JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends - Page 59

HSienzant · 22nd December 2011, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Cyril Wecht has said a lot of things.

Reprinted from Reclaiming History.

"I reminded Dr. Wecht that at the London trial I had asked him to be more specific as to the location of his possible second gunman, and he ended up positioning the triggerman not on the grassy knoll but "around the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and more down towards the other end [far west side] of the building."' When I pointed out to him in our phone conversation that from that position-not as far behind the president as Oswald was believed to be, but still to the president's right rear at the time of the first shot that hit him-it would have been physically impossible for a bullet shot from there to enter the front of the president's throat, he replied, "Yes, of course. And that's why I want to drop that position of mine and put the possible second gunman more to the west [right front] in the area of the grassy knoll. I know I testified to the other position in London and also wrote that in one of my articles in the past' but I no longer believe that to be true."

And what was the followup Q&A, Robert? And why don't you quote that?

And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi?

Why are you now quoting from a purported phone call the author says he made?

Remember claiming you doubted Bugliosi's sanity, Robert?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The best debunking of Poser's 'Case Closed" is the Bug Man's "Reclaiming History." The Bug Man indicts himself and his own internal sanity by his crusade to indict George W. Bush for War Crimes.

HSienzant · 22nd December 2011, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.

Robert dodged the question for a ~~Sixth SEVENTH~~ EIGHTH time!

Quote:

Here it is again. I've placed it in boldface below in case you have trouble finding it amidst my answers to your other bogus issues.

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a ~~fourth~~ fifth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries.

So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble.

...

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?

RoboTimbo · 22nd December 2011, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period.

When evidence reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled,
Brave, brave Sir Robert.

Yes brave Sir Robert turned about,
And gallantly he chickened out,
Brave, brave Sir Robert.

Bravely shooting both his feet,
He beat a very hasty retreat,
Brave, brave Sir Robert.

Robert Prey · 22nd December 2011, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

And what was the followup Q&A, Robert? And why don't you quote that?

And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi?

Why are you now quoting from a purported phone call the author says he made?

Remember claiming you doubted Bugliosi's sanity, Robert?

Oh, but the Bug man is one of your heroes.

Tomtomkent · 22nd December 2011, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Oh, but the Bug man is one of your heroes.

Irrelevant. Either you consider the source reliable enough to cite, or you consider it to be lacking sanity.

So clarify which it is.

Then explain why you skipped the follow up Q&A. (Perhaps as it totally undermined your interpretation of the quoted section? Oh no!)

But your cowardly dodge of answering the questions has been noted.

SpitfireIX · 23rd December 2011, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

He burned his original notes because he was forced to. They didn't fit the official script.

What is your evidence for this claim?

Robert Prey · 23rd December 2011, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

What is your evidence for this claim?

Logic and Divine Revelation.

jaydeehess · 23rd December 2011, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Logic and Divine Revelation.

Do devine entities often reveal things to you?

RoboTimbo · 23rd December 2011, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Logic and Divine Revelation.

The holes in your feet aren't from nails.

TheRedWorm · 23rd December 2011, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Logic and Divine Revelation.

Ah. So your argument is made up as you go along. Beats dealing with material evidence, I suppose.

jaydeehess · 23rd December 2011, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

The holes in your feet aren't from nails.

Probably not anyway. However if he has a hole at the other end of his body he may well have been trying to see how that nail gun works. It would explain a lot.

"oh Lord, I'm sorry for that ,,, and please feed all the pygmies there in New Guinea"

matt.tansy · 23rd December 2011, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Logic and Divine Revelation.

I just prayed to God and asked Him who killed JFK and He said Oswald did it all by himself.

Since God is giving us inconsistent answers we have to assume he isn't going to tell us the truth. We're gonna have to rely on logic.

Walter Ego · 23rd December 2011, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi?

Robert will quote mine Bugliosi after calling him insane if it serves his purpose the same way he will quote mine the Warren Report after calling it a whitewash. He is not above rank hypocrisy of this sort. He has more or less given up on presenting any kind of argument and is falling back on one liners, non sequiturs and outright absurdities, his usual strategy to avoid giving real answers.

He can't even rally to the defense of his hero Lee Harvey Oswald except to tell the same lies about Oswald he's told before. I do note, however, he is no longer repeating his claim that Oswald arrived in the U.S.S.R. speaking fluent Russian that he learned at a U.S. government language school. Why is that, I wonder?

SpitfireIX · 23rd December 2011, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

I just prayed to God and asked Him who killed JFK and He said Oswald did it all by himself.

Since God is giving us inconsistent answers we have to assume he isn't going to tell us the truth. We're gonna have to rely on logic.

Two conspiraciy theorists die and go to Heaven. As they stand before God, one of them asks, "Lord, please tell us, who killed JFK?"

God looks at them sternly and says, "I want you to listen carefully. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot John F. Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building. Got it?"

One of the conspiracists turns to the other and says, "This is even bigger than we thought."

HSienzant · 23rd December 2011, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

One thing I have never understood about the assassination is why JFK raised his arms in that manner after the second bullet.

