a proposition must be true because it has not yet been proven false. Logic 101.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom