JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

This guy really has you tortured and twisted in argumentative knots. Yeah, well, he's only one of 40 plus who observed the same wounds. A man with knowledge of a cover-up does not betray political bias, just the fact that from what he witnessed, he knows it had to be a cover-up. Deal with it.

But what he believes and describes does not mean he knows of a cover up, nor does it make a cover up a fact.

Or are you retracting your earlier statements about seperating the observations of witnesses from their conclusions?

In which case should you not remove from your count of 40 those who openly stated they agreed with the conclusions of the WC?

 

[Robert Prey]

All this tells us is how one eyewitness interpreted what he saw. It tells us what he believes, not what he witnessed.

You could decide to actually read the book Then you would know what he witnessed. Forum rules preclude me from copying the entire chapter.

 

[BazBear]

This guy really has you tortured and twisted in argumentative knots. Yeah, well, he's only one of 40 plus who observed the same wounds. A man with knowledge of a cover-up does not betray political bias, just the fact that from what he witnessed, he knows it had to be a cover-up. Deal with it.

I think we can all see who is "tortured and twisted in argumentative knots", and it's certainly not Jay. And, once again, just because a man says he has knowledge of a cover up, does not make it so. Deal with it.

 

[abaddon]

Just one out of 40 plus. You would know that if you had read the other 218 pages or done a little bit of original homework yourself.

Your 40+ witnesses have been demolished IN THIS THREAD. Why do you make repeated attempts at a fringe reset?

 

[JayUtah]

This guy really has you tortured and twisted in argumentative knots.

No.

...just the fact that from what he witnessed, he knows it had to be a cover-up.

Asked and answered.

Deal with it.

I just did. Why can't you do any more in rejoinder than simply to repeat your same claims regarding him?

 

[JayUtah]

You could decide to actually read the book Then you would know what he witnessed. Forum rules preclude me from copying the entire chapter.

We know what he witnessed. We accept that his factually description of the wound is substantially correct and substantially similar to that attested to by others who were also there.

His opinion and conclusions regarding the cause of the wound have been discussed. Rather than address that discussion, you have chosen to sidestep it.

His speculation that a government cover-up has occurred is based on necessarily accepting his judgment over that of others similarly situated and better qualified. Jenkins has expressly and maliciously repudiated those other testimonies, and has done so only while in the employ of conspiracy authors. How does that make him a strong witness?

 

[JayUtah]

Just one out of 40 plus. You would know that if you had read the other 218 pages or done a little bit of original homework yourself.

As I predicted, you have responded to an impeachment of one of your witnesses with by backpedaling and sweepingly generalizing the aggregation. That is not how aggregation of evidence works. The aggregate is only as strong as the validity of its constituents. If you are not willing to subject each and every constituent to rigorous scrutiny, you may not place faith in the aggregation.

And it's disingenuous of you to accuse your critics of negligence when just a few pages earlier you frantically pulled Lipsey off your list after it was revealed you hadn't done your homework on him. You had his second string all lined up to take his place, but the fact remains that you had to admit he was a poor witness -- proof positive that you have not done your homework. And if you have not, upon what basis do you propose that we must accept this list as superlatively authoritative?

I daresay anyone foolish enough to read all 200+ pages of this thread will find a recurring pattern of your failure to vet these witnesses before demanding that we accept them above all other types and amounts of evidence. You propose a witness, he is undermined and impeached, and you flee in desperation only to return some months hence as if nothing had happened.

 

[LSSBB]

As I predicted, you have responded to an impeachment of one of your witnesses with by backpedaling and sweepingly generalizing the aggregation. That is not how aggregation of evidence works. The aggregate is only as strong as the validity of its constituents. If you are not willing to subject each and every constituent to rigorous scrutiny, you may not place faith in the aggregation.

And it's disingenuous of you to accuse your critics of negligence when just a few pages earlier you frantically pulled Lipsey off your list after it was revealed you hadn't done your homework on him. You had his second string all lined up to take his place, but the fact remains that you had to admit he was a poor witness -- proof positive that you have not done your homework. And if you have not, upon what basis do you propose that we must accept this list as superlatively authoritative?

