JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

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

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

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

Wow, you can't even get courtroom protocol right.

Sorry, Robert. For the umpteenth time, I'm not going to spoon-feed you the straw-man rebuttal you desperately desire. No matter how much you try to shame and browbeat me, you're going to have to deal with the rebuttals I actually provide. If you are unable to, then that's your problem.

 

[JayUtah]

His eyewitness account is evidence of a cover-up.

No, he is not giving eyewitness testimony. He is telling Law about his feelings, beliefs, and interpretations. His eyewitness testimony has already been examined and accepted. His subsequent feelings are irrelevant. Your inability to distinguish between the two is why you and other conspiracy theorists cannot be trusted with witness testimony -- you don't know how to use it.

 

[JayUtah]

Jenkins has not maliciously repudiated anyone...

Nonsense. He is accusing those doctors of lying -- of deliberately misrepresenting the outcome of the autopsy and signing their names to a legal finding they (according to him) knew was wrong. It doesn't get much more malicious than that. "Malice" simply means intent, Robert. He intends that the rest of the world should see them as dishonest.

Sure, he goes on to speculate that they must have been under the influence of some unseen force he cannot name and for which he presents no evidence. That's not something factual to which he is testifying; it's his inferential excuse for why his opinion differs from theirs.

...but only factually spoke of what he observed.

That which he factually observed has already been discussed, and further presented in the form of his illustration. You have not commented on that, probably because it actually supports the majority recollection of the injuries. Once again your witnesses do not support your claims.

His comments about why the doctors allegedly lied about the autopsy findings are pure inference and speculation. Not facts.

Nor is he in the employ of any conspiracy authors -- another unsubstantiated JU lie.

You would be able to use the word "another" if you had been able to substantiate any prior lie given by me. But since you can't, and you change the subject every time you're asked to, we'll just ignore that personal attack for now.

You're saying Law didn't seek out Jenkins, ask him to collaborate on his research, and (likely) pay him an honorarium or any other sort of compensation? Such would be standard. Is Jenkins not collaborating with Law and supporting his findings ideologically? Has not Jenkins worked for other conspiracy authors supporting their research?

He is a strong witness because of his intimate first hand knowledge of the wounds...

But you aren't citing him for his description of the wounds. You're citing him for his inexpert minority interpretation, inference, and speculation.

...and the fact that his observations have been independently corroborated by scores of other witnesses.

No, Robert, the strength of a single witness is not established by handwaving gestures toward the aggregate to which you say he belongs. You're simply making the same fallacy of composition you've been trying to foist on us since page 15.

 

[Multivac]

I think "they" made JFK to do all the no-nos possible, such as wanting to change the monetary system, break up the CIA, make deals with the Soviet Union, mess with the oil industry and a whole basket of things that those having the real power did NOT want U.S. Presidents to do. And then they sacrificed JFK (or at least pretended to assassinate him). To scare the bejeezus out of the following Presidents to keep them in line.

And JFK was made by LBJ to order the moon program. And after the assassination scientists could no longer object to the incorrect science of that project, because JFK had promised the American people that they would go to the moon and he was now dead. So NASA and the Apollo program could then be used as a public front for the secret military NRO who's purpose was U.S. military preeminence in space instead of some flower power peaceful moon landing program.

What do you mean by incorrect science?

 

[HSienzant]

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

And of course, I pointed out that Giesecke's description was an almost perfect match for the autopsy photos and the HSCA description back in April, and am still awaiting a response on that.

This is one of those that Robert ignored when it was first posted, ignored again when I posted reminders, then ignored again when I put all the ignored posts in one master posting.

When he was reminded recently he owed me a response on all those, he did his one-question-at-a-time song-and-dance routine.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208977&postcount=6009

 

[Tomtomkent]

So are there any conspiracy theorists out there willing to suggest a narritive time line of events?

 

[BazBear]

So are there any conspiracy theorists out there willing to suggest a narrative time line of events?

The crickets are still chirping.

 

[LSSBB]

And of course, I pointed out that Giesecke's description was an almost perfect match for the autopsy photos and the HSCA description back in April, and am still awaiting a response on that.

This is one of those that Robert ignored when it was first posted, ignored again when I posted reminders, then ignored again when I put all the ignored posts in one master posting.

When he was reminded recently he owed me a response on all those, he did his one-question-at-a-time song-and-dance routine.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208977&postcount=6009

Good point, I predict a response of:

1. Baloney

2. Further ignoring you

3. Fringe Reset

 

[JayUtah]

Good point, I predict a response of:

1. Baloney

2. Further ignoring you

3. Fringe Reset

One dodge at a time, please.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Awesome.

 

[Robert Prey]

And of course, I pointed out that Giesecke's description was an almost perfect match for the autopsy photos and the HSCA description back in April, and am still awaiting a response on that.

This is one of those that Robert ignored when it was first posted, ignored again when I posted reminders, then ignored again when I put all the ignored posts in one master posting.

