• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

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

No. As far as the autopsy photos are concerned, I have only cited 40 plus medical witnesses who have contradicted the official Report as to the alleged wounds in the head of JFK. You have not refuted any of them, and refuse to name a single contrary on the scene medical witness.
 
JTF 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."

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.
Click to expand...

Then the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed the large exit wound in the back of K's head are also "psychopaths"?????
 
Robert Prey said:
Because the actual original autopsy photos (we are to believe) remain hidden in a locked closet.
Click to expand...

This does not make their authentification by the HCSA impossible.
Nor does it count as a fact if you question subjective belief.
Nor does it negate the possibility that those in the public domain are copies of the authenticated originals.

Want to try again, or admit you can produce no fact that makes the authentification impossible? You were wrong to state they were not authenticated, you offer no facts to support this.
 
Robert Prey said:
Then the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed the large exit wound in the back of K's head are also "psychopaths"?????
Click to expand...

No.

No you have not shown 40 medical witnesses.
No you have not shown they observed an exit wound.
Nobody has suggested they were psychopaths.

You listed 40 names, less than 40 of whom are medically qualified, less than 40 of whom describe what you think they describe, more than zero of whom directly contradict your claim.

But please continue to validate the point by refusing to see the flaws in your claims or wider evidence.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. As far as the autopsy photos are concerned, I have only cited 40 plus medical witnesses who have contradicted the official Report as to the alleged wounds in the head of JFK. You have not refuted any of them, and refuse to name a single contrary on the scene medical witness.
Click to expand...

Less than 40 of those cited were medical witnesses.
Not all of them say what you think.
Contrary witnesses are not required to expose the flaws in your cheery picked quotes.
Contrary testimony was provided from those ON YOUR LIST.
Your claims were refuted by showing most of your quotes were not contradictory to the WC findings or autopsy, but apt descriptions of the wounds described in the documentary evidence.
Please note we can all read the rest of this thread, and your statements of what happened can be seen not to match reality.

Your claims have been refuted. You have failed to validate any part of the claim in this post.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Less than 40 of those cited were medical witnesses.
Not all of them say what you think.
Contrary witnesses are not required to expose the flaws in your cheery picked quotes.
Contrary testimony was provided from those ON YOUR LIST.
Your claims were refuted by showing most of your quotes were not contradictory to the WC findings or autopsy, but apt descriptions of the wounds described in the documentary evidence.
Please note we can all read the rest of this thread, and your statements of what happened can be seen not to match reality.

Your claims have been refuted. You have failed to validate any part of the claim in this post.
Click to expand...

The quotes are not cherry picked, they all have a medical background, and none of them have been "refuted," and for your continued effort to mis-state the truth, you are awarded three more Pinochios

picture.php


picture.php


picture.php


"Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness." -- God
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
ROBERT: 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.
Click to expand...

By by your ignoring of the evidence of 40 plus medical witnesses, are you not guilty of, in your words, the the mantra of a psychopath???
 
So you will happily supply the medical qualifications for all those named?
So you dispute those who refuted your claims with their own conclusion?
You will finally give the medical description of the wounds described in the autopsy and explain how they differ from your own quotes?

Of course not. Claiming others bare false witness and denying what has already been shown is not enough to change it. You have supplied nothing to contradict the WC or autopsy. You have yet to explain how your imagined wounds were examined by doctors who did not move JFK from his back.
 
Robert Prey said:
By by your ignoring of the evidence of 40 plus medical witnesses, are you not guilty of, in your words, the the mantra of a psychopath???
Click to expand...

Ignoring the less than 40 medical witnesses, many of whose trstimony does not contradict the wc or autopsy?

Nope.

Considering it in full and in light of objective evidence?

Yes.

You can of course proove the testimony was ignored rather than read and your opinion of it found wanting.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So you will happily supply the medical qualifications for all those named?
So you dispute those who refuted your claims with their own conclusion?
You will finally give the medical description of the wounds described in the autopsy and explain how they differ from your own quotes?

Of course not. Claiming others bare false witness and denying what has already been shown is not enough to change it. You have supplied nothing to contradict the WC or autopsy. You have yet to explain how your imagined wounds were examined by doctors who did not move JFK from his back.
Click to expand...

Done all that in the past 215 pages. Could to do it again. One at a time.

But you and your cohorts refuse to pick your poison. Your naive belief in the WC Lone Nutter lie is backed by as much objective evidence as there is for the existence of Santa Claus. And you know it.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The quotes are not cherry picked, they all have a medical background, and none of them have been "refuted," and for your continued effort to mis-state the truth, you are awarded three more Pinochios


"Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness." -- God
Click to expand...

Unless your Robert and then it becomes a daily occurrence as shown in post after post
 
Robert Prey said:
Done all that in the past 215 pages. Could to do it again. One at a time.

But you and your cohorts refuse to pick your poison. Your naive belief in the WC Lone Nutter lie is backed by as much objective evidence as there is for the existence of Santa Claus. And you know it.
Click to expand...

Making up stuff again Robert?
 
Robert Prey said:
Done all that in the past 215 pages. Could to do it again. One at a time.

But you and your cohorts refuse to pick your poison. Your naive belief in the WC Lone Nutter lie is backed by as much objective evidence as there is for the existence of Santa Claus. And you know it.
Click to expand...

How could you have? Many of those listed are Technical Witnesses whose skills happen to have ben used in a medical setting. But assume I missed those, what were the medical qualifications of photographers and political aids?

You could do them all at once, one at a time, in pairs... Only if they are indeed Medically qualified and not technically qualified....Only if they are indeed Medical witnesses.

Or you could continue to pick your poison and try to blame others for the failings of your assertions.
 
Robert Prey said:
Done all that in the past 215 pages. Could to do it again.
Click to expand...

That's been your whole m.o. in this thread. You start the same debate, you get backed into a corner, you ignore the rebuttals, and then you wander off for a couple of months and then come back and try to start the same debate over as if none of the previous argument had happened.

Just as you're doing now.

But you and your cohorts refuse to pick your poison. Your naive belief in the WC Lone Nutter lie is backed by as much objective evidence as there is for the existence of Santa Claus. And you know it.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes. You had agreed to carry the burden of proof until you found you couldn't. Now you're just hurling insults.
 
Tomtomkent said:
How could you have? Many of those listed are Technical Witnesses whose skills happen to have ben used in a medical setting. But assume I missed those, what were the medical qualifications of photographers and political aids?

You could do them all at once, one at a time, in pairs... Only if they are indeed Medically qualified and not technically qualified....Only if they are indeed Medical witnesses.

Or you could continue to pick your poison and try to blame others for the failings of your assertions.
Click to expand...

What political aids? Names?
 
Robert Prey said:
What political aids? Names?
Click to expand...

What you don't know Robert? You mean you haven't vetted the list?

Very very trollish of you dear oh and didn't you forget to respond to the other comments?

Oh that's right you want to avoid those so you ask stupid questions you all ready know by refusing to answer them you show your striking lack of knowledge

Very ineffectual trolling Robert. Have you taken the quizzes at the back of chapter 4 and 6 in Trolling for Dummies? If not why not?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom