JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[aggle-rithm]

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

And yet you chose not to include these facts when you posted your excerpt, but only the witness's conclusions. One has to wonder why.

Surely you've figured out by now that this is a skeptic's forum, and given the choice, we will always take facts over opinion to support an extraordinary claim.

 

[BangBang]

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.

Meh, I misspelled, I can live with it. Anyway, how about your attempts to recreate the backyard photos? That was one of my favourites. You've been handed your head on a plate so many times in here I'm actually embarrassed for you. Anyway, I won't interrupt any further, carry on trolling.

You might want to look at your overuse of commas btw.

 

[JayUtah]

You are asking me for evidence to support your lie?

No, if you read carefully I'm not.

But thanks for the admission.

Of?

Did Jenkins voluntarily assist and collaborate with Law? Yes or no. Did Jenkins voluntarily assist and collaborate with other conspiracy others? Yes or no.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Foaming rant ignored.

Fact is, you were blindsided on Lipsey by people who were easily able to find information to support their interpretation. In a panic, you withdrew his name because you hadn't done the basic homework your critics have. And after you belatedly changed your mind and decided he could be rehabilitated, you have the audacity to accuse your critics of clinging to dogma. Quite clearly you're the one who has reached his conclusion before having done his homework.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Prey, please; you are a well-established liar. Unless, perhaps, you have multiple personalities and are not keeping track, in which case "you" might want to compare notes.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Hey, stop pulling so hard, I need that leg for dancin'!

 

[aggle-rithm]

What do you mean by incorrect science?

In Anders' little world? All of it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Foaming rant ignored.

Fact is, you were blindsided on Lipsey by people who were easily able to find information to support their interpretation. In a panic, you withdrew his name because you hadn't done the basic homework your critics have. And after you belatedly changed your mind and decided he could be rehabilitated, you have the audacity to accuse your critics of clinging to dogma. Quite clearly you're the one who has reached his conclusion before having done his homework.

Fact is, Abaddon took a quote out of context that temporarily confused the issue. Upon further examination, that out of context quote was clarified to be a summation of what the autopsy doctors were saying or were trying to conclude. But the entire context reveals that Jenkins saw only a blotch of blood in the back of K's head, and he further stated from his own point of view, that there was no entrance hole in the back of the head.

"I hope I’m not contradicting myself. But at this point, there again, like I said, it's been a long time. I feel that there was no really entrance wound --maybe I said that --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...
"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."

So it's not a case of being blind-sided by the truth, but temporarily believing a low information poster that his quote was consistent with the context when it clearly was not.

And if that's all you guys have got, out of 40 plus witnesses -- pretty pathetic.

 

[JTF]

"And if that's all you guys have got, out of 40 plus witnesses -- pretty pathetic."

ROBERT: This mirrors the dialogue that critical thinkers have had with the Robert Grodens and Jim Marrs of the world. What have you got, Bob? That's it, Jim? You conspiracy buffs are a pathetic bunch.

Oswald purchased two weapons used to murder two people and he proudly posed for three photographs with BOTH weapons clearly visible. What do the 40 medical witnesses have to say about that, Robert?

 

[JayUtah]

So it's not a case of being blind-sided by the truth, but temporarily believing a low information poster that his quote was consistent with the context when it clearly was not.

Try to argue without name-calling.

Fact is, you weren't sufficiently aware of your witness's testimony to speak intelligently about it at the time. You had to go off, study it, and come back with a handwaving rejoinder, and in the meantime you did indeed remove the witness from the list and try to discredit him for both parties. You admit this "further research" and "ongoing investigation" happened in your case.

You aren't sufficiently familiar with your witnesses to have drawn a conclusion about the strength of their testimony.

And if that's all you guys have got, out of 40 plus witnesses -- pretty pathetic.

Sweeping generalization again. Yes, undermining the supposedly superlative strength of your witnesses is all that's needed. No matter how much you beg, plead, cajole, and whine, you're not going to get your straw man spoon-fed to you. Get over it and try something else.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Fact is, Abaddon took a quote out of context that temporarily confused the issue. Upon further examination, that out of context quote was clarified to be a summation of what the autopsy doctors were saying or were trying to conclude. But the entire context reveals that Jenkins saw only a blotch of blood in the back of K's head, and he further stated from his own point of view, that there was no entrance hole in the back of the head.

"I hope I’m not contradicting myself. But at this point, there again, like I said, it's been a long time. I feel that there was no really entrance wound --maybe I said that --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...
"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."

So it's not a case of being blind-sided by the truth, but temporarily believing a low information poster that his quote was consistent with the context when it clearly was not.

And if that's all you guys have got, out of 40 plus witnesses -- pretty pathetic.

He did say it. What he feels about it is of no real importance.

That he admits he can not describe relative sizes is enough to make any conclusions he or you draw from his description moot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Did Jenkins voluntarily assist and collaborate with Law? Yes or no. Did Jenkins voluntarily assist and collaborate with other conspiracy others? Yes or no.

For Robert to answer these is it would mean admitting he did not understand, or deliberately misrepresented your statement.