You mean up near his neck with his elbows splayed outward?

Like as seen here?

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z239.jpg

Thorburn position - it's caused by damage to the neck vertebra. John Lattimer found it first described in the medical literature during the Civil War and gave credit to the original doctor. I've seen NFL football players who are knocked down by a hard hit to the head (compressing the neck and spine) involuntarily assume the same position as JFK as they lay on the field. Wayne Chrebet for one.

As he is temporarily paralyzed in his upper body all JFK can manage to do is point to the throat with his left index finger (most obvious in the z255-265 range). The paralysis was of course caused by the bullet transiting the neck and going on to strike Connally.

As seen here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5770464697597#
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z259.jpg

Hank

BravesFan · 23rd December 2011, 09:13 PM

I'm sure this has been discussed (I haven't had the time to dig through the entire thread as yet) But there was an excellent program on a few weeks ago that was about as convincing as it could get that LHO acted alone. The bullet hole through the top of the traffic light!!! It lined up with all of the other evidence and was more than to convince me that he acted alone. (any conspiracy couldn't have been much deeper than borrowing some ammo IMO)

yet people continue to claim otherwise... why? Is it the deep seated notion of having "secret ,inside information that nobody else knows? Does it give one a sense of superiority in an otherwise mundane existence?

It's like the 9/11 truthers, My girlfriend at the time worked at the Pentagon and was driving into work late when she saw the plane. Yet a truther told me to my face she was lying. (even though she happened to call and tell me as much before she knew what was going on).

I've known a few crackpots in my time, but I had no idea the rabbit hole was as deep and occupied as it is.

Robrob · 23rd December 2011, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

He can't even rally to the defense of his hero Lee Harvey Oswald except to tell the same lies about Oswald he's told before. I do note, however, he is no longer repeating his claim that Oswald arrived in the U.S.S.R. speaking fluent Russian that he learned at a U.S. government language school. Why is that, I wonder?

Oooh, pick me! I know, I know!

Walter Ego · 23rd December 2011, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Robrob

Oooh, pick me! I know, I know!

I know too. It was a rhetorical question. Feel free to answer, though.

Tomtomkent · 23rd December 2011, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Logic and Divine Revelation.

Somebody who knew how to function in society at large would simply say they have none instead of listing things that aren't evidence. This is a particularly stupid habit of "teacher" Robert.

Robert Prey · 24th December 2011, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I'm sure this has been discussed (I haven't had the time to dig through the entire thread as yet) But there was an excellent program on a few weeks ago that was about as convincing as it could get that LHO acted alone. The bullet hole through the top of the traffic light!!! It lined up with all of the other evidence and was more than to convince me that he acted alone. (any conspiracy couldn't have been much deeper than borrowing some ammo IMO)

yet people continue to claim otherwise... why? Is it the deep seated notion of having "secret ,inside information that nobody else knows? Does it give one a sense of superiority in an otherwise mundane existence?

It's like the 9/11 truthers, My girlfriend at the time worked at the Pentagon and was driving into work late when she saw the plane. Yet a truther told me to my face she was lying. (even though she happened to call and tell me as much before she knew what was going on).

I've known a few crackpots in my time, but I had no idea the rabbit hole was as deep and occupied as it is.

So a bullet hole through a traffic light is the extent of your scholarship? How about a bullet through the front of the head and a large blow-out in the back? I'll bet they didn't cover that on that TV special.

Tomtomkent · 24th December 2011, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So a bullet hole through a traffic light is the extent of your scholarship? How about a bullet through the front of the head and a large blow-out in the back? I'll bet they didn't cover that on that TV special.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e72478f327.jpg

The difference being there is material evidence to support the bullet passing through the traffic light.

There is no physical evidence of a large blow out on the back of the head. No there is no material evidence to support the claim.

That drawing proves nothing other than the subject memories of somebody who has been shown to have made conflicting statements. There is absolutely no reason to assume a picture drawn from memory is more accurate than the photographs and film we have of the body, and the event itself.

Got any material evidence yet Robert?

Maybe you should drink some of your miracle water and wish real hard for some?

Robert Prey · 24th December 2011, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

The difference being there is material evidence to support the bullet passing through the traffic light.

There is no physical evidence of a large blow out on the back of the head. No there is no material evidence to support the claim.

That drawing proves nothing other than the subject memories of somebody who has been shown to have made conflicting statements. There is absolutely no reason to assume a picture drawn from memory is more accurate
Maybe you should drink some of your miracle water and wish real hard for some?than the photographs and film we have of the body, and the event itself.

Got any material evidence yet Robert?

Just the material observations of all the 30 plus first hand medical witnesses at Parkland corroborating a large blow-out in the back of the head pointing to a shot from the front, and a Warren Commission coverup. It certainly is amazing to me, having viewed many of these so-called investigative programs on the JFK assassination, that none of them dare to cover the Best Evidence, namely, the condition of the head wound -- the fatal shot. They all try to convince you that LHO was not just a shooter but the only shooter. Of course, they can't do that, so they don't even try. Not to ever even mention the Odio incident as well.

Tomtomkent · 24th December 2011, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Just the material observations <snip>.

So what material are your observations made out of Robert? What medium do you store your subjective memories on?

Tomtomkent · 24th December 2011, 02:51 AM

So I believe the actual answer was:
"No." Seeing as how anectdotes are not material evidence, and there has yet to be any physical or material evidence to prove the WC was a "whitewash".

BravesFan · 24th December 2011, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So a bullet hole through a traffic light is the extent of your scholarship? How about a bullet through the front of the head and a large blow-out in the back? I'll bet they didn't cover that on that TV special.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e72478f327.jpg

Nope, it WAS the first time I had heard it mentioned. I have a casual interest in this as I have things like a life and friends and stuff to do most of the time.

Walter Ego · 24th December 2011, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Just the material observations of all the 30 plus first hand medical witnesses at Parkland corroborating a large blow-out in the back of the head pointing to a shot from the front...

You've said this about 900 times already.

Quote:

... and a Warren Commission coverup.

Ditto.

Quote:

It certainly is amazing to me, having viewed many of these so-called investigative programs on the JFK assassination, that none of them dare to cover the Best Evidence, namely, the condition of the head wound -- the fatal shot. They all try to convince you that LHO was not just a shooter but the only shooter. Of course, they can't do that, so they don't even try. Not to ever even mention the Odio incident as well.

What programs are you talking about, Robert? I haven't seen the National Geographic show but offhand I can think of only one television documentary which had the balls to come and flatly say the conspiracy theories are bunk and that was The Kennedy Assassination, Beyond Conspiracy (which you can watch here).

The overwhelming majority of programs about the JFK assassination on the cable channels like the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, etc. have been, if not overtly pro-conspiracy, at least conspiracy friendly.

And you are of course wrong about the Odio incident. It was featured and even given credence in the PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? You would have known this if you were paying attention to this thread because it was mentioned here.

It sounds like you've got your panties in a wad because your outré conspiracy theories are not getting any airtime. Sorry to break it to you, Robert, but even the majority of conspiracy wackaloons won't touch your stuff with a dead porcupine. Even deluded kooktards have standards.

tsig · 24th December 2011, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

You've said this about 900 times already.

Ditto.

What programs are you talking about, Robert? I haven't seen the National Geographic show but offhand I can think of only one television documentary which had the balls to come and flatly say the conspiracy theories are bunk and that was The Kennedy Assassination, Beyond Conspiracy (which you can watch here).

The overwhelming majority of programs about the JFK assassination on the cable channels like the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, etc. have been, if not overtly pro-conspiracy, at least conspiracy friendly.

And you are of course wrong about the Odio incident. It was featured and even given credence in the PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? You would have known this if you were paying attention to this thread because it was mentioned here.

It sounds like you've got your panties in a wad because your outré conspiracy theories are not getting any airtime. Sorry to break it to you, Robert, but even the majority of conspiracy wackaloons won't touch your stuff with a dead porcupine. Even deluded kooktards have standards.

He's starting to lose his flavor.

Robert Prey · 24th December 2011, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

You've said this about 900 times already.

Ditto.

What programs are you talking about, Robert? I haven't seen the National Geographic show but offhand I can think of only one television documentary which had the balls to come and flatly say the conspiracy theories are bunk and that was The Kennedy Assassination, Beyond Conspiracy (which you can watch here).

The overwhelming majority of programs about the JFK assassination on the cable channels like the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, etc. have been, if not overtly pro-conspiracy, at least conspiracy friendly.

And you are of course wrong about the Odio incident. It was featured and even given credence in the PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? You would have known this if you were paying attention to this thread because it was mentioned here.

It sounds like you've got your panties in a wad because your outré conspiracy theories are not getting any airtime. Sorry to break it to you, Robert, but even the majority of conspiracy wackaloons won't touch your stuff with a dead porcupine. Even deluded kooktards have standards.

"Wackaloons, Kooktards," -- so you're back to your original deep thinking post. Haven't grown up a bit. And no, there have been no programs that deal with the Best Evidence -- the Head Wounds seen at Parkland. If there was, name it.

RoboTimbo · 24th December 2011, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Wackaloons, Kooktards," -- so you're back to your original deep thinking post. Haven't grown up a bit. And no, there have been no programs that deal with the Best Evidence -- the Head Wounds seen at Parkland. If there was, name it.

So you can't think of anything you've gotten right from the Wackaloon or Kooktard sites? You just swallow whatever they're selling?

Robert Prey · 24th December 2011, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So I believe the actual answer was:
"No." Seeing as how anectdotes are not material evidence, and there has yet to be any physical or material evidence to prove the WC was a "whitewash".

"Material Evidence" of WC Whitewash Written with genuine print on Genuine Paper Material
(Fingerprints and DNA to follow)

Katzenbach lays out the need for a public statement on the assassination. Katzenbach states that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
Nov. 25, 1963
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...ren_Commission

* * *

Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...fk/jfk1110.htm

* * *

Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
Published June 18, 2004

* * *

Warren Counsel Wesley Liebeler:
“Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.”

http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html

BravesFan · 24th December 2011, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

* * *

Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
Published June 18, 2004

http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html

More people saw Avatar than most movies over the last 20 years. Thaat doesn't make it the best movie of the last 20 years!

