** Why Conspiracy Theories Prevail **

[David Von Pein]

...not that I want to threadjack my own thread and interrupt the awesome and usual childish arguments going on here.

You like that word today, don't you Blair?

I guess nobody's allowed to talk about the actual evidence in the case, as I am constantly doing, without being referred to as being "childish". A most curious complaint indeed. I was merely chatting with Mr. Ecker about the evidence.

As for the "chain of custody" or "chain of handling" for the X-rays -- I haven't the foggiest. But I do know this (which all CTers are forced to ignore or deem as a phony declaration too):

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Vol. 7, p.41 (DVP's emphasis)

And there's also this little tidbit from those 3 guys who signed that autopsy report (which CTers must also deem as a phony report and/or all lies):

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Page 6 of the autopsy report

Is there ANYTHING in this case that conspiracy theorists think wasn't faked or phonied up by those dastardly plotters? Anything at all (except the bogus acoustical evidence, that is)?

Edited April 21, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Blair Dobson]

...not that I want to threadjack my own thread and interrupt the awesome and usual childish arguments going on here.

You like that word today, don't you Blair?

david, don't be a child. you are hard enough to stomach as is without weak BS like that. it's no wonder you take issue with this. try and stay on point here for once.

I guess nobody's allowed to talk about the actual evidence in the case, as I am constantly doing, without being referred to as being "childish". A most curious complaint indeed. I was merely chatting with Mr. Ecker about the evidence.

again, off topic and diffuse...you flametroll / threadjack almost every thread you are in so..quit crying. your whining is annoying.and it's YOUR version og the evidence which you are a dogmatic bully about 99% of the time. It's why you would never get a job in a place where people solve real world problems.

As for the "chain of custody" or "chain of handling" for the X-rays -- I haven't the foggiest. But I do know this (which all CTers are forced to ignore or deem as a phony declaration too):

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Vol. 7, p.41 (DVP's emphasis)

the HSCA has about as much creedence as the WC does and again you have cherry picked what you offer as empirical evidence while stating you haven't the foggiest.

so which is it?

And there's also this little tidbit from those 3 guys who signed that autopsy report (which CTers must also deem as a phony report and/or all lies):

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Page 6 of the autopsy report

Is there ANYTHING in this case that conspiracy theorists think wasn't faked or phonied up by those dastardly plotters? Anything at all (except the bogus acoustical evidence, that is)?

please provide proof that the acoustical evidence you mention was faked: how is it bogus? please explain yourself in detail.

so in short, when asked to provide "evidence" , your excuse is that everyone is a CT'r and that unless we trust HSCA and the WC, we are deluding ourselves...and you have nothing as usual.

first of all, I am neither a ct'r or an ln'r....i look at what's there. what you provide shows nothing.

i also didn't say anything was faked, i asked some questions...questions you can't answer. which is fine.

then as usual you prattle on like a child.

you "haven't the foggiest" except an entitled opinion, a horrifically bad attitude and since you fired the first cheap shot, a really stupid 1970's porn stache that belongs in a museum. a porn museum.

by the way, for such an educated and opiniated genius such as yourself, where do you find the time to upload a few thousand videos to you tube?

Edited April 21, 2013 by Blair Dobson

[David Von Pein]

please provide proof that the acoustical evidence you mention was faked: how is it bogus?

Here's the short version of why the HSCA's Dictabelt evidence is bunk:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

the HSCA has about as much creedence [sic] as the WC does and again you have cherry picked what you offer as empirical evidence while stating you haven't the foggiest. so which is it?

Take a guess, you silly little man.

i also didn't say anything was faked, i asked some questions...questions you can't answer.

Ask me a reasonable one about the evidence. I'll be happy to answer it.

then as usual you prattle on like a child.

You're getting sillier by the sentence. (BTW, it IS okay to occasionally utilize that shift key on your keyboard. It appears you have no idea it's even there.)

you "haven't the foggiest" except an entitled opinion, a horrifically bad attitude and since you fired the first cheap shot, a really stupid 1970's porn stache that belongs in a museum. a porn museum.

You fired the first shot (twice), via your "childish" remarks from earlier today. So stop whining.

>>> "so in short, when asked to provide "evidence" , your excuse is that everyone is a CT'r and that unless we trust HSCA and the WC, we are deluding ourselves...and you have nothing as usual." <<<

Yeah, I've only got all the physical evidence, which all points to your prized patsy. That's all. What have you got (except a broken shift key)?

>>> "by the way, for such an educated and opiniated [sic] genius such as yourself, where do you find the time to upload a few thousand videos to you tube?" <<<

I don't. I get my CIA partner, Ruth Paine, to upload them for me.

Any more arrows you'd like to sling my way? Or have you stomped your feet enough for one day?

(And yet Blair Dobson has the guts to call OTHER forum members "childish". Yet another classic example of Pot colliding head-on with Kettle here at the Edu. Forum. What a surprise!)

Edited April 21, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

...

the HSCA has about as much creedence [sic] as the WC does and again you have cherry picked what you offer as empirical evidence while stating you haven't the foggiest. so which is it?

Take a guess, you silly little man.

are you related to Lampoon Lamson? Purchased a franchise perhaps? LMAO!

[Richard Coleman]

Ron,

Regardless of how lousy the autopsy may or may not have been, how does that affect what we can see with our very own eyes in those autopsy photos and X-rays?

What if the back of the head photo, for example, was faked? I'm sure you have heard of this possibility being discussed somewhere in the literature, haven't you? Not that the government would do such a dastardly thing, trying to fool us. According to you, If we see it in a government photo "with our very own eyes," then, to quote Madeline Kahn in Blazing Saddles, "It's twue, it's twue!"

Everything about this case has been gone over a thousand times. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a lone nutter about it (I've quit arguing with young-Earth creationists too), and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Of course in MK's case (Lili Von Shtupp's case actually) it really was twue......

[Pat Speer]

Hello, people. Let's try to stay on point. Is it true that people tend to sift through information with the subconscious agenda of supporting what they already have come to believe? (This is, to my understanding. Shermer's basic argument.)

I suspect so. No, I know so. People believing Oswald acted alone tend to throw all the evidence he didn't act alone into the "conspiracy kook nonsense" box, while people tending to believe Oswald was framed tend to throw all the evidence he was involved into the "it's all fake" box. The evidence is filtered first. If it fits what they want to believe, it's important, if it doesn't fit, it's trash.

I truly wish this wasn't the case. In my own research, I've uncovered and come to accept bits of evidence supporting both sides, and have met with nearly equal resistance from both sides when my evidence suggests something people don't wish to believe.

That's just the way it works. People's opinions rarely change when new evidence is presented. The only way to effect a change in attitude, then, is to put the information out there so that the few newbies just coming into an argument can judge for themselves...before they're firmly entrenched.

[David Von Pein]

Well said, Pat.