JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Subset of eyewitnesses? Then which of the medical witnesses is not a part of your imagined subset?????

Jay Utah:
Asked and answered.

JayUtah said:
Asked and answered.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your subset of nameless medical witnesses are invisible? Or imagined? Just like those non-existent Fairies.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. I don't partake of your fallacious challenge to prove a negative.
Click to expand...

No. You affirmed that the photos were faked. The affirmative claim has the burden of proof. You're desperately trying to rearrange the facts of the debate so that it seems like someone else has affirmed that they are authentic. We have noted with some amusement your desperate attempts to bait just such an affirmation, or to pin one on your critics.

Then there is the separate argument about where the burden of proof naturally lies in any authentic-fake dispute. It is an argument you have avoided assiduously ever since you've been on this forum.
 
JayUtah said:
Do not attempt to put words in my mouth.
Do not attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

It is your burden. As to whether the photo "experts" on the HSCA panel are or are not "experts" Let the record show Jay's stand:

Fifth Amendment Plea.
 
Robert Prey said:
It is your burden.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

As to whether the photo "experts" on the HSCA panel are or are not "experts" Let the record show Jay's stand
Click to expand...

No, I made no "Fifth Amendment plea." I have simply once again declined to have an affirmative claim pinned upon me that I never made. Nor do I recognize the need for me to state and defend some claim as a requirement for examining your claims. You desperately want me or someone else to accept some burden of counterproof for your ludicrous inferred claims. Your incessant baiting will not work.
 
Last edited:
Monkey_cymbal.gif


lol
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not asking you for a negative.
I am asking you for the facts which make authentification impossible. I am asking for the fact which makes your possitive statement of fakery allowable and deny the mutauly exclusive alternative. That would be affirmation of your previous statements.

Still, if you don't understand the implications of your own posts feel free to continue undermining yourself.
 
Robert Prey said:
A predictable dodge.

(Crickets still chirping)
Click to expand...

Sorry Robert you already concede the point

No fringe reset for you. If you would please check Appendix II of the 'Trolling for Dummies' book you'll note that in Portugal, Andorra and the United States reset on questions of lying are not allowed in February.
 
Guilty Beyond All Doubt

ROBERT: Your ongoing spin of the conclusions put forth by the HSCA doesn't address nor alter the fact that all of the SOURCED evidence points to Oswald as the lone perp. This includes ballistics evidence, print comparisons, handwriting exemplars, fiber comparisons, photographic evidence, and eyewitness testimony. The TOTALITY of the evidence demonstrates that Lee Harvey Oswald is guilty of three counts of attempted murder and two counts of premeditated murder. Your boy is a serial liar, a coward, and a psychopath.
 
JTF said:
ROBERT: Your ongoing spin of the conclusions put forth by the HSCA doesn't address nor alter the fact that all of the SOURCED evidence points to Oswald as the lone perp. This includes ballistics evidence, print comparisons, handwriting exemplars, fiber comparisons, photographic evidence, and eyewitness testimony. The TOTALITY of the evidence demonstrates that Lee Harvey Oswald is guilty of three counts of attempted murder and two counts of premeditated murder. Your boy is a serial liar, a coward, and a psychopath.
Click to expand...

Well sir, that is mostly, if not entirely brainwash, but even if true, it does not prove Oswald as the only shooter, much less the only conspirator and it does not explain how a single shooter from the TSBD could cause a large exit wound in the back of K's head observed by 40 plus medical witnesses.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
I am not asking you for a negative.
I am asking you for the facts which make authentification impossible. I am asking for the fact which makes your possitive statement of fakery allowable and deny the mutauly exclusive alternative. That would be affirmation of your previous statements.

Still, if you don't understand the implications of your own posts feel free to continue undermining yourself.
Click to expand...

No.You are mixing up issues as to whether there is fakery in either photo or whether both are bootleg renditions.
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered.



No, I made no "Fifth Amendment plea." I have simply once again declined to have an affirmative claim pinned upon me that I never made. Nor do I recognize the need for me to state and defend some claim as a requirement for examining your claims. You desperately want me or someone else to accept some burden of counterproof for your ludicrous inferred claims. Your incessant baiting will not work.
Click to expand...

Translation -- Fifth Amendment Plea.
 
Robert Prey said:
Well sir, that is mostly, if not entirely brainwash, but even if true, it does not prove Oswald as the only shooter, much less the only conspirator and it does not explain how a single shooter from the TSBD could cause a large exit wound in the back of K's head observed by 40 plus medical witnesses.
Click to expand...

Got a PDF of that with layers in?
 
"Well sir, that is mostly, if not entirely brainwash, but even if true, it does not prove Oswald as the only shooter, much less the only conspirator and it does not explain how a single shooter from the TSBD could cause a large exit wound in the back of K's head observed by 40 plus medical witnesses."

ROBERT: Repeat and rinse. One of the tride and true mantras of advocates for psychopaths. Ignoring concrete evidence of guilt is another mantra that you hold close to your bosom.
 
Robert Prey said:
Translation -- Fifth Amendment Plea.
Click to expand...

More baiting. Kindly do not try to put words in my mouth or rewrite my arguments to be more palatable to your trolling. I have made no affirmative claim. I do not need one in order to test your affirmative claims. I will not be shamed, cajoled, or browbeaten into making one just to ease your discomfort in this farce of a debate.

You claimed the photos were faked. That is an affirmative claim of a positive proposition. You attempted for 50 of the preceding 100 pages to mount just such an affirmative proof, citing various pseudo-experts. That proof was refuted. You have spent much of the remaining 50 pages frantically trying to shift that burden of proof and repeating your same tired inference as if it had any evidentiary value.
 
Robert Prey said:
Well sir, that is mostly, if not entirely brainwash, but even if true, it does not prove Oswald as the only shooter, much less the only conspirator and it does not explain how a single shooter from the TSBD could cause a large exit wound in the back of K's head observed by 40 plus medical witnesses.
Click to expand...
Robert Prey said:
Translation -- Fifth Amendment Plea.
Click to expand...
picture.php
 
Robert Prey said:
No.You are mixing up issues as to whether there is fakery in either photo or whether both are bootleg renditions.
Click to expand...

Er, I am asking you to answer the question YOU QUOTED AND RESPONDED TO. I am asking you which fact makes authentification of autopsy photos impossible.

Nowhere in the portion of my post that you quoted did I conflate that with request with the further issue you added by talking about "bootleg" photos. I responded to that in a seperate post.

Please try not to confuse yourself further just because it turns out I asked for a possitive assertation of proof, not the negative you suggested. Unless of course you were trying to confuse others to avoid supplying the fact which makes authentification of the autopsy photos impossible? You imply facts will not allow for their authentifcation, so which fact makes it impossible?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Er, I am asking you to answer the question YOU QUOTED AND RESPONDED TO. I am asking you which fact makes authentification of autopsy photos impossible.
Click to expand...

Because the actual original autopsy photos (we are to believe) remain hidden in a locked closet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom