FREE TAPATALK APP

Robrob · 27th December 2011, 12:47 AM

If I have to limit myself to "one question" I'd like to ask Robert why he lied about LHO's Russian fluency?

Robert Prey · 27th December 2011, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Oh , don't forget to quote this paragraph, either:

"I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

Do any of your conspiracy books quote that?

Hank

Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation."
Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand.

BravesFan · 27th December 2011, 01:33 AM

Boy, conspiracy people don't like when you point out the problems with the thing that keeps them going eh?

Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything cuz there's nothing to prove. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion LHO acted alone.

Tomtomkent · 27th December 2011, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

None of the above is "material" evidence but only false assertions as to what you claim is evidence. And not a scintilla of evidence for a Lone Nut. On the other hand, the observations of medical personnel at Parkland as to the head wounds is superior to everything else because it proves conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.

So you are claiming the rifle does not exist.
That the shell casings and bullets do not exist.
That the photographs and film do not exist.
That the body of JFK itself does not exist.

But no, you insist on the observations of the Parkland staff as material evidence. Very well. Explain what material they are made out of, and how I can go about testing them, with measurable data, to prove they are in any way more accurate than the statements that directly contraddict them.

They are not material evidence Robert. They are claims. They are unsupported by any evidence and clearly you are either too much of an idiot to acknowledge this, or trying to treat others like idiots by assuming they would accept this.

Supply material evidence for your claims, or stop making them, you silly little child.

Tomtomkent · 27th December 2011, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

None of that minutia points to one Lone Nut. But the head wounds observed by medical personnel at Parkland prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Parkland witnesses are not beyond doubt. They are very much in doubt because their observations conflict with the autopsy and the material evidence, and we have no reason to assume they are infaliable or to assume their honesty and competence is any greater than anybody elses.

All available evidence points to LHO firing a rifle, and there is no evidence anybody else was firing a rifle. So yes, it does point towards a lone nut.

So either provide evidence to support the unsubstanciated claims, or we will have no reason to assume those claims are more honest than the ones we have actual evidence for.

Tomtomkent · 27th December 2011, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation."
Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand.

No it doesn't translate as anything like that, unless you are a delusional birk who needs it to mean that, desperately, to justify his claims of a conspiracy.

Let the rest of the world know when you are ready to extract your head from your rectum and actually appraise the evidence in the context of the enture memo, and the surrounding evidence, rather than in the context of what it you clearly hope and wish it showed.

Your head was in your rectum when you lied about Oswalds Russian skills (and cherry picked a partial sentence to justify it), about the photogrpahs you cropped, about the pose your doofus stood in to "prove" something about shadows (you can't even stand in the same pose and expect that to have omething meaningful to say about shadows), about the fingerprints, and now about this.

Yet you accuse others of having heads in the sand and not listening? You have not touched anything remotely resembling reality for most of your posts.

SpitfireIX · 27th December 2011, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

None of that minutia points to one Lone Nut. But the head wounds observed by medical personnel at Parkland prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt.

From the article "Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark," by Teri Randall, which appeared in the April 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Note: this quotation is from an article copyrighted 1993 by the AMA, and is reproduced here pursuant to the fair use exemption to US copyright law, for research purposes.)

Quote:

The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim....

As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time. [bolding mine]

Walter Ego · 27th December 2011, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Robrob

If I have to limit myself to "one question" I'd like to ask Robert why he lied about LHO's Russian fluency?

If Robert was just repeating a lie cribbed from one of his conspiracy books or from some conspiracy web site without bothering to confirm its validity, he was merely demonstrating his confirmation bias. If he doctored the quote from the Warren Commission to "prove" his hero Lee Harvey Oswald was fluent in Russian, he is indeed a bald-faced liar. Take your pick. Only Robert knows for sure. In either case, the lie was exposed and he has dropped his claim like a hot potato.

Robert Prey · 27th December 2011, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

From the article "Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark," by Teri Randall, which appeared in the April 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Note: this quotation is from an article copyrighted 1993 by the AMA, and is reproduced here pursuant to the fair use exemption to US copyright law, for research purposes.)

Quote:
The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim....

As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time. [bolding mine]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...efd47d7e6b.jpg

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

Robert Prey · 27th December 2011, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Boy, conspiracy people don't like when you point out the problems with the thing that keeps them going eh?

Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything cuz there's nothing to prove. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion LHO acted alone.

Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds.

Tomtomkent · 27th December 2011, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

Why?

You know the difference bewteen trauma specialist working in an emergency room and a pathologist working in a morgue right?

Which does that statistic refer to?

Now appologise for being wrongt again.

Tomtomkent · 27th December 2011, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds.

I know a four year old who can tell the difference between observations and material evidence.
Did you learn the difference yet?

What Material Evidence supports your claims?

HSienzant · 27th December 2011, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation."
Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand.

Thank you for telling me how you interpret that memo. However, I think your interpretation is incorrect. I think it is colored by the information you've obtained from conspiracy books that is less than the whole truth.

I remind you that an investigation was already undertaken at that time by the Dallas Police, the Secret Service, the FBI, and numerous other agencies. you interpret Katzenbach's memo as saying they don't need *any kind* of investigation. You wrote: "...we don't need ... any other kind of investigation..."

Katzenbach was in favor of one major Presidential investigation with a number of famous Americans of unimpeachable character - like Earl Warren - and that is precisely what his memo says, despite your denial: 'That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation..." '

What Katzenbach said he wanted to avoid was too many disjointed investigations and Congressmen playing politics with the assassination and doing grandstanding for their own political purposes. That's something you don't think ever happens? Katzenbach wrote: "We need something to head off ... Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

And you apparently think speculation (as opposed to evidence) is a good thing. You wrote: 'That passage translates as "we don't need ... speculation." '

Quote:

Katzenbach's memo concludes:
"I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

jargon buster · 27th December 2011, 09:47 AM

No disrespect to the guys posting in this thread but it's only Robert who isn't hand waving and getting excited.

And it's not a compliment to him by the way.

HSienzant · 27th December 2011, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

If Robert was just repeating a lie cribbed from one of his conspiracy books or from some conspiracy web site without bothering to confirm its validity, he was merely demonstrating his confirmation bias. If he doctored the quote from the Warren Commission to "prove" his hero Lee Harvey Oswald was fluent in Russian, he is indeed a bald-faced liar. Take your pick. Only Robert knows for sure. In either case, the lie was exposed and he has dropped his claim like a hot potato.

I have no doubt Robert was simply cribbing the lie from the three or four JFK assassination conspiracy books he owns. He hasn't shown any inclination to actually check out the documentation available from a variety of sources online, that I can see.

Even when the links are provided, it doesn't appear he has actually read any of them.

Hank

Robrob · 27th December 2011, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds.

So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...?

EventHorizon · 27th December 2011, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Robrob

So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...?

Tsk, tsk. That 'and' makes it two questions. Robert won't answer.

SpitfireIX · 27th December 2011, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

As noted, the article says "emergency physicians"; it doesn't say "pathologists". Fail.

Further, even if true, the fact wouldn't help your case (such as it is). You have claimed that the recollections of the Parkland doctors constitute incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy. Showing that they might be wrong destroys any illusion of incontrovertibility.

However, showing that the autopsy analysis might be wrong doesn't help, because the burden of proof is on you for your extraordinary claim. The only way you can help your case is to prove that the autopsy report is wrong.

matt.tansy · 27th December 2011, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.

It says "trauma specialists", not "pathologists". So much for your cherry-picked Parkland witnesses.

But it doesn't take a pathologist to determine all the gunshot wounds in your feet were self-inflicted.

Robert Prey · 27th December 2011, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

As noted, the article says "emergency physicians"; it doesn't say "pathologists". Fail.

Further, even if true, the fact wouldn't help your case (such as it is). You have claimed that the recollections of the Parkland doctors constitute incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy. Showing that they might be wrong destroys any illusion of incontrovertibility.

However, showing that the autopsy analysis might be wrong doesn't help, because the burden of proof is on you for your extraordinary claim. The only way you can help your case is to prove that the autopsy report is wrong.

You're late to the party. There's a mountain of evidence that proves conspiracy, 30 plus medical personnel at Parkland, several more at Bethesda, witnesses right behind the Pres. Limo that heard and saw shots from the Grassy Knoll, a missing Presidential brain, evidence of more than one autopsy, autopsy photos and x-rays never shown to the Warren Commission, etc, etc., etc. And then we have the sketch made at the instructions of DR. McClelleand showing a large blowout in the back of the head:

in contrast to the sketch which was shown to the Warren Commission:

Only the deaf, dumb and intentionally blind could possibly support the Lone Nutter fairy tale. But there is no shortage of those on this board of Deep Thinkers.

EventHorizon · 27th December 2011, 03:52 PM

Will you ever tire of posting the same speculation over and over again in lieu of the material evidence you were asked for?

RoboTimbo · 27th December 2011, 04:23 PM

Here's a drawing of the bottom of Robert's foot:

Thanks for illustrating what an exit wound looks like, Robert. Bang!

matt.tansy · 27th December 2011, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You're late to the party. There's a mountain of evidence that proves conspiracy, 30 plus medical personnel at Parkland

Which oddly enough none of them report seeing your entrance wound in his face or forehead. Even though JFK was lying on his back.

Robert Prey · 27th December 2011, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

Which oddly enough none of them report seeing your entrance wound in his face or forehead. Even though JFK was lying on his back.

Bullet Wound to right temple here.

RoboTimbo · 27th December 2011, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Bullet Wound to right temple here.

Bullet wounds to foot here.

matt.tansy · 27th December 2011, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Bullet Wound to right temple here.

The question wasn't where you think the entrance wound was; the question was why did none of your Parkland witnesses report seeing such an obvious entrance wound?

BravesFan · 27th December 2011, 05:59 PM

Yes but you have forgotten the most important part of you little scheme. Who gave Jack Ruby cancer?

EventHorizon · 27th December 2011, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Bullet Wound to right temple here.

Do you still think you can dishonestly trick people into thinking that your highly cropped photo shows an entrance wound? We've been over your deception once already.

Robrob · 27th December 2011, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Only the deaf, dumb and intentionally blind could possibly support the Lone Nutter fairy tale. But there is no shortage of those on this board of Deep Thinkers.

So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...?

GregHouseMD · 27th December 2011, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Bullet Wound to right temple here.

Robert, your knowledge of wound ballistics is non existent. Entrance wounds SMALL, exit wounds BIG!

May I refer you to a couple of excellent books on the subject. Buy these, study them then come back and admit you were wrong (Yeah like that's going to happen.)

Quote:

Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic ...
By Vincent J. M. Di Maio

Price ~$115

Quote:

Terminal Ballistics: A Text and Atlas of Gunshot Wounds [Hardcover]
Malcolm J. Dodd

Price ~$195

These books are probably different from others that you have read in that they are filled with facts. (But I love a good novel also)

Tomtomkent · 27th December 2011, 10:09 PM

So Robert, out of interest, instead of drawing a sketch made under instruction from a description of what somebody thought they remembered (and the cropped photo that counters your claim), do you have any material evidence yet?

Walter Ego · 28th December 2011, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

Robert, your knowledge of wound ballistics is non existent. Entrance wounds SMALL, exit wounds BIG!

Robert knows all about the appearance of entry and exit wounds. He posted this way back on post #516.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

From: Explore Forensics
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/en...it-wounds.html

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds
Author: Jack Claridge - Updated: 20 July 2010 | Comment
Entrance And Exit Wounds Gun Shot Bullet

"...The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound..,."

"Exit wounds...are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound."

This is why the Zapruder film is such a problem for Robert.

Quote:

One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It's very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.

Dr. Michael Baden, Chairman of the HSCA Forensic Panel (Posner, pp. 309-310)

In other words, the Zapruder film shows no massive exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head where it must be if Robert's shot from the grassy knoll theory is correct.

