JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

But my singular contention has always been "more than one".

And it has been painstakingly explained to you that this is an inference, not a fact. And the strength of your inference is being put to the test. Frantic word games to escape a burden of proof for some shooter besides Oswald is all you've been able to provide. Show us the other shooter or go home.

Everyone in sight? that's a low information Lone Nutter's poor attempt at sarcasm and hyperbole.

And that's just a pile of insults instead of an argument. He's right: the whole field of JFK conspiracy theorists have been, for decades now, conspicuously unable to name even one other suspect behind which even a slight coalition of them can form. What sort of an "investigation" is it that purports to have piles of strong evidence, but which cannot reach a conclusion that all agree follows from the evidence? Or, as in your case, any conclusion at all?

Jay's posts are indeed gibberish -- a substitute for substance of which he has none.

Why are you so adamant about not letting readers draw their own conclusions about which of us is making more sense?

Zero, and of which you also have none. Birds of a feather flock together.

Oh, that would be why. We're into "divide and conquer" now, apparently.

 

[Straw Man]

His post was not gibberish. JFK conspiracy theories involving everyone in sight and out of sight at the time are gibberish. Perhaps you should watch the Red Dwarf ''Tikka To Ride'' episode. The best JFK conspiracy theory ever, even more entertaining than all the other JFK assassination theories.

Dave Lister: It'll drive the conspiracy nuts crazy but, they'll never figure it out.

 

[Straw Man]

Who says the fake print was a legitimate print?

Can you prove it is a fake print?

Warren Counsel Lee Rankin questioned it's authenticity in the previously referred to memo:

J. Lee was doing his job in questioning all aspects of the assassination, and the assessment of various facts. Trying to establish the facts and asking questions is how these things operate.

 

[Robert Prey]

(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."

No. An author in a subject such as this is a messenger -- a messenger of evidence and witnesses of which you have none. The spell of Authority is cast by an agency of coercion which weak people tend to fall for and worship -- government. Especially low information people. Sheeple.

 

[Robert Prey]

And it has been painstakingly explained to you that this is an inference, not a fact. And the strength of your inference is being put to the test. Frantic word games to escape a burden of proof for some shooter besides Oswald is all you've been able to provide. Show us the other shooter or go home.
.

At this point hundreds of pieces of evidence for conspiracy have been presented -- none successfully challenged. Not by you. Not by anyone. On the other hand, your own frantic word games attempt to escape your own burden of proof for the one Lone Nut scenario for which you have been unable to cite even one single piece of evidence. But in place of that -- nonsensical gibberish in place of rational criticism, that's your game, that's your expertise. Gibber on.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. An author in a subject such as this is a messenger -- a messenger of evidence and witnesses of which you have none. The spell of Authority is cast by an agency of coercion which weak people tend to fall for and worship -- government. Especially low information people. Sheeple.

But your entire argument is based on an argument of authority.
You believe "40 medical witnesses" is a statement of authority.
You blindly accept the authority of conspiracy authors.
You even declare laymen unskilled in a field as experts to give them authority in that field.

It is why you claims opponents are unable to muster their own witnesses. (Why? What is wrong with using those YOU name?)
It is why you continue to claim 40 medical witnesses say what you claim when they have been shown to not support your claim, not be medically trained, or to admit to "poetic license" in their book. You wish to bolster your "argument" with authority.

Why in the post quoted you imply authority for not being a sheeple. Even as you join the flock of people who declare the "official story MUST be wrong".

Sure. Dead people must produce latent prints.
Sure. Pictures and film must be faked. With out leaving photo artefacts.
Sure. People must have been forced to lie.
Sure... All the evidence was buriesd or destroyed.
Hang on. If the evidence, or information, was destroyed... Are you not admitting to being a "low information" poster?

If not, care to tell us HOW dead people produce latent prints, HOW the z film was faked, HOW the backyard photos were faked etc? To actually include information in your posts?

 

[Robert Prey]

the whole field of JFK conspiracy theorists have been, for decades now, conspicuously unable to name even one other suspect behind which even a slight coalition of them can form.

Of course that is more Jay Utah gobbledeegook. For decades one of the LN challenges have been that no one has ever come forward to admit participation. And after E.Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, the response from critics and the mainstream media-- deafening silence.

 

[JayUtah]

No. An author in a subject such as this is a messenger...

No, your authors are not magically special. Jim Marrs tells you to believe something and you just believe it. And what's his source? He heard it from some other guy. If you want to be proud of following around Marrs and his gossip network, I guess I won't stop you.

a messenger of evidence and witnesses of which you have none. The spell of Authority is cast by an agency of coercion which weak people tend to fall for and worship -- government. Especially low information people. Sheeple.

Yeah, keep calling your critics names. That's working out really well for you so far.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course that is more Jay Utah gobbledeegook.

If you don't understand the argument, just say so.

For decades one of the LN challenges have been that no one has ever come forward to admit participation. And after E.Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, the response from critics and the mainstream media-- deafening silence.

So are you naming Hunt as an additional shooter? Which of your sources gives evidence to support that?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Of course that is more Jay Utah gobbledeegook. For decades one of the LN challenges have been that no one has ever come forward to admit participation. And after E.Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, the response from critics and the mainstream media-- deafening silence.

This is more Robert Prey gobbledygook.
Please provide evidence that the stance taken by all "Lone Nuts" wasa that NOBODY has ever come forward?

Lots of people have come forwards. The father of one of my favourite actors, a man who claimed to be on the fourth floor of the TSBD with the other Oswald and LBJs personal fixer, and so on. The problem is none ever actually supplied evidence for their story.

You know why there was a deafening silence after Mr Hunts confession?

Because nobody thought it changed a damned thing. Its just a story.

 

[JayUtah]

At this point hundreds of pieces of evidence for conspiracy have been presented

Weasel words. "For conspiracy" is not a useful conclusion. As I said, none of these excursions actually leads anywhere. You have a mish-mash of "inconsistencies" and random criticisms against the Warren Commission.

none successfully challenged. Not by you. Not by anyone.

...in your mind, anyway.

On the other hand, your own frantic word games attempt to escape your own burden of proof...

You mean successfully resisting your desperate need to change it. You're the one making affirmative claims of additional shooters, affirmative claims "for conspiracy." My disputation of your nonsensical arguments does not require me to make some affirmative counterargument.

Keep trying. I think hardly a page goes by where you aren't frantically trying to bait someone into handing you the rebuttal you've already prepared for.

But in place of that -- nonsensical gibberish in place of rational criticism, that's your game, that's your expertise. Gibber on.

Again, if you don't understand how logical analysis works, just say so.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is more Robert Prey gobbledygook.
Please provide evidence that the stance taken by all "Lone Nuts" wasa that NOBODY has ever come forward?

Lots of people have come forwards. The father of one of my favourite actors, a man who claimed to be on the fourth floor of the TSBD with the other Oswald and LBJs personal fixer, and so on. The problem is none ever actually supplied evidence for their story.

You know why there was a deafening silence after Mr Hunts confession?

Because nobody thought it changed a damned thing. Its just a story.

And when a murderer tells such a "story," it is called a "confession" and the perp gets charged. You can't have it both ways. You can't say no one has confessed, when at least one has confessed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And when a murderer tells such a "story," it is called a "confession" and the perp gets charged. You can't have it both ways. You can't say no one has confessed, when at least one has confessed.

Please quote me saying that nobody has confessed.

And was Mr Hunt charged with the murder of JFK?
How about any of the other "Perps?"
Is it a confession when the story is not being told by the murderer and just some other guy?
Why is Hunt more likely than the two other examples I allude to?

 

[Robert Prey]

If you don't understand the argument, just say so.



So are you naming Hunt as an additional shooter? Which of your sources gives evidence to support that?

No. I haven't named anyone. But Hunt did name himself as a co-conspirator. The "source" is Hunt, which makes your previous claim false.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Please quote me saying that nobody has confessed.

And was Mr Hunt charged with the murder of JFK?
How about any of the other "Perps?"
Is it a confession when the story is not being told by the murderer and just some other guy?
Why is Hunt more likely than the two other examples I allude to?

As Robert has yet to show me his rule in the MA, and I see no reason to treat him as a rational individual capable of selecting points to respond to over as many posts as he feels comfortable with I will remind him that I do not believe I ever have claimed nobody confessed, nor have I tried to "have it both ways". So perhaps as Mr Prey is currrently trying to imply other users are playing wordgames he would care to validate the accusation he levelled againstme by answering the above points.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. I haven't named anyone. But Hunt did name himself as a co-conspirator. The "source" is Hunt, which makes your previous claim false.

So Hunt provided YOU personally with his confession?
Or have you misunderstood the word source in this context?

 

[dafydd]

And when a murderer tells such a "story," it is called a "confession" and the perp gets charged. You can't have it both ways. You can't say no one has confessed, when at least one has confessed.

No, there is evidence involved too. You have yet to provide any.

 

[JayUtah]

No. I haven't named anyone. But Hunt did name himself as a co-conspirator. The "source" is Hunt, which makes your previous claim false.

My claim was that the conspiracy theorists have named no other perpetrator around which any sort of consensus of evidence can be built. Explain how Hunt satisfies those conditions.

Do you believe Hunt was another shooter? Yes or no. If yes, show the preponderance of evidence that you believe identifies him as one. If no, then you're not part of any consensus favoring him. You brought him up. Now discuss him.

 

[LSSBB]

Troll alert!! Yet another CT fan who refuses to answer questions. No surprise there, and nothing to see here. Let the thread die.

Agreed, he's already waived the CT white flag, calling his questioners "sheeple" in a desperate fit of condescension.

 

[Border Reiver]

No. I haven't named anyone. But Hunt did name himself as a co-conspirator. The "source" is Hunt, which makes your previous claim false.

No, the source is a cassette tape of uncertain provenance, provided by Hunt's son shortly before his father's death purporting to be Hunt making a confession.

It provides no information that would cause a reevaluation of the evidence collected, and cannot be verified.

The tape as evidence, is what is called in the legal profession as "worthless."