JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

When you correct those major structural flaws in your argument, then it will be ready for a more detailed examination. Not until then.

Structural flaws? Baloney. You just can't refute the facts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

More fact-less, witness-less gibberish. Logic 201.

LOL.

You are getting badly

 

[Robert Prey]

What is your best single piece of evidence for... whatever your theory is. Circle it with your red crayon.

LOL.

I do not debate children.

 

[JayUtah]

More fact-less, witness-less gibberish. Logic 201.

Structural flaws? Baloney. You just can't refute the facts.

You're not going to get the "easy" rebuttal, Robert. Deal with the argument I made, and quit whining over the fact that I made it.

You don't get to beg the question. You don't get to rewrite your opponents' arguments down to your ability to refute.

 

[JayUtah]

The Lone Nutter's frantic need to dismiss the exact position of the bullet wound in back as irrelevant has meaning only within the Lone Nutter's slavish, mindless, fact-less dedication to the official "One Lone Nut" script. Hence, it is self-refuting.

No, Robert, no matter how much you keep trying to make the straw man stick, it's still your straw man. Deal with the arguments your critics actually make, not your caricatures of them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I do not debate children.

You lose to them too? LOL.

 

[Garrison]

I do not debate children.

Just as well, the average 5 year old could run rings round you.

 

[BazBear]

"Sorry Robert, I told you before,
I done it all by my lonesome!"

 

[LSSBB]

More fact-less, witness-less gibberish.

Example:

The Lone Nutter's frantic need to dismiss the exact position of the bullet wound in back as irrelevant has meaning only within the Lone Nutter's slavish, mindless, fact-less dedication to the official "One Lone Nut" script. Hence, it is self-refuting.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert, no matter how much you keep trying to make the straw man stick, it's still your straw man. Deal with the arguments your critics actually make, not your caricatures of them.

But you have no arguments to structure, because you have no arguments, no sources, no witnesses, no nothing. What you call a straw man is simply a set of facts you cannot deal with. Facts. Like 40 plus medical witnesses and a large blow-out in the back of K's head. Facts, like a documented commission of Evidence Fraud by Gerald Ford. Facts. Like a bullet wound in the back that ends in a dead end. Facts. Like a missile fragment falling out of a back wound. Facts. Like a rifle flown back from DC to Dallas to make a fake palm print at Oswald's funeral home. Facts. not gibberish.

 

[Robert Prey]

I see Robert decided to move on from the palmprint once supplied with information that it was obtained prior to the FBI taking possession of LHO's rifle.

Allegedly, but not submitted till after the rifle had been flown back to Dallas to manufacture the print from Oswald's cold dead hand.

 

[Straw Man]

Allegedly, but not submitted till after the rifle had been flown back to Dallas to manufacture the print from Oswald's cold dead hand.

Factually incorrect, Robert. The rifle never left Dallas, and as you will be aware, LHO was very much alive for 2 days after he assassinated JFK. You stated that the palm print was planted on the rifle after the death of LHO by an FBI agent visiting the corpse. The evidence was taken by the Dallas police before the FBI had taken possession of the rifle, and the palm print the FBI had was from the work of Crime Lab Detective R. W. Livingston.

 

[JayUtah]

Allegedly, but not submitted till after the rifle had been flown back to Dallas to manufacture the print from Oswald's cold dead hand.

And exactly how would that have been accomplished?

 

[JayUtah]

But you have no arguments to structure...

Again with shifting the burden of proof! Your argument was refuted. Too bad. Nothing requires me to make some sort of case-in-chief in order to note the egregious flaws in yours.

What you call a straw man is simply a set of facts you cannot deal with.

No. You present twisted interpretations, bald speculation, and poorly drawn inferences -- not facts. Trying to call them "facts" does not change their essential character, nor does it magically exempt them from logical analysis and refutation.

Facts. not gibberish.

Trying to dismiss your critics refutations as "gibberish" just proves you don't understand it. Which has been my point all along.

Deal with what I actually presented. Don't try to pretend you don't have to. Don't try to pretend no one else understands me. Don't try to say you will only accept one kind of refutation. You're simply dodging.

 

[Robert Prey]

Again with shifting the burden of proof! Your argument was refuted. Too bad. Nothing requires me to make some sort of case-in-chief in order to note the egregious flaws in yours.



No. You present twisted interpretations, bald speculation, and poorly drawn inferences -- not facts. Trying to call them "facts" does not change their essential character, nor does it magically exempt them from logical analysis and refutation.



Trying to dismiss your critics refutations as "gibberish" just proves you don't understand it. Which has been my point all along.

Deal with what I actually presented. Don't try to pretend you don't have to. Don't try to pretend no one else understands me. Don't try to say you will only accept one kind of refutation. You're simply dodging.

Thus far you have presented nothing but gibberish.

 

[Robert Prey]

Factually incorrect, Robert. The rifle never left Dallas, and as you will be aware, LHO was very much alive for 2 days after he assassinated JFK. You stated that the palm print was planted on the rifle after the death of LHO by an FBI agent visiting the corpse. The evidence was taken by the Dallas police before the FBI had taken possession of the rifle, and the palm print the FBI had was from the work of Crime Lab Detective R. W. Livingston.

Palm Print Chronology​

Nov. 22
Dallas Police Lieutenant John Carl Day claims he discovers palm print sometime before Midnight.
Day mentions the print to no one.

Nov. 22nd
Midnight
All "evidence" including the alleged Rifle turned over to the FBI given to agent Vincent Drain who flew with the gun to Washington..

Nov. 23rd
The rifle turned over to the FBI Lab and examined for fingerprints. A report made that day and signed by J. Edgar Hoover stated: "No latent prints of value were developed on Oswald's revolver, the cartridges cases, the unfired cartridge, the clip in the rifle or the inner parts of the rifle."

In his testimony before the Commission, Latona stated that when he received the rifle, the area where prints were visible was protected by cellophane. He examined these prints, as well as photographs of them which the Dallas police had made, and concluded that:
...the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.
Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints. He stated that the poor quality of the wood and the metal would cause the rifle to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely.
"We had no personal knowledge of any palm print...evidently the lifting had been so complete that there ws nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such -- or even an attempt on the part of anyone to process the rifle."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#palmprint

Nov. 24
Oswald is murdered.

Nov. 25,
After autopsy, Oswald's body lay in the Miller Funeral Home when an FBI team, with a camera and crime lab kit paid a visit to the morgue.

Miller Funeral Home director tells author Jim Mars that the FBI fingerprinted Oswald's corpse and said he "had a heck of time getting the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands.

In 1978, Agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he drove another Bureau agent and the Oswald rifle to the Funeral Home.
(Thus, the rifle is now once again in Dallas.)

Nov. 26
The rifle is again sent to Washington.

Nov. 29
The palm print arrives at the FBI lab.
The FBI confims it is Oswald's palm print.
Day has since claimed he originally found the print but failed to mention it, photograph it or send it to the FBI becaue he believed that "sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel."
Day told author Henry Hurt that he pointed out the print to Agent Drain when he gave him the rifle, but Drain has denied this. According to Hurt, Drain told him:
"I just don't believe there ever was a print...All I can figure is that it was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald's [arrest] card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened."

Even the Warren Commission found palm print evidence questionable. An internal FBI memo made public in 1978 disclosed that on August 28, 1964:
"[Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee ]Rankin advised because of the circumstances... there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression... is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and that for this reason this matter needs to be resolved."

The FBI asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement concerning his lifting of the palm print. Day refused.

 

[JayUtah]

Thus far you have presented nothing but gibberish.

Yeah, that was your parting shot in the Birther thread, where you didn't understand any of the technical argument there either. Other people seem to understand me just fine (both there and here), so what's your problem? By all means keep professing your ignorance. Other people are quite able to decide for themselves which of us makes more sense, and they don't need you desperately trying to make them believe your critics are confused.

 

[JayUtah]

Palm Print Chronology​

And how do you make a latent print with a corpse?

 

[Hans]

Robert, thus far all you have presented is nothing but gibberish too

 

[JayUtah]

Robert, thus far all you have presented is nothing but gibberish too

Not quite. When Robert says "fact," what he is in fact presenting (lately) is stuff he's cribbed from Jim Marrs' book. As I said earlier, Robert long ago left off attaching the names of his authors to the claims he borrowed from them. I surmise initially he thought citing his sources would give him some sort of authority. Now he's changed his tack to accuse his critics of mindlessly following the herd, so it doesn't do well for him to admit he's just copying out of books. He did tacitly admit to this a few pages back, when he characterized his authors not as the "authorities" they are (what does he think the words "author" and "authority" mean?), but as some kind of transparent conduit of truth.

So when Robert is told to believe something by an author, there's nothing wrong with that in his mind. That's what makes him the pinnacle of erudition. But when people point out the simple, obvious flaws in those borrowed claims, and apply their own skill and knowledge, then to Robert it's just an "amen chorus" of "low information sheeple."

Robert's gibberish isn't even original.