This is why Robert has to lie about the Z film and why he keeps posting that little cartoon drawing of the alleged exit wound on the back of the president's head.

Robert Prey · 28th December 2011, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

Robert, your knowledge of wound ballistics is non existent. Entrance wounds SMALL, exit wounds BIG!

May I refer you to a couple of excellent books on the subject. Buy these, study them then come back and admit you were wrong (Yeah like that's going to happen.)

Price ~$115

Price ~$195

These books are probably different from others that you have read in that they are filled with facts. (But I love a good novel also)

Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so.

Thanks,

RP

Tomtomkent · 28th December 2011, 04:08 AM

Were the parkland doctors ballistic experts?
No?

Then on what grounds can we assume the suppossition of direction of bullets accurate?

Is there any material evidence to support their claims of what they think they remember seeing?

No. We cant. And no.

Thanks Robert.

Walter Ego · 28th December 2011, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

What part of the first sentence of [the Katzenbach]memo did you not understand?

"It is important for all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassnation be made public in a way that will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told And that a statement to that effect is to be made now."

For anyone interested in the real history behind the creation of the Warren Commission (as apposed to the lies told by the conspiracy hucksters), here is a rather fascinating web page with actual White House telephone recordings from November 24 and November 25, 1963.

http://www.hpol.org/lbj/warren/

The first recording from November 24, the day Oswald was killed, features LBJ aide Bill Moyers speaking to Eugene Rostow, dean of the Yale Law School. Rostow is usually credited with being the first person to come up with the idea of a special commission to investigate the assassination.

The rest of the recordings are from November 25, the day of JFK's funeral, and feature LBJ talking to J.Edgar Hoover among others. Interestingly, LBJ first thought a Texas commission would be adequate but, probably influenced by Moyers, later came around to the idea of a special presidential commission.

Real history and fascinating stuff and an antidote to the usual conspiracy bunk.

Walter Ego · 28th December 2011, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so.

Robert, since you already know what entrance and exit wounds look like (as I demonstrated above) and yet continue to tell your lies about why no exit wound on the back of JFK's head is visible in the Z film, why would you need to buy any books?

You have shown nothing new since that laughable picture of the doofus holding a broomstick. You just keep playing the same flashcards we have all seen over and over again as if to convince yourself that what's on them is true.

You've shot your wad, Robert. You have nothing left to say. Why don't you just pick up your marbles and go home?

Robert Prey · 28th December 2011, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Robert, since you already know what entrance and exit wounds look like (as I demonstrated above) and yet continue to tell your lies about why no exit wound on the back of JFK's head is visible in the Z film, why would you need to buy any books?

You have shown nothing new since that laughable picture of the doofus holding a broomstick. You just keep playing the same flashcards we have all seen over and over again as if to convince yourself that what's on them is true.

You've shot your wad, Robert. You have nothing left to say. Why don't you just pick up your marbles and go home?

And why are you so upset after claiming months ago you put me on "ignore"?????

RoboTimbo · 28th December 2011, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And why are you so upset after claiming months ago you put me on "ignore"?????

Robert, do you think the picture showing the exit wounds in the bottom of your foot is accurate? Why or why not?

GregHouseMD · 28th December 2011, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so.

Thanks,

RP

Was the guy who drew the sketch you love to refer to actually at the autopsy or Parkland?

Did he actually view the wounds?

I don't think so.

Thanks for not wishing to improve your knowledge or demonstrate anything close to an open mind.

Robert Prey · 28th December 2011, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by GregHouseMD

Was the guy who drew the sketch you love to refer to actually at the autopsy or Parkland?

Did he actually view the wounds?

I don't think so.

Thanks for not wishing to improve your knowledge or demonstrate anything close to an open mind.

Dr.McCelleland, Yes, at Parkland.

Paul O'Connor
Yes, at Bethesda.

27th December 2011, 12:47 AM	#2401
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	If I have to limit myself to "one question" I'd like to ask Robert why he lied about LHO's Russian fluency?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

27th December 2011, 12:49 AM	#2402
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565	Originally Posted by HSienzant Oh , don't forget to quote this paragraph, either: "I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort." Do any of your conspiracy books quote that? Hank Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation." Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand.
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565

27th December 2011, 02:06 AM	#2404
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,336	Originally Posted by Robert Prey None of the above is "material" evidence but only false assertions as to what you claim is evidence. And not a scintilla of evidence for a Lone Nut. On the other hand, the observations of medical personnel at Parkland as to the head wounds is superior to everything else because it proves conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt. So you are claiming the rifle does not exist. That the shell casings and bullets do not exist. That the photographs and film do not exist. That the body of JFK itself does not exist. But no, you insist on the observations of the Parkland staff as material evidence. Very well. Explain what material they are made out of, and how I can go about testing them, with measurable data, to prove they are in any way more accurate than the statements that directly contraddict them. They are not material evidence Robert. They are claims. They are unsupported by any evidence and clearly you are either too much of an idiot to acknowledge this, or trying to treat others like idiots by assuming they would accept this. Supply material evidence for your claims, or stop making them, you silly little child.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

27th December 2011, 02:09 AM	#2405
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,336	Originally Posted by Robert Prey None of that minutia points to one Lone Nut. But the head wounds observed by medical personnel at Parkland prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt. The Parkland witnesses are not beyond doubt. They are very much in doubt because their observations conflict with the autopsy and the material evidence, and we have no reason to assume they are infaliable or to assume their honesty and competence is any greater than anybody elses. All available evidence points to LHO firing a rifle, and there is no evidence anybody else was firing a rifle. So yes, it does point towards a lone nut. So either provide evidence to support the unsubstanciated claims, or we will have no reason to assume those claims are more honest than the ones we have actual evidence for.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

27th December 2011, 02:14 AM	#2406
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,336	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation." Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand. No it doesn't translate as anything like that, unless you are a delusional birk who *needs* it to mean that, desperately, to justify his claims of a conspiracy. Let the rest of the world know when you are ready to extract your head from your rectum and actually appraise the evidence in the context of the enture memo, and the surrounding evidence, rather than in the context of what it you clearly hope and wish it showed. Your head was in your rectum when you lied about Oswalds Russian skills (and cherry picked a partial sentence to justify it), about the photogrpahs you cropped, about the pose your doofus stood in to "prove" something about shadows (you can't even stand in the same pose and expect that to have omething meaningful to say about shadows), about the fingerprints, and now about this. Yet you accuse others of having heads in the sand and not listening? You have not touched anything remotely resembling reality for most of your posts.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

27th December 2011, 01:33 AM	#2403
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Boy, conspiracy people don't like when you point out the problems with the thing that keeps them going eh? Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything cuz there's nothing to prove. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion LHO acted alone.

27th December 2011, 05:11 AM	#2407
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by Robert Prey None of that minutia points to one Lone Nut. But the head wounds observed by medical personnel at Parkland prove conspiracy beyond any reasonable doubt. From the article "Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark," by Teri Randall, which appeared in the April 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Note: this quotation is from an article copyrighted 1993 by the AMA, and is reproduced here pursuant to the fair use exemption to US copyright law, for research purposes.) Quote: The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim.... As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time. [bolding mine]
	__________________ 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

27th December 2011, 05:23 AM	#2408
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by Robrob If I have to limit myself to "one question" I'd like to ask Robert why he lied about LHO's Russian fluency? If Robert was just repeating a lie cribbed from one of his conspiracy books or from some conspiracy web site without bothering to confirm its validity, he was merely demonstrating his confirmation bias. If he doctored the quote from the Warren Commission to "prove" his hero Lee Harvey Oswald was fluent in Russian, he is indeed a bald-faced liar. Take your pick. Only Robert knows for sure. In either case, the lie was exposed and he has dropped his claim like a hot potato.
	Last edited by Walter Ego; 27th December 2011 at 05:37 AM.

27th December 2011, 09:28 AM	#2409
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX From the article "Clinicians' Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds Often Miss the Mark," by Teri Randall, which appeared in the April 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Note: this quotation is from an article copyrighted 1993 by the AMA, and is reproduced here pursuant to the fair use exemption to US copyright law, for research purposes.) Quote: The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim.... As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often misinterpreted--74% of the time. [bolding mine] http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...efd47d7e6b.jpg So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that.
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565	Last edited by Robert Prey; 27th December 2011 at 09:30 AM.

27th December 2011, 09:34 AM	#2410
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565	Originally Posted by LogicFail Boy, conspiracy people don't like when you point out the problems with the thing that keeps them going eh? Get a better hobby, build trains or something. You will never "prove" anything cuz there's nothing to prove. A 4 yr old could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion LHO acted alone. Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds.
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565

27th December 2011, 09:36 AM	#2411
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,336	Originally Posted by Robert Prey So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that. Why? You know the difference bewteen trauma specialist working in an emergency room and a pathologist working in a morgue right? Which does that statistic refer to? Now appologise for being wrongt again.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

27th December 2011, 09:37 AM	#2412
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,336	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds. I know a four year old who can tell the difference between observations and material evidence. Did you learn the difference yet? What Material Evidence supports your claims?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

27th December 2011, 09:44 AM	#2413
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,066	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Wow, are you ever in the land of Orwellian Doublethink. That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation nor speculation." Let me know when you are able to extract your head from out or the sand. Thank you for telling me how you interpret that memo. However, I think your interpretation is incorrect. I think it is colored by the information you've obtained from conspiracy books that is less than the whole truth. I remind you that an investigation was already undertaken at that time by the Dallas Police, the Secret Service, the FBI, and numerous other agencies. you interpret Katzenbach's memo as saying they don't need any kind of investigation. You wrote: "...we don't need ... any other kind of investigation..." Katzenbach was in favor of one major Presidential investigation with a number of famous Americans of unimpeachable character - like Earl Warren - and that is precisely what his memo says, despite your denial: 'That passage translates as "we don't need not stinkn' congressional investigation or any other kind of investigation..." ' What Katzenbach said he wanted to avoid was too many disjointed investigations and Congressmen playing politics with the assassination and doing grandstanding for their own political purposes. That's something you don't think ever happens? Katzenbach wrote: "We need something to head off ... Congressional hearings of the wrong sort." And you apparently think speculation (as opposed to evidence) is a good thing. You wrote: 'That passage translates as "we don't need ... speculation." ' Quote: Katzenbach's memo concludes: "I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto." Last edited by HSienzant; 27th December 2011 at 10:03 AM.

27th December 2011, 09:47 AM	#2414
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,261	No disrespect to the guys posting in this thread but it's only Robert who isn't hand waving and getting excited. And it's not a compliment to him by the way.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

27th December 2011, 10:31 AM	#2415
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,066	Originally Posted by Walter Ego If Robert was just repeating a lie cribbed from one of his conspiracy books or from some conspiracy web site without bothering to confirm its validity, he was merely demonstrating his confirmation bias. If he doctored the quote from the Warren Commission to "prove" his hero Lee Harvey Oswald was fluent in Russian, he is indeed a bald-faced liar. Take your pick. Only Robert knows for sure. In either case, the lie was exposed and he has dropped his claim like a hot potato. I have no doubt Robert was simply cribbing the lie from the three or four JFK assassination conspiracy books he owns. He hasn't shown any inclination to actually check out the documentation available from a variety of sources online, that I can see. Even when the links are provided, it doesn't appear he has actually read any of them. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

27th December 2011, 12:51 PM	#2416
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Comparing the Lone Nutters on this board to a 4 year old is an insult to 4-year-olds. So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

27th December 2011, 01:33 PM	#2417
EventHorizon Atheist Tergiversator Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,877	Originally Posted by Robrob So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...? Tsk, tsk. That 'and' makes it two questions. Robert won't answer.
	__________________ "One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so." -Phil Plait

27th December 2011, 03:05 PM	#2418
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by Robert Prey So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that. As noted, the article says "emergency physicians"; it doesn't say "pathologists". Fail. Further, even if true, the fact wouldn't help your case (such as it is). You have claimed that the recollections of the Parkland doctors constitute incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy. Showing that they might be wrong destroys any illusion of incontrovertibility. However, showing that the autopsy analysis might be wrong doesn't help, because the burden of proof is on you for your extraordinary claim. The only way you can help your case is to prove that the autopsy report is wrong.
	__________________ 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

27th December 2011, 03:23 PM	#2419
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Groton, CT Posts: 812	Originally Posted by Robert Prey So this confirms a 52% to a 74% probability that the autopsy docs were wrong. Thank you for that. It says "trauma specialists", not "pathologists". So much for your cherry-picked Parkland witnesses. But it doesn't take a pathologist to determine all the gunshot wounds in your feet were self-inflicted.
	__________________ 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

27th December 2011, 03:27 PM	#2420
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX As noted, the article says "emergency physicians"; it doesn't say "pathologists". Fail. Further, even if true, the fact wouldn't help your case (such as it is). You have claimed that the recollections of the Parkland doctors constitute incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy. Showing that they might be wrong destroys any illusion of incontrovertibility. However, showing that the autopsy analysis might be wrong doesn't help, because the burden of proof is on you for your extraordinary claim. The only way you can help your case is to prove that the autopsy report is wrong. You're late to the party. There's a mountain of evidence that proves conspiracy, 30 plus medical personnel at Parkland, several more at Bethesda, witnesses right behind the Pres. Limo that heard and saw shots from the Grassy Knoll, a missing Presidential brain, evidence of more than one autopsy, autopsy photos and x-rays never shown to the Warren Commission, etc, etc., etc. And then we have the sketch made at the instructions of DR. McClelleand showing a large blowout in the back of the head: in contrast to the sketch which was shown to the Warren Commission: Only the deaf, dumb and intentionally blind could possibly support the Lone Nutter fairy tale. But there is no shortage of those on this board of Deep Thinkers.
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565

27th December 2011, 03:52 PM	#2421
EventHorizon Atheist Tergiversator Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,877	Will you ever tire of posting the same speculation over and over again in lieu of the material evidence you were asked for?
	__________________ "One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so." -Phil Plait

27th December 2011, 04:23 PM	#2422
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 22,054	Here's a drawing of the bottom of Robert's foot: Thanks for illustrating what an exit wound looks like, Robert. Bang!

27th December 2011, 05:05 PM	#2423
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Groton, CT Posts: 812	Originally Posted by Robert Prey You're late to the party. There's a mountain of evidence that proves conspiracy, 30 plus medical personnel at Parkland Which oddly enough none of them report seeing your entrance wound in his face or forehead. Even though JFK was lying on his back.
	__________________ 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

27th December 2011, 05:33 PM	#2424
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565	Originally Posted by matt.tansy Which oddly enough none of them report seeing your entrance wound in his face or forehead. Even though JFK was lying on his back. Bullet Wound to right temple here.
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565

27th December 2011, 05:41 PM	#2425
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 22,054	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Bullet Wound to right temple here. Bullet wounds to foot here.

27th December 2011, 05:52 PM	#2426
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Groton, CT Posts: 812	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Bullet Wound to right temple here. The question wasn't where you think the entrance wound was; the question was why did none of your Parkland witnesses report seeing such an obvious entrance wound?
	__________________ 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

27th December 2011, 05:59 PM	#2427
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Yes but you have forgotten the most important part of you little scheme. Who gave Jack Ruby cancer?