I daresay anyone foolish enough to read all 200+ pages of this thread will find a recurring pattern of your failure to vet these witnesses before demanding that we accept them above all other types and amounts of evidence. You propose a witness, he is undermined and impeached, and you flee in desperation only to return some months hence as if nothing had happened.

I made the exact same point in April. I don't think he seriously buys into his own theory.

Robert, so far some of the ones you listed don't appear to be solid, based on what Hank and Tom show. Do you still swear by them? Why should I (or anyone else) even bother with believing the rest, if you haven't identified these issues in their testimony with regards to your case? Didn't you bother vetting them yourself first? I asked for a list that you swear by.

 

[Hans]

I made the exact same point in April. I don't think he seriously buys into his own theory.

Of course he doesn't buy his own theory. He simply selected something and uses it to rant and scream at people, as noted before he hasn't even read his own 'evidence'.


I keep sayin' it he's a troll - you cannot expect and you will not have, a logical, rational discourse with Robert BRCAUSE he is a troll, period - 200+ pages of proof guys

 

[jargon buster]

I keep sayin' it he's a troll - you cannot expect and you will not have, a logical, rational discourse with Robert BRCAUSE he is a troll, period - 200+ pages of proof guys

We know it Hans and so does everyone else, however there are still posters here who like to boost their egos by responding to Robert using logic and reason.
They do it to try and make themselves look acedemic and bright, news for you guys, Robert is laughing at you.

I know you will tell me to leave the thread but I wont, I like trolling Robert while he trolls you.
Trolling trolls is more fun than trolling or being trolled.

 

[Robert Prey]

As I predicted, you have responded to an impeachment of one of your witnesses with by backpedaling and sweepingly generalizing the aggregation. That is not how aggregation of evidence works. The aggregate is only as strong as the validity of its constituents. If you are not willing to subject each and every constituent to rigorous scrutiny, you may not place faith in the aggregation.

And it's disingenuous of you to accuse your critics of negligence when just a few pages earlier you frantically pulled Lipsey off your list after it was revealed you hadn't done your homework on him. You had his second string all lined up to take his place, but the fact remains that you had to admit he was a poor witness -- proof positive that you have not done your homework. And if you have not, upon what basis do you propose that we must accept this list as superlatively authoritative?

I daresay anyone foolish enough to read all 200+ pages of this thread will find a recurring pattern of your failure to vet these witnesses before demanding that we accept them above all other types and amounts of evidence. You propose a witness, he is undermined and impeached, and you flee in desperation only to return some months hence as if nothing had happened.

Lipsey is indeed back on the list after further review. And infinitely more valid than all of your non-existent witnesses. An extended examination of a witnesses' various statements does not a betray a failure to vet, but an open minded, continuing search for the truth. Which of your own non-existent witnesses have you vetted????None. Zero. Natta. Nuff said.

 

[Robert Prey]

We know what he witnessed. We accept that his factually description of the wound is substantially correct and substantially similar to that attested to by others who were also there.

His opinion and conclusions regarding the cause of the wound have been discussed. Rather than address that discussion, you have chosen to sidestep it.

His speculation that a government cover-up has occurred is based on necessarily accepting his judgment over that of others similarly situated and better qualified. Jenkins has expressly and maliciously repudiated those other testimonies, and has done so only while in the employ of conspiracy authors. How does that make him a strong witness?

Jenkins has not maliciously repudiated anyone, but only factually spoke of what he observed. Nor is he in the employ of any conspiracy authors -- another unsubstantiated JU lie. He is a strong witness because of his intimate first hand knowledge of the wounds and the fact that his observations have been independently corroborated by scores of other witnesses.

 

[Robert Prey]

Your 40+ witnesses have been demolished IN THIS THREAD. Why do you make repeated attempts at a fringe reset?

Demolished? No. Not a single witness has yet to be impeached, much less demolished.

 

[Robert Prey]

Autopsy Docs Pressured to Preconceived Conclusion

But what he believes and describes does not mean he knows of a cover up, nor does it make a cover up a fact.