When he was reminded recently he owed me a response on all those, he did his one-question-at-a-time song-and-dance routine.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208977&postcount=6009

Let me get this straight. You are asking me if I agree that a verbal description of the wounds matches an un-identified, unauthenticated bootleg autopsy photo, which may be either pre or post autopsy, of somebody (perhaps even JFK) whose head is smeared with morticians wax? Is that your question?

 

[abaddon]

Let me get this straight. You are asking me if I agree that a verbal description of the wounds matches an un-identified, bootleg autopsy photo, which may be either pre or post autopsy, of somebody (perhaps even JFK) whose head is smeared with morticians wax? Is that your question?

Wait, you are suggesting that eyewitness testimony is not to be relied upon? What a change of tune.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let me get this straight. You are asking me if I agree that a verbal description of the wounds matches an un-identified, bootleg autopsy photo, which may be either pre or post autopsy, of somebody (perhaps even JFK) whose head is smeared with morticians wax? Is that your question?

Could you identify the morticians wax in the photographs.
I assume you realise that morticians wax does not discredit the photos as one of the photographers testified her photos were resculpted for sanitisation reasons. (By the way this makes your cherry picked quote of her stating that was the reason the photos the HSCA were looking at were not hers even sillier as it means they were looking at the more accurate record, and still confirmed it was of JFK and fits the autopsy).

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert, the strength of a single witness is not established by handwaving gestures toward the aggregate to which you say he belongs. You're simply making the same fallacy of composition you've been trying to foist on us since page 15.

No. The whole point of the independent corroboration of a witness is to avoid a fallacious attribute of the aggregate.But you fallaciously describe what is not involved in independent corroboration. The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference.
But in this case, there is overwhelming justification for the inference. And not just from another witness but from scores of witnesses. Logic 101.

 

[JayUtah]

Let me get this straight. You are asking me if I agree that a verbal description of the wounds matches an un-identified, bootleg autopsy photo, which may be either pre or post autopsy, of somebody (perhaps even JFK) whose head is smeared with morticians wax? Is that your question?

No, that wasn't his question. Quit trying to put words in people's mouths.

You seem to have no problem demanding that we have to accept your personal interpretation of verbal descriptions as necessarily being different than any visual depiction. So even if that was his question, you already set the precedent. Or is this a case where only Robert Prey can possibly ever be correct?

 

[Robert Prey]

You're saying Law didn't seek out Jenkins, ask him to collaborate on his research, and (likely) pay him an honorarium or any other sort of compensation? Such would be standard. Is Jenkins not collaborating with Law and supporting his findings ideologically? Has not Jenkins worked for other conspiracy authors supporting their research?

You are asking me for evidence to support your lie??? But thanks for the admission.

 

[BangBang]

I'm probably one of the few people who has actually read every page of this thread - not sure what that says about me! I started out like most people. I knew the basics of the story; LHO as a lone gunman, where and how he did it. Not a lot of background as to why he did it or how he managed it. On the other side I was obviously aware that there were theories that others were involved - the infamous grassy knoll etc.

In effect, I was open to reading about all sides. Instead what happened was that people such as Mr Prey blew it. It became clear very quickly that the conspiracy side had nothing others that nit-picking, hand-waving and outright lieing. There has been no alternative ever given that explains who else was involved or how they did it.

I still can't understand why people blatantly lie about evidence. They know they're lieing and everyone else does so what's the point?! Anyway, Robert - you failed.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

The intellectually honest scholar continually evaluates his evidence. It is the low information zealot who clings to his pre-conceived dogma regardless of overwhelming adverse evidence as proven by the LN Amen chorus in the last 220 pages.

 

[LSSBB]

The intellectually honest scholar continually evaluates his evidence. It is the low information zealot who clings to his pre-conceived dogma regardless of overwhelming adverse evidence as proven by the LN Amen chorus conspiracy theorists in the last 220 pages.

fixed for accuracy. You're welcome.

{Crickets}

 

[Robert Prey]

I'm probably one of the few people who has actually read every page of this thread - not sure what that says about me! I started out like most people. I knew the basics of the story; LHO as a lone gunman, where and how he did it. Not a lot of background as to why he did it or how he managed it. On the other side I was obviously aware that there were theories that others were involved - the infamous grassy knoll etc.

In effect, I was open to reading about all sides. Instead what happened was that people such as Mr Prey blew it. It became clear very quickly that the conspiracy side had nothing others that nit-picking, hand-waving and outright lieing. There has been no alternative ever given that explains who else was involved or how they did it.

I still can't understand why people blatantly lie about evidence. They know they're lieing and everyone else does so what's the point?! Anyway, Robert - you failed.

In the future, it might enhance your own credibility, to say nothing of your intellect, that when accusing others of lying, you provide at least one example, or, in the alternative, at least learn how to spell the word.