27th December 2011, 06:48 PM	#2428
EventHorizon Atheist Tergiversator Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,877	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Bullet Wound to right temple here. Do you still think you can dishonestly trick people into thinking that your highly cropped photo shows an entrance wound? We've been over your deception once already.
	__________________ "One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so." -Phil Plait

27th December 2011, 08:29 PM	#2429
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Only the deaf, dumb and intentionally blind could possibly support the Lone Nutter fairy tale. But there is no shortage of those on this board of Deep Thinkers. So the reason you lied about LHO attending military language school and being fluent in Russian is because...?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

27th December 2011, 08:46 PM	#2430
GregHouseMD Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 334	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Bullet Wound to right temple here. Robert, your knowledge of wound ballistics is non existent. Entrance wounds SMALL, exit wounds BIG! May I refer you to a couple of excellent books on the subject. Buy these, study them then come back and admit you were wrong (Yeah like that's going to happen.) Quote: Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic ... By Vincent J. M. Di Maio Price ~$115 Quote: Terminal Ballistics: A Text and Atlas of Gunshot Wounds [Hardcover] Malcolm J. Dodd Price ~$195 These books are probably different from others that you have read in that they are filled with facts. (But I love a good novel also)

27th December 2011, 10:09 PM	#2431
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,336	So Robert, out of interest, instead of drawing a sketch made under instruction from a description of what somebody thought they remembered (and the cropped photo that counters your claim), do you have any material evidence yet?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

28th December 2011, 02:39 AM	#2432
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by GregHouseMD Robert, your knowledge of wound ballistics is non existent. Entrance wounds SMALL, exit wounds BIG! Robert knows all about the appearance of entry and exit wounds. He posted this way back on post #516. Originally Posted by Robert Prey From: Explore Forensics http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/en...it-wounds.html Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds Entrance and Exit Wounds Author: Jack Claridge - Updated: 20 July 2010 \| Comment Entrance And Exit Wounds Gun Shot Bullet "...The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound..,." "Exit wounds...are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound." This is why the Zapruder film is such a problem for Robert. Quote: One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It's very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head. Dr. Michael Baden, Chairman of the HSCA Forensic Panel (Posner, pp. 309-310) In other words, the Zapruder film shows no massive exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head where it must be if Robert's shot from the grassy knoll theory is correct. This is why Robert has to lie about the Z film and why he keeps posting that little cartoon drawing of the alleged exit wound on the back of the president's head.

28th December 2011, 03:57 AM	#2433
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565	Originally Posted by GregHouseMD Robert, your knowledge of wound ballistics is non existent. Entrance wounds SMALL, exit wounds BIG! May I refer you to a couple of excellent books on the subject. Buy these, study them then come back and admit you were wrong (Yeah like that's going to happen.) Price ~$115 Price ~$195 These books are probably different from others that you have read in that they are filled with facts. (But I love a good novel also) Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so. Thanks, RP
Robert Prey Suspended Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,565

28th December 2011, 04:08 AM	#2434
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,336	Were the parkland doctors ballistic experts? No? Then on what grounds can we assume the suppossition of direction of bullets accurate? Is there any material evidence to support their claims of what they think they remember seeing? No. We cant. And no. Thanks Robert.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

28th December 2011, 04:47 AM	#2435
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	For Anyone Who Is Not Robert Originally Posted by HSienzant What part of the first sentence of [the Katzenbach]memo did you not understand? "It is important for all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassnation be made public in a way that will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told And that a statement to that effect is to be made now." For anyone interested in the real history behind the creation of the Warren Commission (as apposed to the lies told by the conspiracy hucksters), here is a rather fascinating web page with actual White House telephone recordings from November 24 and November 25, 1963. http://www.hpol.org/lbj/warren/ The first recording from November 24, the day Oswald was killed, features LBJ aide Bill Moyers speaking to Eugene Rostow, dean of the Yale Law School. Rostow is usually credited with being the first person to come up with the idea of a special commission to investigate the assassination. The rest of the recordings are from November 25, the day of JFK's funeral, and feature LBJ talking to J.Edgar Hoover among others. Interestingly, LBJ first thought a Texas commission would be adequate but, probably influenced by Moyers, later came around to the idea of a special presidential commission. Real history and fascinating stuff and an antidote to the usual conspiracy bunk.
	Last edited by Walter Ego; 28th December 2011 at 04:53 AM.