The photos are true because Oswald did it
awthr...@gmail.com
thread...so I'm going to put it in big letters for you...
>But since I know
>that NONE of the autopsy pictures or X-rays are phonies or fakes,
> can be quite confident of the fact that SOME reasonable and non-
> conspiratorial explanation DOES exist with respect to ANY photographic
> discrepancy that might crop up regarding the autopsy photos and X-rays
> of John F. Kennedy -- EVEN IF I, MYSELF, DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT REASONABLE >EXPLANATION IS.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/589cd6e065961cbc?hl=en
There it is, folks. But don't worry if you're a lone nutter. David
hasn't given up. David has fallen on his sword with the ultimate
defense when he quotes Vincent Bugliosi:
> "With respect to the [John F.] Kennedy assassination, once you
> establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you
> also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is
> known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
> discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
> have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
In other words: The photos are true because Oswald did it.
So remember that, LN'ers. No matter what the evidence might show, just
keep repeating, "The photos are true because Oswald did it. The photos
are true because Oswald did it.The photos are true because Oswald did
it."
David is doing it. He's just put up a new thread all about Oswald.
It's as if he forgot all about his not having a reasonable
answer...it's all Oswald all the time because, you see, he did it
regardless of the man standing behind the curtain and photos that
don't match.
David Von Pein
Where is your argument about the discrepancy in the photos taking you
(ultimately), "awthraw"?
Do you want to believe that your goofball "plotters" decided to insert
a FAKE autopsy X-ray picture of SOMEBODY ELSE BESIDES JOHN KENNEDY
into the official record...with this FAKE X-ray totally conflicting
with the other pictures?
That's one great batch of brain-dead plotters you've got there, aw.
FACT -- All of the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of
PRESIDENT KENNEDY at the time of his autopsy on 11/22/63 -- and ALL of
those autopsy photos and X-rays were deemed genuine and unaltered "in
any manner" by the HSCA in 1978.
That's the official record you are forced to overcome with your
speculation about differing autopsy photos/X-ray, Mr./Mrs. "Awthraw".
Think you can overcome this impressive paragraph below, Mr. Kook? Of
course you can't. But that won't stop kooks like you from trying, will
it?:
"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; VOLUME 7; PAGE 41
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
awthr...@gmail.com
> Where is your argument about the discrepancy in the photos taking you
> (ultimately), "awthraw"?
>
> Do you want to believe that your goofball "plotters"
I never said the plotters were "goofballs." I don't believe the
murderers were goofballs, David. They were part of the plot to murder
JFK, but that doesn't make them goofballs...just murderers.
The plot was pretty ingenious...but of course it couldn't bear
scrutiny despite their best efforts. The cover-up depended in large
part LBJ's ability to control the release of the evidence. But as that
fell apart so did the plot.
>decided to insert
> a FAKE autopsy X-ray picture of SOMEBODY ELSE BESIDES JOHN KENNEDY
> into the official record...with this FAKE X-ray totally conflicting
> with the other pictures?
Here's your own admission, David: "EVEN IF I...DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT
REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS."
It's your admission that the two photos...AUTOPSY PHOTOS!!...fail the
basic test of even minimally matching each other. The "goofball"
defense doesn't change the photo problem one iota.
> That's one great batch of brain-dead plotters you've got there, aw.
>
> FACT -- All of the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY at the time of his autopsy on 11/22/63 -- and ALL of
> those autopsy photos and X-rays were deemed genuine and unaltered "in
> any manner" by the HSCA in 1978.
>
> That's the official record you are forced to overcome with your
> speculation about differing autopsy photos/X-ray, Mr./Mrs. "Awthraw".
I did overcome it, David. You "didn't have a reasonable explanation."
>
> Think you can overcome this impressive paragraph below, Mr. Kook? Of
> course you can't. But that won't stop kooks like you from trying, will
> it?:
>
> "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; VOLUME 7; PAGE 41
I did overcome it, David. I pointed out to you that the photos weren't
altered...but they FAILED to match each other in the slightest way.
Did you block that out already?
Did you forget that you admitted that you "have no reasonable
explanation" for the differences?
You did promise to retreat to the Vince Bugliosi stance that since
Oswald was guilty, the evidence needn't agree. You've kept true to
your promise on that one.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
David Von Pein
>>> "Did you forget that you admitted that you "have no reasonable explanation" for the differences?" <<<
I don't have to have one, idiot, given these words (which are words
that you'll ignore until Bessie comes knockin' at your front door):
"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." -- 7 HSCA 41
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:648276ab-d9c1-494e...@j11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
The ARRB proves you WRONG>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
Gil Jesus
>
> There it is, folks. But don't worry if you're a lone nutter. David
> hasn't given up. David has fallen on his sword with the ultimate
> defense when he quotes Vincent Bugliosi:
>
> > � � � "With respect to the [John F.] Kennedy assassination, once you
> > establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you
> > also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the answer is
> > known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
> > discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
> > have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB
>
> In other words: The photos are true because Oswald did it.
This is called "circular reasoning":
a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to
the conclusion, a method of false logic by which
"this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also
called circular logic .
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that
the conclusion is true does not constitute evidence for a conclusion
in the premises.
In other words, simply assuming that "Oswald did it" does not serve as
evidence in any way that "the photos are true".
I only know of two people who use this in the JFK assassination,
Bugliosi and Von Pein.
awthr...@gmail.com
David, you're forcing me to use all caps. Why? So you'll notice the
following: "I pointed out to you that THE PHOTOS WEREN'T ALTERED...but
they FAILED to match each other in the slightest way.
What that means, David, is that ALTERATION isn't the be-all and end-
all of the problem. You've got one photo showing a nearly normal right
forehead, BUT the other photo shows there no right forehead bones.
That means...if the photos weren't ALTERED...that the photos are of
two different heads. It is impossible for JFK to have BOTH a normal
forehead AND no forehead bones on the right side.
Impossible.
So you can stand on the roof tops saying Oswald acted alone for 45
years if you want to, but Oswald didn't provide the UNALTERED autopsy
photos. The photos with no dental exposures. Hmm.
Do you get it? Even if Oswald were the killer, he did not act alone.
This was a preplanned, well organized murder and cover up.
David Von Pein
>>> "If the photos weren't ALTERED...that the photos are of two different heads. It is impossible for JFK to have BOTH a normal forehead AND no forehead bones on the right side." <<<
I guess "awthraw" must have missed this sentence:
"The autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President
Kennedy at the time of his autopsy." -- 7 HSCA 41
tomnln
<awthr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78cddaae-0299-4d4e...@n10g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
awthr...@gmail.com
David, you do understand that with newer technology the x-ray photos
presented to the HSCA are more readable now, don't you? What couldn't
be discerned then is now blatantly obvious.
With that in mind, seeing with your own eyes what you were unable to
provide a reasonable explanation for, do you still want to cling to an
erroneous statement made by the HSCA?
Once again, it's impossible to have a normal forehead and no forehead
bones on the right side. Or do you want to disagree with that, David?
David Von Pein
Any idea why your goofball plotters wanted to insert a false X-ray
into the official record that looks so obviously different from the
Death Stare photo?
IOW -- Where the hell are you going with this? And why were these
photo-inserters so stupid?
Also -- Is there any end to the stupid theories you kooks want to
believe?
awthr...@gmail.com
> Any idea why your goofball plotters
Why do you call them my goofball plotters? That's your acccusation,
not mine.
>wanted to insert a false X-ray
> into the official record that looks so obviously different from the
> Death Stare photo?
Thank you for admitting once again the following: "a false X-ray
into the official record THAT LOOKS SO OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT from the
Death Stare photo?" (CAPS ADDED)
It IS obviously different, isn't it David. Thanks for noticing.
>
> IOW -- Where the hell are you going with this? And why were these
> photo-inserters so stupid?
So stupid?? Though it was botched, it worked well enough to keep them
out of the gallows.
By definition the cover up had to be botched because there was the
reality of what actually happened, and then there was the attempt to
mislead everyone. They got away with it for a time because LBJ tried
to seal the records for 75 years.
> Also -- Is there any end to the stupid theories you kooks want to
> believe?
Well, I never fell for this one, fighting upstream against forensic
evidence that isn't worth spit: "Oswald did it, and he did it on his
own."