 

[Robert Prey]

Try to argue without name-calling.

Fact is, you weren't sufficiently aware of your witness's testimony to speak intelligently about it at the time. You had to go off, study it, and come back with a handwaving rejoinder, and in the meantime you did indeed remove the witness from the list and try to discredit him for both parties. You admit this "further research" and "ongoing investigation" happened in your case.

You aren't sufficiently familiar with your witnesses to have drawn a conclusion about the strength of their testimony.



Sweeping generalization again. Yes, undermining the supposedly superlative strength of your witnesses is all that's needed. No matter how much you beg, plead, cajole, and whine, you're not going to get your straw man spoon-fed to you. Get over it and try something else.

No matter who much you beg, plead, cajole and whine, you're not going to get these 40 plus witnesses to your zero witnesses out of your craw. Get over it and try something else.

 

[Robert Prey]

"And if that's all you guys have got, out of 40 plus witnesses -- pretty pathetic."

ROBERT: This mirrors the dialogue that critical thinkers have had with the Robert Grodens and Jim Marrs of the world. What have you got, Bob? That's it, Jim? You conspiracy buffs are a pathetic bunch.

Oswald purchased two weapons used to murder two people and he proudly posed for three photographs with BOTH weapons clearly visible. What do the 40 medical witnesses have to say about that, Robert?

Their observations point to more than one shooter, obviously, the faked backyard photos, notwithstanding.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No matter who much you beg, plead, cajole and whine, you're not going to get these 40 plus witnesses to your zero witnesses out of your craw. Get over it and try something else.

Their observations point to more than one shooter.

No. They do not.


Robert, please explain why you think supplying other witnesses is more important to countering your argument than simply showing your "medical" witnesses do not say what you think?

You have supplied less than 40 who meet any reasonable definition of medical witness and are able to offer a professional medical opinion.

The majority of those you have supplied do not contradict the autopsy or photographs or in any way point to multiple shooters.

There is no obligation for anybody else to supply witnesses to counter yours.

Has it ever occured to you that the person stamping his foot and who has to beg, cajole and whine is you? After all you are still using a falacious score board that exagerates your score by 40, and underestimates Jays by 40.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...the faked backyard photos, notwithstanding.

...lied the lying liar.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. They do not.


Robert, please explain why you think supplying other witnesses is more important to countering your argument than simply showing your "medical" witnesses do not say what you think?

You have supplied less than 40 who meet any reasonable definition of medical witness and are able to offer a professional medical opinion.

The majority of those you have supplied do not contradict the autopsy or photographs or in any way point to multiple shooters.

There is no obligation for anybody else to supply witnesses to counter yours.

Has it ever occured to you that the person stamping his foot and who has to beg, cajole and whine is you? After all you are still using a falacious score board that exagerates your score by 40, and underestimates Jays by 40.

Interesting math. So Jay has 40??? But can't name one???

 

[Robert Prey]

Do You Believe In Magic???

Do You Believe in Magic?​

The importance of the single bullet theory, contrived by Arlen Spector, is that only so many aimed shots are possible within the time frame of 6 to 8 seconds, the shooting time derived from the Z film -- to make just 3 shots, 2 to hit Kennedy and Connally and one miss at 2.3 seconds to aim and fire each shot. If there were more than 3 shots, it just doen't fit the time frame and suggests more than one shooter and thus, a conspiracy.

"According to the Single Bullet Theory, a three-centimeter (1.2")-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The [alleged] bullet was found on a gurney in the corridor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, after the assassination."

"In 1993 a computer animator named Dale Myers embarked on a 10-year project to completely render the events of November 22 in 3D computer animation. His results were shown as part of ABC's documentary The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy in 2003, and won an Emmy award. "

(Beyond Conspiracy: Kennedy Assassination", Dale Myers, ABC).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

And his analysis sounds pretty convincing if you don't know the rest of the story, or I should say the beginning of the story. Because, according to x-ray technician Jerroll Custer, when they sat Kennedy up to take the skull films, a large bullet fragment just popped out of K's back. ("In the Eye of History" P. 122) Thus, that missle could not have possibly been a so-called 'Magic" bullet which also renders the Parkland bullet irrelevant. Therefore, it is most likely that there were more than 3 shots fired, and thus a conspiracy even if only based on that fact alone.

But when you add this piece of evidence, to the 40 plus medical witness observations of a large blow-out in the back of K's head, the rational conclusion must lead to more than one shooter and thus, a conspiracy.

On the other hand, you could believe in Magic.

 

[Wolrab]

Baloney.

 

[JayUtah]

No matter who much you beg, plead, cajole and whine, you're not going to get these 40 plus witnesses to your zero witnesses out of your craw. Get over it and try something else.

Since your arguments have been reduced to little more than, "I know you are but what am I?" I'd say I don't need to try anything else. I'm surely not going to play your games.

You don't get to demand an affirmative case when an ordinary rebuttal suffices. If you can't stomach your witnesses being rebutted, then base your conclusion on more than that.