• 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.
Robert Prey said:
...he was only considered a medical witness because he was there at the autopsy.
Click to expand...

When you use the phrase "medical witness," what exactly do you mean by that?

On further review, he is not a good witness for either side, his testimony being inconsistent and contradictory. No matter.
Click to expand...

It matters a great deal. It proves that "upon further review" witnesses that you argue were strong turn out not to be so strong.

Please "further review" your list and revise it to exclude those that are not good witnesses, before attempting to continue this discussion, so that we don't have to keep doing it for you. You have made so much over the past 100 pages about the strength and number of your witnesses. Therefore you are not entitled to much quarter for gaffes like this.
 
abaddon said:
And from Lipsey's HSCA testimony:
Click to expand...

"There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out.."

"There again the wound in the back of the head, all I saw of that wound was when they turned him on his side. And saw the blood when they were cleaning him off, cutting, and doing the thing. I couldn't possibly describe to you the relation to the size. I don’t' remember and I doubt that I saw it close enough to describe it to you."-- Lipsey

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm

Not a good witness for either side. Confused and self-contradictory. Mostly just reiterating what he thought the autopsy doctors were saying.
 
JayUtah said:
When you use the phrase "medical witness," what exactly do you mean by that?



It matters a great deal. It proves that "upon further review" witnesses that you argue were strong turn out not to be so strong.

Please "further review" your list and revise it to exclude those that are not good witnesses, before attempting to continue this discussion, so that we don't have to keep doing it for you. You have made so much over the past 100 pages about the strength and number of your witnesses. Therefore you are not entitled to much quarter for gaffes like this.
Click to expand...

An on the scene medical witness means he was on the scene -- at the medical autopsy. And he did state that the back of K's head was "blown." My list remains at 40 plus to your zero.
 
Robert Prey said:
Not a good witness for either side. Confused and self-contradictory. Mostly just reiterating what he thought the autopsy doctors were saying.
Click to expand...

Given that you didn't catch that before putting him on your list of unshakable and irrefutable witnesses, why should we trust any of the others on your list? How can you assure us that you have carefully vetted this list? Keep in mind you say this testimony is so strong as to completely override all the other testimony. What do you have to say for yourself now?
 
Robert Prey said:
My list remains at 40 plus to your zero.
Click to expand...

I think it's cute how you keep thinking the only valid rebuttal to your argument is a reciprocal claim in the affirmative. But of course that's just another way to shift the burden of proof. You still haven't figured out the qualitative problem with your argument. The rest of us have.

And you're trying to replay the same "mud against the wall" tactic you've employed the last 100 pages. You say you have some impressive amount of evidence, and that we must respect the aggregation as having separate and additional evidentiary value. But you have a hard time supporting the points individually. The strength of the aggregation holds only if each element carries its weight. This is why the astute reader grows suspicious when a proponent doesn't want to focus on individual elements and instead wants to emphasize only the amount of evidence he allegedly has.
 
Gosh Robert you only NOW read about Lipsey?

While previously you screamed your 40 were this and that, lol

As Jay suggested why don't you take the time, make the effort, and read your own 'evidence' THEN pronounce it unquestionable
 
Tomtomkent said:
Never heard of it. Care to state the allegations and your opinions on them, along with some evidence for them?
Click to expand...

BazBear said:
I had never heard of this one either. Anything involving an attractive woman, sex, drugs, and Timothy Leary is bound to be more exciting than the same old tired drivel we've had rehashed ad nauseum for the last 216 pages.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pinchot_Meyer

Mary Pinchot Meyer, ex-wife of Cord Meyer, supposedly a mistress of JFK, supposedly killed mysteriously -- at least according to the conspiracists:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1616087080/thedaibea-20/

McAdams is less persuaded:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death12.htm

But it is something new, and this over and over and over and over again of forty medical witnesses who aren't medical, aren't witnesses, aren't comfirming the "grassy knoll" shot -- or is it the sewer drain shot, I forget? -- it would be nice to see a discussion of something else.

Even though CTs have the advantage of being able to drag in all sorts of obscure and unnoticed and unsourced and whatever evidence . . . and if there's no confirmation, why then by golly, that's unassailable proof, since they so successfully covered it up.

:blackcat:
 
Murder Weapon

"What is the one single strongest piece of evidence proving a lone assassin?"