His eyewitness account is evidence of a cover-up.

* * *

Further excerpts from the William Law interview with James C. Jenkins:

Law: Do you feell these doctors felt extraordinary pressure?

Jenkins: Sure. I think they were pressured toward conclusions that had already been established and they were not finding evidence to support that.

Law: What do you mean by "conclusions that had already been established" That Oswald shot Kennedy? That one man shooting another man?

Jenkins: One man shooting another man.

Law: And they wern't exactly finding that in evidence?

Jenkins: They wern't.

Law: Do you feel that anyone was trying to stop them from doing their jobs to the best of their ability?

Jenkins: I think that there were people who were directing them and trying to direct them toward a conclusion.

Law: So you think that there was a preconceived conslusion, and that conclusion was not being reached?

Jenkins: I think that's putting it very well.

From: "In the Eye of History" by William Law

 

[Robert Prey]

Hypothetical Court, Jay Utah Versus ...

Judge: "Mr. Utah, your witness.""

"Uh, your honor, I have no witnesses."

Judge: No witnesses? Then what in the heck are you doing here?

 

[BazBear]

We know it Hans and so does everyone else, however there are still posters here who like to boost their egos by responding to Robert using logic and reason.
They do it to try and make themselves look acedemic and bright, news for you guys, Robert is laughing at you.

I know you will tell me to leave the thread but I wont, I like trolling Robert while he trolls you.
Trolling trolls is more fun than trolling or being trolled.

Hey, now you're just trolling about non-trolling-style trollery on a troll. But you are trolling the troll too, so I guess it's okay.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Judge: "Mr. Utah, your witness.""

"Uh, your honor, I have no witnesses."

Judge: No witnesses? Then what in the heck are you doing here?

Well your honour, we have all this documentary evidence, photographic evidence and other material evidence to present. As you well know having recieved it all ahead of time for disclosure. We also believe that by putting the other witnesses under cross examination we can show that mister Preys version of events does not stand scrutiny and can not be accepted as fact let alone contradictory to past findings.

Further to this your honour I am afraid I would like to make a formal protest against the frankly unorthodox and bizarre assumption we can only have a valid case through counter witnesses. If you are to penalise us for only calling witnesses already named then I would have to ask what judicial system you think you exist in. I thank you in advance for the retrial your statement ensures.

 

[Tomtomkent]

His eyewitness account is evidence of a cover-up.

* * *

Further excerpts from the William Law interview with James C. Jenkins:

Law: Do you feell these doctors felt extraordinary pressure?

Jenkins: Sure. I think they were pressured toward conclusions that had already been established and they were not finding evidence to support that.

Law: What do you mean by "conclusions that had already been established" That Oswald shot Kennedy? That one man shooting another man?

Jenkins: One man shooting another man.

Law: And they wern't exactly finding that in evidence?

Jenkins: They wern't.

Law: Do you feel that anyone was trying to stop them from doing their jobs to the best of their ability?

Jenkins: I think that there were people who were directing them and trying to direct them toward a conclusion.

Law: So you think that there was a preconceived conslusion, and that conclusion was not being reached?

Jenkins: I think that's putting it very well.

From: "In the Eye of History" by William Law

Nope that is evidence of what somebody felt or thought or believed.
Worse it is what they were willing to claim in a book.
Not evidence of a cover up.

You can tell by how "his eyewitness" talks about what he thinks.

 

[Multivac]

Lipsey was no porter. He was assigned to guard the body during autopsy. That makes him a witness to the medical procedure -- a medical witness.

A medical witness must be medically trained. I could witness an operation, but still would not be a medical witness as I have no medical training and insufficient medical knowledge to understand the context of the procedure.

 

[JayUtah]

Lipsey is indeed back on the list after further review.

That's everyone's point. Your "further review" should have happened before telling us your witnesses were unshakable, and before you pulled him off the list. The fact that you had to backpedal and fumble around means you don't know as much about your witnesses as you claim.

Thank you for the concession that you had to perform "further review" on your witnesses. Please do so for the rest of them.