Tomtomkent · 24th December 2011, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Material Evidence" of WC Whitewash Written with genuine print on Genuine Paper Material
(Fingerprints and DNA to follow)

Katzenbach lays out the need for a public statement on the assassination. Katzenbach states that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
Nov. 25, 1963
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...ren_Commission
* * *

Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...fk/jfk1110.htm* * *

Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
Published June 18, 2004

* * *

Warren Counsel Wesley Liebeler:
“Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.”

http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html

So let's see:
A quote taken out of context as already discussed at length here. Not a piece of material evidence.
Oh look, a story more about the opinion of somebody than the evidence itself. This boils down to an incorrect set of photographs of a brain damaged from the front being included in the files, and offers nothing to suggest that the rest of the material evidence is faked.

More opinions. A lot of people believe in God and luck. They aren't real either. This is not evidence

And we finish off with yet another quote taken out of context.

Wow. I remain underwhelmed. And confused. Robert still has not prouced any material evidence, or shown he understands the concept at all.

Walter Ego · 24th December 2011, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And no, there have been no programs that deal with the Best Evidence -- the Head Wounds seen at Parkland. If there was, name it.

So unless a TV show promotes your flavor of conspiracy theory, it's bogus, right? It's not enough that most shows on the JFK assassination promote conspiracy theories, it must your theory.

Actually it's not even your theory. It's cribbed from Livingstone and Lifton which is why you always capitalize Best Evidence, the title of Lifton's book.

And here's why your "Best Evidence" has not been on TV: because there are degrees of nuttiness that even the pandering to the lowest common denominator TV networks won't touch. (Which I said already in the post you quoted but which you typically didn't comprehend.)

Tomtomkent · 24th December 2011, 08:44 AM

How can the claims of a headwound be the best evidence? The Body istself is best evidence. The rifle, fingerprints, shell casings, bullets and bullet holes are the best evidence. The subjective memories of what somebody thought they saw is not in any way the best evidence.

If this was true, then the best evidence we would have would suggest that despite the Statue of Liberty being there, a magician made it vanish. That is what a lot of people saw.

RoboTimbo · 24th December 2011, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

How can the claims of a headwound be the best evidence? The Body istself is best evidence. The rifle, fingerprints, shell casings, bullets and bullet holes are the best evidence. The subjective memories of what somebody thought they saw is not in any way the best evidence.

If this was true, then the best evidence we would have would suggest that despite the Statue of Liberty being there, a magician made it vanish. That is what a lot of people saw.

I'm going to agree with Robert here. Witness statements are the best material evidence so we'll have to abide by the millions of people who saw the Zapruder film and the massive head wound in the right front of JFK's head and the fact that Oswald is the lone shooter. Robert got that one right. Millions of witnesses can't be wrong.

Well done, Robert. Bang!

HSienzant · 24th December 2011, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Material Evidence" of WC Whitewash Written with genuine print on Genuine Paper Material
(Fingerprints and DNA to follow)

Katzenbach lays out the need for a public statement on the assassination. Katzenbach states that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
Nov. 25, 1963
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...ren_Commission

* * *
[/url]

Not this nonsense again.

Here's Katzenbach's memo. Please read the first line, if you do nothing else:
http://history-matters.com/archive/j...0135_0002a.htm

Here's Katzenbach's testimony to the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations):

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...1_5_Katzen.pdf

Basically, what you are doing (and the critics you quote are doing) is quote mining, taking statements out of context and putting a nefarious, sinister conspiracy spin on those statements.

The above proves you are wrong.

Hank

Walter Ego · 24th December 2011, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Wow. I remain underwhelmed. And confused. Robert still has not prouced any material evidence, or shown he understands the concept at all.

No, but he did post that cartoon picture of the alleged gaping exit wound on the back of JFK's head again. He flashes that drawing around like a kid in a schoolyard with a copy of Penthouse filched from the bottom of his dad's underwear drawer.

He probably has a copy of it in his wallet and bores passengers on the city bus with it while he lectures them about the 30 (or 40, take your pick) "unimpeachable" Parkland witnesses while waving it around and then can't understand why nobody wants to sit next to him.

Robert has about five flashcards and we've seen them a hundred times each as if sheer repetition makes them true.

Tomtomkent · 24th December 2011, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Not this nonsense again.

Here's Katzenbach's memo. Please read the first line, if you do nothing else:
http://history-matters.com/archive/j...0135_0002a.htm

Here's Katzenbach's testimony to the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations):

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...1_5_Katzen.pdf

Basically, what you are doing (and the critics you quote are doing) is quote mining, taking statements out of context and putting a nefarious, sinister conspiracy spin on those statements.

The above proves you are wrong.

Hank

Yes. This has been pointed out before. You are seeing the usual response.

RoboTimbo · 24th December 2011, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Material Evidence" of WC Whitewash

Robert, now that you've repeatedly and knowingly posted out of context quotes with the intent to deceive, what are you hoping to accomplish with your dishonesty and deception?

Your feet already look like Swiss cheese with the self-inflictd gunshot wounds.

Walter Ego · 24th December 2011, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"Material Evidence" of WC Whitewash Written with genuine print on Genuine Paper Material
(Fingerprints and DNA to follow)

The Warren Commission Whitewash that you dishonestly quote minded to "prove" your bogus contention that your hero Lee Harvey Oswald went to a U.S. government language school to learn Russian? That Warren Commission Whitewash?

Care for me to pull up some DNA and fingerprints on that one, Robert?

22nd December 2011, 01:54 PM	#2321
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Cyril Wecht has said a lot of things. Reprinted from Reclaiming History. "I reminded Dr. Wecht that at the London trial I had asked him to be more specific as to the location of his possible second gunman, and he ended up positioning the triggerman not on the grassy knoll but "around the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and more down towards the other end [far west side] of the building."' When I pointed out to him in our phone conversation that from that position-not as far behind the president as Oswald was believed to be, but still to the president's right rear at the time of the first shot that hit him-it would have been physically impossible for a bullet shot from there to enter the front of the president's throat, he replied, "Yes, of course. And that's why I want to drop that position of mine and put the possible second gunman more to the west [right front] in the area of the grassy knoll. I know I testified to the other position in London and also wrote that in one of my articles in the past' but I no longer believe that to be true." And what was the followup Q&A, Robert? And why don't you quote that? And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi? Why are you now quoting from a purported phone call the author says he made? Remember claiming you doubted Bugliosi's sanity, Robert? Originally Posted by Robert Prey The best debunking of Poser's 'Case Closed" is the Bug Man's "Reclaiming History." The Bug Man indicts himself and his own internal sanity by his crusade to indict George W. Bush for War Crimes.
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto." Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd December 2011 at 02:10 PM.

22nd December 2011, 01:56 PM	#2322
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period. Robert dodged the question for a ~~Sixth SEVENTH~~ EIGHTH time! Quote: Here it is again. I've placed it in boldface below in case you have trouble finding it amidst my answers to your other bogus issues. And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a ~~fourth~~ fifth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries. So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble. ... Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

22nd December 2011, 10:16 PM	#2324
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by HSienzant And what was the followup Q&A, Robert? And why don't you quote that? And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi? Why are you now quoting from a purported phone call the author says he made? Remember claiming you doubted Bugliosi's sanity, Robert? Oh, but the Bug man is one of your heroes.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

22nd December 2011, 10:30 PM	#2325
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Oh, but the Bug man is one of your heroes. Irrelevant. Either you consider the source reliable enough to cite, or you consider it to be lacking sanity. So clarify which it is. Then explain why you skipped the follow up Q&A. (Perhaps as it totally undermined your interpretation of the quoted section? Oh no!) But your cowardly dodge of answering the questions has been noted.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

23rd December 2011, 09:20 AM	#2326
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,830	Originally Posted by Robert Prey He burned his original notes because he was forced to. They didn't fit the official script. What is your evidence for this claim?
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

22nd December 2011, 02:22 PM	#2323
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,871	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Already answered it. "Whisked away" is another one of your irrelevant red herrings. The photos are fake. Period. When evidence reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave, brave Sir Robert. Yes brave Sir Robert turned about, And gallantly he chickened out, Brave, brave Sir Robert. Bravely shooting both his feet, He beat a very hasty retreat, Brave, brave Sir Robert.

23rd December 2011, 02:39 PM	#2327
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX What is your evidence for this claim? Logic and Divine Revelation.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

23rd December 2011, 02:43 PM	#2328
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,810	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Logic and Divine Revelation. Do devine entities often reveal things to you?

23rd December 2011, 02:44 PM	#2329
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,871	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Logic and Divine Revelation. The holes in your feet aren't from nails.

23rd December 2011, 03:11 PM	#2330
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Body: Michigan, Heart: Chicago Posts: 3,894	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Logic and Divine Revelation. Ah. So your argument is made up as you go along. Beats dealing with material evidence, I suppose.
	__________________ See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. -Joker Working them to death is murder. Making them live like pigs and dying from disease is murder. Shooting them next to a ditch is murder. Digging them up and burning them to hide your murder, is extra credit evil. -beachnut

23rd December 2011, 03:26 PM	#2331
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,810	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo The holes in your feet aren't from nails. Probably not anyway. However if he has a hole at the other end of his body he may well have been trying to see how that nail gun works. It would explain a lot. "oh Lord, I'm sorry for that ,,, and please feed all the pygmies there in New Guinea"

23rd December 2011, 03:39 PM	#2332
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Groton, CT Posts: 802	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Logic and Divine Revelation. I just prayed to God and asked Him who killed JFK and He said Oswald did it all by himself. Since God is giving us inconsistent answers we have to assume he isn't going to tell us the truth. We're gonna have to rely on logic.
	__________________ Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess

23rd December 2011, 03:39 PM	#2333
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by HSienzant And didn't you previously disparage this book and the author, Vincent Bugliosi? Robert will quote mine Bugliosi after calling him insane if it serves his purpose the same way he will quote mine the Warren Report after calling it a whitewash. He is not above rank hypocrisy of this sort. He has more or less given up on presenting any kind of argument and is falling back on one liners, non sequiturs and outright absurdities, his usual strategy to avoid giving real answers. He can't even rally to the defense of his hero Lee Harvey Oswald except to tell the same lies about Oswald he's told before. I do note, however, he is no longer repeating his claim that Oswald arrived in the U.S.S.R. speaking fluent Russian that he learned at a U.S. government language school. Why is that, I wonder?
	Last edited by Walter Ego; 23rd December 2011 at 03:57 PM.

23rd December 2011, 04:51 PM	#2334
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,830	Originally Posted by matt.tansy I just prayed to God and asked Him who killed JFK and He said Oswald did it all by himself. Since God is giving us inconsistent answers we have to assume he isn't going to tell us the truth. We're gonna have to rely on logic. Two conspiraciy theorists die and go to Heaven. As they stand before God, one of them asks, "Lord, please tell us, who killed JFK?" God looks at them sternly and says, "I want you to listen carefully. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot John F. Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building. Got it?" One of the conspiracists turns to the other and says, "This is even bigger than we thought."
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

23rd December 2011, 05:25 PM	#2335
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus One thing I have never understood about the assassination is why JFK raised his arms in that manner after the second bullet. You mean up near his neck with his elbows splayed outward? Like as seen here? http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z239.jpg Thorburn position - it's caused by damage to the neck vertebra. John Lattimer found it first described in the medical literature during the Civil War and gave credit to the original doctor. I've seen NFL football players who are knocked down by a hard hit to the head (compressing the neck and spine) involuntarily assume the same position as JFK as they lay on the field. Wayne Chrebet for one. As he is temporarily paralyzed in his upper body all JFK can manage to do is point to the throat with his left index finger (most obvious in the z255-265 range). The paralysis was of course caused by the bullet transiting the neck and going on to strike Connally. As seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5770464697597# http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z259.jpg Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto." Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd December 2011 at 05:29 PM.

23rd December 2011, 09:13 PM	#2336
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	I'm sure this has been discussed (I haven't had the time to dig through the entire thread as yet) But there was an excellent program on a few weeks ago that was about as convincing as it could get that LHO acted alone. The bullet hole through the top of the traffic light!!! It lined up with all of the other evidence and was more than to convince me that he acted alone. (any conspiracy couldn't have been much deeper than borrowing some ammo IMO) yet people continue to claim otherwise... why? Is it the deep seated notion of having "secret ,inside information that nobody else knows? Does it give one a sense of superiority in an otherwise mundane existence? It's like the 9/11 truthers, My girlfriend at the time worked at the Pentagon and was driving into work late when she saw the plane. Yet a truther told me to my face she was lying. (even though she happened to call and tell me as much before she knew what was going on). I've known a few crackpots in my time, but I had no idea the rabbit hole was as deep and occupied as it is.

23rd December 2011, 09:46 PM	#2337
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by Walter Ego He can't even rally to the defense of his hero Lee Harvey Oswald except to tell the same lies about Oswald he's told before. I do note, however, he is no longer repeating his claim that Oswald arrived in the U.S.S.R. speaking fluent Russian that he learned at a U.S. government language school. Why is that, I wonder? Oooh, pick me! I know, I know!
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

23rd December 2011, 10:18 PM	#2338
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by Robrob Oooh, pick me! I know, I know! I know too. It was a rhetorical question. Feel free to answer, though.

23rd December 2011, 10:20 PM	#2339
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Logic and Divine Revelation. Somebody who knew how to function in society at large would simply say they have none instead of listing things that aren't evidence. This is a particularly stupid habit of "teacher" Robert.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

24th December 2011, 01:52 AM	#2340
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by LogicFail I'm sure this has been discussed (I haven't had the time to dig through the entire thread as yet) But there was an excellent program on a few weeks ago that was about as convincing as it could get that LHO acted alone. The bullet hole through the top of the traffic light!!! It lined up with all of the other evidence and was more than to convince me that he acted alone. (any conspiracy couldn't have been much deeper than borrowing some ammo IMO) yet people continue to claim otherwise... why? Is it the deep seated notion of having "secret ,inside information that nobody else knows? Does it give one a sense of superiority in an otherwise mundane existence? It's like the 9/11 truthers, My girlfriend at the time worked at the Pentagon and was driving into work late when she saw the plane. Yet a truther told me to my face she was lying. (even though she happened to call and tell me as much before she knew what was going on). I've known a few crackpots in my time, but I had no idea the rabbit hole was as deep and occupied as it is. So a bullet hole through a traffic light is the extent of your scholarship? How about a bullet through the front of the head and a large blow-out in the back? I'll bet they didn't cover that on that TV special.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

24th December 2011, 02:26 AM	#2341
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey So a bullet hole through a traffic light is the extent of your scholarship? How about a bullet through the front of the head and a large blow-out in the back? I'll bet they didn't cover that on that TV special. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e72478f327.jpg The difference being there is material evidence to support the bullet passing through the traffic light. There is no physical evidence of a large blow out on the back of the head. No there is no material evidence to support the claim. That drawing proves nothing other than the subject memories of somebody who has been shown to have made conflicting statements. There is absolutely no reason to assume a picture drawn from memory is more accurate than the photographs and film we have of the body, and the event itself. Got any material evidence yet Robert? Maybe you should drink some of your miracle water and wish real hard for some?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post. Last edited by Tomtomkent; 24th December 2011 at 02:28 AM. Reason: Precision.

24th December 2011, 02:39 AM	#2342
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent The difference being there is material evidence to support the bullet passing through the traffic light. There is no physical evidence of a large blow out on the back of the head. No there is no material evidence to support the claim. That drawing proves nothing other than the subject memories of somebody who has been shown to have made conflicting statements. There is absolutely no reason to assume a picture drawn from memory is more accurate Maybe you should drink some of your miracle water and wish real hard for some?than the photographs and film we have of the body, and the event itself. Got any material evidence yet Robert? Just the material observations of all the 30 plus first hand medical witnesses at Parkland corroborating a large blow-out in the back of the head pointing to a shot from the front, and a Warren Commission coverup. It certainly is amazing to me, having viewed many of these so-called investigative programs on the JFK assassination, that none of them dare to cover the Best Evidence, namely, the condition of the head wound -- the fatal shot. They all try to convince you that LHO was not just a shooter but the only shooter. Of course, they can't do that, so they don't even try. Not to ever even mention the Odio incident as well.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

24th December 2011, 02:45 AM	#2343
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Just the material observations <snip>. So what material are your observations made out of Robert? What medium do you store your subjective memories on?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

24th December 2011, 02:51 AM	#2344
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	So I believe the actual answer was: "No." Seeing as how anectdotes are not material evidence, and there has yet to be any physical or material evidence to prove the WC was a "whitewash".
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

24th December 2011, 03:52 AM	#2345
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Originally Posted by Robert Prey So a bullet hole through a traffic light is the extent of your scholarship? How about a bullet through the front of the head and a large blow-out in the back? I'll bet they didn't cover that on that TV special. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e72478f327.jpg Nope, it WAS the first time I had heard it mentioned. I have a casual interest in this as I have things like a life and friends and stuff to do most of the time.

24th December 2011, 07:22 AM	#2346
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Just the material observations of all the 30 plus first hand medical witnesses at Parkland corroborating a large blow-out in the back of the head pointing to a shot from the front... You've said this about 900 times already. Quote: ... and a Warren Commission coverup. Ditto. Quote: It certainly is amazing to me, having viewed many of these so-called investigative programs on the JFK assassination, that none of them dare to cover the Best Evidence, namely, the condition of the head wound -- the fatal shot. They all try to convince you that LHO was not just a shooter but the only shooter. Of course, they can't do that, so they don't even try. Not to ever even mention the Odio incident as well. What programs are you talking about, Robert? I haven't seen the National Geographic show but offhand I can think of only one television documentary which had the balls to come and flatly say the conspiracy theories are bunk and that was The Kennedy Assassination, Beyond Conspiracy (which you can watch here). The overwhelming majority of programs about the JFK assassination on the cable channels like the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, etc. have been, if not overtly pro-conspiracy, at least conspiracy friendly. And you are of course wrong about the Odio incident. It was featured and even given credence in the PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? You would have known this if you were paying attention to this thread because it was mentioned here. It sounds like you've got your panties in a wad because your outré conspiracy theories are not getting any airtime. Sorry to break it to you, Robert, but even the majority of conspiracy wackaloons won't touch your stuff with a dead porcupine. Even deluded kooktards have standards.

24th December 2011, 07:37 AM	#2347
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by Walter Ego You've said this about 900 times already. Ditto. What programs are you talking about, Robert? I haven't seen the National Geographic show but offhand I can think of only one television documentary which had the balls to come and flatly say the conspiracy theories are bunk and that was The Kennedy Assassination, Beyond Conspiracy (which you can watch here). The overwhelming majority of programs about the JFK assassination on the cable channels like the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, etc. have been, if not overtly pro-conspiracy, at least conspiracy friendly. And you are of course wrong about the Odio incident. It was featured and even given credence in the PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? You would have known this if you were paying attention to this thread because it was mentioned here. It sounds like you've got your panties in a wad because your outré conspiracy theories are not getting any airtime. Sorry to break it to you, Robert, but even the majority of conspiracy wackaloons won't touch your stuff with a dead porcupine. Even deluded kooktards have standards. He's starting to lose his flavor.

24th December 2011, 08:01 AM	#2348
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by Walter Ego You've said this about 900 times already. Ditto. What programs are you talking about, Robert? I haven't seen the National Geographic show but offhand I can think of only one television documentary which had the balls to come and flatly say the conspiracy theories are bunk and that was The Kennedy Assassination, Beyond Conspiracy (which you can watch here). The overwhelming majority of programs about the JFK assassination on the cable channels like the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, etc. have been, if not overtly pro-conspiracy, at least conspiracy friendly. And you are of course wrong about the Odio incident. It was featured and even given credence in the PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? You would have known this if you were paying attention to this thread because it was mentioned here. It sounds like you've got your panties in a wad because your outré conspiracy theories are not getting any airtime. Sorry to break it to you, Robert, but even the majority of conspiracy wackaloons won't touch your stuff with a dead porcupine. Even deluded kooktards have standards. "Wackaloons, Kooktards," -- so you're back to your original deep thinking post. Haven't grown up a bit. And no, there have been no programs that deal with the Best Evidence -- the Head Wounds seen at Parkland. If there was, name it.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

24th December 2011, 08:04 AM	#2349
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,871	Originally Posted by Robert Prey "Wackaloons, Kooktards," -- so you're back to your original deep thinking post. Haven't grown up a bit. And no, there have been no programs that deal with the Best Evidence -- the Head Wounds seen at Parkland. If there was, name it. So you can't think of anything you've gotten right from the Wackaloon or Kooktard sites? You just swallow whatever they're selling?

24th December 2011, 08:11 AM	#2350
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent So I believe the actual answer was: "No." Seeing as how anectdotes are not material evidence, and there has yet to be any physical or material evidence to prove the WC was a "whitewash". "Material Evidence" of WC Whitewash Written with genuine print on Genuine Paper Material (Fingerprints and DNA to follow) Katzenbach lays out the need for a public statement on the assassination. Katzenbach states that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." Nov. 25, 1963 Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...ren_Commission * * * Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...fk/jfk1110.htm * * * Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html Published June 18, 2004 * * * Warren Counsel Wesley Liebeler: “Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.” http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,505

24th December 2011, 08:13 AM	#2351
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Originally Posted by Robert Prey * * * Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html Published June 18, 2004 http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html More people saw Avatar than most movies over the last 20 years. Thaat doesn't make it the best movie of the last 20 years!

24th December 2011, 08:36 AM	#2352
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	Originally Posted by Robert Prey "Material Evidence" of WC Whitewash Written with genuine print on Genuine Paper Material (Fingerprints and DNA to follow) Katzenbach lays out the need for a public statement on the assassination. Katzenbach states that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." Nov. 25, 1963 Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...ren_Commission * * * Archive Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...fk/jfk1110.htm* * * Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html Published June 18, 2004 * * * Warren Counsel Wesley Liebeler: “Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.” http://www.ctka.net/pr996-odio.html So let's see: A quote taken out of context as already discussed at length here. Not a piece of material evidence. Oh look, a story more about the opinion of somebody than the evidence itself. This boils down to an incorrect set of photographs of a brain damaged from the front being included in the files, and offers nothing to suggest that the rest of the material evidence is faked. More opinions. A lot of people believe in God and luck. They aren't real either. This is not evidence And we finish off with yet another quote taken out of context. Wow. I remain underwhelmed. And confused. Robert still has not prouced any material evidence, or shown he understands the concept at all.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

24th December 2011, 08:37 AM	#2353
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by Robert Prey And no, there have been no programs that deal with the Best Evidence -- the Head Wounds seen at Parkland. If there was, name it. So unless a TV show promotes your flavor of conspiracy theory, it's bogus, right? It's not enough that most shows on the JFK assassination promote conspiracy theories, it must your theory. Actually it's not even your theory. It's cribbed from Livingstone and Lifton which is why you always capitalize Best Evidence, the title of Lifton's book. And here's why your "Best Evidence" has not been on TV: because there are degrees of nuttiness that even the pandering to the lowest common denominator TV networks won't touch. (Which I said already in the post you quoted but which you typically didn't comprehend.)
	Last edited by Walter Ego; 24th December 2011 at 08:38 AM.

24th December 2011, 08:44 AM	#2354
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,219	How can the claims of a headwound be the best evidence? The Body istself is best evidence. The rifle, fingerprints, shell casings, bullets and bullet holes are the best evidence. The subjective memories of what somebody thought they saw is not in any way the best evidence. If this was true, then the best evidence we would have would suggest that despite the Statue of Liberty being there, a magician made it vanish. That is what a lot of people saw.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

24th December 2011, 08:49 AM	#2355
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,871	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent How can the claims of a headwound be the best evidence? The Body istself is best evidence. The rifle, fingerprints, shell casings, bullets and bullet holes are the best evidence. The subjective memories of what somebody thought they saw is not in any way the best evidence. If this was true, then the best evidence we would have would suggest that despite the Statue of Liberty being there, a magician made it vanish. That is what a lot of people saw. I'm going to agree with Robert here. Witness statements are the best material evidence so we'll have to abide by the millions of people who saw the Zapruder film and the massive head wound in the right front of JFK's head and the fact that Oswald is the lone shooter. Robert got that one right. Millions of witnesses can't be wrong. Well done, Robert. Bang!