JARGON: ALL of the concrete data linking the murder of JFK to a specific weapon can be directly traced back to one person and one person only. Oswald purchased the murder weapon, his palmprint is on the murder weapon, the murder weapon was found in the building where he worked, and the two bullets that hit their targets were fired from that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.
 
I posed that question about 215 pages ago. Crickets still chirping.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response Robert, now, as you are reading my posts could you please answer this?

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

I knew you were reading and ignoring my posts so I went back to the first few pages and posted your question again because I knew you wouldnt be able to resist commenting on it. ;)

Come on Robert, show everyone what you are by ignoring the question again, I dare you. :D
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
Thanks for the response Robert, now, as you are reading my posts could you please answer this?

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

I knew you were reading and ignoring my posts so I went back to the first few pages and posted your question again because I knew you wouldnt be able to resist commenting on it. ;)

Come on Robert, show everyone what you are by ignoring the question again, I dare you. :D
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to say it. I do not address speculation. Speculation is pointless. I only address facts. If you want to speculate, then anything is possible, like perhaps Jackie did it with a hidden pistol, or like some idiots claim, the driver, or the Umbrella Man. Focusing on a single shooter from the back ignores the basic question of one shooter as versus more than one. You can "prove" in your own mind that LHO did it and did it alone. And all the evidence you could point to for that could also be cited as evidence for a set up Patsy. But you cannot prove he did it alone. And 40 plus witnesses observing a large blow-out in the back of the head is strong evidence of at least one other shooter from the front. And that means conspiracy.
 
JTF said:
"What is the one single strongest piece of evidence proving a lone assassin?"

JARGON: ALL of the concrete data linking the murder of JFK to a specific weapon can be directly traced back to one person and one person only. Oswald purchased the murder weapon, his palmprint is on the murder weapon, the murder weapon was found in the building where he worked, and the two bullets that hit their targets were fired from that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.
Click to expand...


All conclusions unsupported by any facts.
 
Robert Prey said:
I posed that question about 215 pages ago. Crickets still chirping.
Click to expand...

I see this tactic a lot with conspiracy theorists.

When someone asks them for evidence, and they say "It's buried in the archives somewhere, go find it yourself," you have to wonder about the quality of that evidence.
 
Hans said:
Gosh Robert you only NOW read about Lipsey?

While previously you screamed your 40 were this and that, lol

As Jay suggested why don't you take the time, make the effort, and read your own 'evidence' THEN pronounce it unquestionable
Click to expand...

Lipsey was indeed present at the autopsy, a medical procedure. And he did indeed say stuff like "... I feel that there was no really entrance wound -- in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. "

That statement is very much like Humes DoubleThink statement:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."

Which makes him (Lipsey) confused. A witness for the blow-out in the back of the head, yes, -- not the best of the 40 witnesses. But not an impeached witness either.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
I think it's cute how you keep thinking the only valid rebuttal to your argument is a reciprocal claim in the affirmative. But of course that's just another way to shift the burden of proof. You still haven't figured out the qualitative problem with your argument. The rest of us have.

And you're trying to replay the same "mud against the wall" tactic you've employed the last 100 pages. You say you have some impressive amount of evidence, and that we must respect the aggregation as having separate and additional evidentiary value. But you have a hard time supporting the points individually. The strength of the aggregation holds only if each element carries its weight. This is why the astute reader grows suspicious when a proponent doesn't want to focus on individual elements and instead wants to emphasize only the amount of evidence he allegedly has.
Click to expand...

Forty plus witnesses to your zero. Deal with it.
 
JayUtah said:
Given that you didn't catch that before putting him on your list of unshakable and irrefutable witnesses, why should we trust any of the others on your list? How can you assure us that you have carefully vetted this list? Keep in mind you say this testimony is so strong as to completely override all the other testimony. What do you have to say for yourself now?
Click to expand...


40 plus witnesses to your zero.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I see this tactic a lot with conspiracy theorists.

When someone asks them for evidence, and they say "It's buried in the archives somewhere, go find it yourself," you have to wonder about the quality of that evidence.
Click to expand...

The astute JFK assassination scholar, wonders about the quality of all of the so-called "evidence." Others, simply worship at the feet of "authority."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom