Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
Snort. You brought up the 2AM casket arrival as evidence for the autopsy ending as late as 2:45AM.




And given that O'Neill remembers the exact opposite, what do you make of their disparate recollections?

Are you still trying to reconcile them? That's a fool's errand.

I thought you would have understood by now that recollections from 40 years after the fact are bound to have errors, and it's a mistake to put any weight on those recollections.

Of course, as I keep pointing out, without those recollections from the HSCA, ARRB, and now William Law, you would not have much to cite. It's curious, don't you think, how frequently you must mention these interviews from decades after the fact in an attempt to make your case?

Hank
Click to expand...

It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie. Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy book logic. Two wrongs make a right, but only if one wrong is smaller than the other.


MicahJava said:
Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
Click to expand...

Punt!

If O'Neill is lying under testimony, how do you know that? And if he is, how do you know WHAT he's lying about?

Yours is no response at all. It's just more accusations by you of lying by witnesses whenever they said anything that conflicts with your conspiracy dream scenario.

How reliable is your "liar-liar-pants-on-fire" detector and when was it last calibrated? And where did you go to have it calibrated?

And, of course, as always when stuck, you just change the subject and accuse others of lying... now it's two more witnesses central to your argument that Oswald was innocent, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle. ("Minnie" indeed).

We're supposed to ignore the hard evidence that confirms the homemade paper sack story now, the hard evidence of the homemade paper sack long enough to contain Oswald's disassembled rifle, bearing Oswald's palmprint on it, that was found in the sniper's nest corner and confirms the homemade paper sack story told by BWF and LMR, that Oswald brought a long homemade paper sack to work on the morning of the assassination?

We're supposed to ignore the fact that Oswald's rifle was likewise found in the depository where he worked, and you can't explain how the sack was created or why or how the rifle got into the building, and who brought it there, if not Oswald in the homemade paper sack?

Wait... your excuse is coming to me... the cops made the paper sack to frame Oswald, and yes, they too lied about it!

And the entire paper trail showing Oswald ordered the rifle, paid for the rifle, and had it shipped to his PO Box? All forgeries?

And the photos of him with the rifle, taken with his own camera by his own wife? More forgeries to frame Oswald?

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

You have no facts on your side, so you constantly resort to the "everyone was lying except for Oswald" argument.

It's nonsense.

You keep looking for the deception in the evidence, but the only deception evident from CT posts I can see is self-deception.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie. Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
Click to expand...

Again you provide no proof of your accusations of anybody lying and resort to this failed tactic anytime it fits your beliefs. If it is so simple why then does most of the civilized world conclude a different outcome, than yours, to this issue?
 
MicahJava said:
It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie. Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a lie?

Why can't Frazier just have believed what Oswald told him about the package being curtain rods?

Why can't he be mistaken about how long the package was?

Why can't we give him the benefit of a doubt that maybe his brain remembered it wrong to alleviate the guilt of driving the murderer and his weapon to the scene of the crime were the leader of the free world died?

Mis-remembering things is a coping mechanism for a lot of people who've undergone a traumatic event.

Every step of the way you ignore the human factor.
 
All of this autopsy-mortician time line nonsense is a waste of time.

None of it changes what happened in Dallas, it doesn't change the evidence of a single gunman, it doesn't point away from Oswald as that gunman, and doesn't serve any purpose other than a red herring.

The autopsy occurred while Oswald was still alive. He could have been talking to the DPD and FBI while they were cutting into JFK, and nobody could have stopped him. Why alter wounds when you don't know what's happening in Dallas? Why fake an autopsy when the entire National Security apparatus is actively searching for a link to a larger conspiracy?

For a conspiracy theory to function these questions, and all of the other ones asked of MJ must be addressed.
 
Pardon the quick interruption. It'd been a while since I'd logged in here, but I've kept up with these threads since Part III, before Harris's arrival. Just stopping by to post a quick note of appreciation to (almost) all participants, especially HSienzant for so many detailed, wonderful posts. I've learned a ton from following these exchanges the last couple of years. Thank you.
 
Wolverine said:
Pardon the quick interruption. It'd been a while since I'd logged in here, but I've kept up with these threads since Part III, before Harris's arrival. Just stopping by to post a quick note of appreciation to (almost) all participants, especially HSienzant for so many detailed, wonderful posts. I've learned a ton from following these exchanges the last couple of years. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no doubt that HSeinzant's knowledge is encyclopedic.
 
MicahJava said:
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

Translation:

I want a thread where I can lie, misrepresent and handwave as much as I want without multiple people pointing out my lies, misrepresentations and handwaves.
 
MicahJava said:
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

It's a classic conspiracist tactic, or indeed a tactic of anyone whose views are so extreme and bizarre that only a very small number of people espouse them, to try to reduce the opposition to their ideas to a single person's contribution. It's a lot like the creationists demanding "teach the controversy," in that it seeks to generate the illusion that views on both sides of the question have some kind of equivalence. All that a one-on-one debate usually proves is that one person is better at one-on-one debating than another; that's why science and history are established by broad consensus and peer review, not by adversarial one-on-one debate.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

I triple-dog dare you to post any evidence for a conspiracy, backed by sound reasoning without logical fallacies and taking quotes out of context, and follow up by actually debating the points made in rebuttal, instead of punting and changing the subject.

You can start by reviewing any of my recent posts you ignored the first time around and attempting to respond to the points made.

Hank

PS: Did you ever figure out who altered Connally's wounds?
 
Last edited:
This also illustrates the fact that conspiracists are mainly interested in scoring rhetorical points and attempting to win debates, rather than uncovering the truth.

JayUtah, who is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on fake moon landing CTs, always declines such one-on-one debate challenges, stating that everyone should be free to contribute to the discussion, for exactly this reason.
 
SpitfireIX said:
This also illustrates the fact that conspiracists are mainly interested in scoring rhetorical points and attempting to win debates, rather than uncovering the truth.

JayUtah, who is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on fake moon landing CTs, always declines such one-on-one debate challenges, stating that everyone should be free to contribute to the discussion, for exactly this reason.
Click to expand...

I believe that Jay's stance is to not debate in a non moderated media, he has certainly debated in apollohoax.org and in CosmoQuest
 
bknight said:
I believe that Jay's stance is to not debate in a non moderated media, he has certainly debated in apollohoax.org and in CosmoQuest
Click to expand...


Of course, but he declines challenges to one-on-one debates. His position is that anyone who wishes to contribute to the discussion should be allowed to, in order better to arrive at the truth.
 
Axxman300 said:
All of this autopsy-mortician time line nonsense is a waste of time.

None of it changes what happened in Dallas, it doesn't change the evidence of a single gunman, it doesn't point away from Oswald as that gunman, and doesn't serve any purpose other than a red herring.

The autopsy occurred while Oswald was still alive. He could have been talking to the DPD and FBI while they were cutting into JFK, and nobody could have stopped him. Why alter wounds when you don't know what's happening in Dallas? Why fake an autopsy when the entire National Security apparatus is actively searching for a link to a larger conspiracy?

For a conspiracy theory to function these questions, and all of the other ones asked of MJ must be addressed.
Click to expand...

In the aspects you mention, it strongly resembles all the crap about the location of the entrance wound. It is yet another red herring, supported by carefully cherry-picked "evidence" that doesn't really, even if it were true, support the notion of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy/frame Oswald. At most, it implies that something shady could have happened.
 
CORed said:
At most, it implies that something shady could have happened.
Click to expand...

That's right, and in 1963-64 that's exactly what the CIA and FBI were actively investigating.

Lee Oswald was like the Forest Gump of the Cold War era:

He defected to Russia (changed his mind because nobody in Russia cared)

Goes to New Orleans, starts his Fair Play for Cuba Committee (more about him that Cuba), then mixes it up with anti-Castro Cubans who are losely affiliated with other Cuban nationals training in the Louisiana Swamps with the CIA.

Goes back to Dallas, buys his rifle.

Takes a shot at General Walker (Walker dropped his pen, bent to pick it up as bullet sailed above his head)

Goes to Mexico City, visits the Soviet and Cuban Embassies in October, 1963.

Returns to Dallas, kills JFK in November.

What most people see is a wannabe Marxist rebel without a clue. Shooting at Walker ( in his mind) gave him credibility as a serious revolutionary actor.When the Russians and Cubans laughed him out of their embassies he returns to Dallas and learns that JFK is coming to town - and driving right in front of his place of employment.

What the CIA saw was a guy with Soviet connections, and the newly released documents show that they shook every tree in Mexico, Europe, and Gulf of Mexico hoping to link him to a Soviet/Castro plot to kill JFK. The CIA continued to debate Oswald exclusivity well into the 1970's. You can see why, Oswald wandered into the shadow of the KGB and Cuban intelligence, and the CIA's paranoia on this subject was reasonable.

What the FBI saw was a guy with Soviet connections, who was then killed by Jack Ruby, who had mafia connections. Their investigations from 1963 to 1966 focused on domestic Communist cells. From 1968 through the mid-1970's their focus changed to a mafia link, especially after they found out about Operation Mongoose. Oswald's missing time in New Orleans skew the scales of the Mafia/JFK theories to this day.

The bottom line is that neither the CIA nor FBI ever found evidence to link Oswald to anyone else...because there is no evidence.
 
MicahJava said:
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

If you'd spend some time honestly and diligently attempting to actually answer the scores of questions you've been posed here (and ignored), it'd do vastly more to improve your understanding of the topic than griping about the format or chucking random gauntlets.

Seriously. Try it out.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's a classic conspiracist tactic, or indeed a tactic of anyone whose views are so extreme and bizarre that only a very small number of people espouse them, to try to reduce the opposition to their ideas to a single person's contribution. It's a lot like the creationists demanding "teach the controversy," in that it seeks to generate the illusion that views on both sides of the question have some kind of equivalence. All that a one-on-one debate usually proves is that one person is better at one-on-one debating than another; that's why science and history are established by broad consensus and peer review, not by adversarial one-on-one debate.

Dave
Click to expand...

Really? You're against the core concept of one-on-one debate? The regular thread would still be open for comment if there was a two-person-only debate thread. How about because it can be fun sometimes? BTW so far you have provided no evidence for the official story besides to pop in a couple of times to vaguely allude to the official story being correct.
 
Wolverine said:
If you'd spend some time honestly and diligently attempting to actually answer the scores of questions you've been posed here (and ignored), it'd do vastly more to improve your understanding of the topic than griping about the format or chucking random gauntlets.

Seriously. Try it out.
Click to expand...

BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
 
CORed said:
In the aspects you mention, it strongly resembles all the crap about the location of the entrance wound. It is yet another red herring, supported by carefully cherry-picked "evidence" that doesn't really, even if it were true, support the notion of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy/frame Oswald. At most, it implies that something shady could have happened.
Click to expand...

That crap about the location of the entrance wound.

Yeah, this isn't the subject for you.
 
HSienzant said:
I triple-dog dare you to post any evidence for a conspiracy, backed by sound reasoning without logical fallacies and taking quotes out of context, and follow up by actually debating the points made in rebuttal, instead of punting and changing the subject.

You can start by reviewing any of my recent posts you ignored the first time around and attempting to respond to the points made.

Hank

PS: Did you ever figure out who altered Connally's wounds?
Click to expand...

I want a one-on-one thread because so far your routine has been to vaguely allude to non-existent earlier, better posts of yours that actually address my arguments, including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know. That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.
 
BStrong said:
The only thing that is required is for an interested party to read through these threads and come to their own conclusion about where the truth lies, and who just plain lies.
Click to expand...

Okay, well I have the autopsy report by my side. The EOP wound is in the autopsy report. 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. All other evidence indicates that "slightly" means slightly, not 4-5 inches above.
 
MicahJava said:
BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
Click to expand...

Actually I think that criticism was levied for repeatedly re-introducing select, debunked arguments, not "only sticking to one or two topics". And rightfully so.

Regardless, even if I'm mistaken, if you put forth the effort to answer those questions it'll assist you greatly -- assuming you're genuinely interested in learning and not just playing rhetorical games.
 
Wolverine said:
Actually I think that criticism was levied for repeatedly re-introducing select, debunked arguments, not "only sticking to one or two topics". And rightfully so.

Regardless, even if I'm mistaken, if you put forth the effort to answer those questions it'll assist you greatly -- assuming you're genuinely interested in learning and not just playing rhetorical games.
Click to expand...

Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
 
MicahJava said:
Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
Click to expand...

You're doing it again.
 
MicahJava said:
Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
Click to expand...

Yes.

This has been proven dozens of times, a few of them by lasers.

The only ones who don't believe it are CTists, normal people accept that lasers move in a straight line.
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, well I have the autopsy report by my side. The EOP wound is in the autopsy report. 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. All other evidence indicates that "slightly" means slightly, not 4-5 inches above.
Click to expand...

How is a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD on your side?
 
MicahJava said:
I want a one-on-one thread because so far your routine has been to vaguely allude to non-existent earlier, better posts of yours that actually address my arguments, including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know. That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated time and again that you do not read the information we link to on this thread. We are not going to repeat ourselves to make you feel powerful. Answer the questions as they come along.

hat and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.
Click to expand...

This is an example of you NOT reading YOUR OWN SOURCE MATERIAL before you spam it here. Lifton's whole case hinges on his theory that both the President and Connally's woulds were altered to hide a frontal attack, and to frame Oswald as the lone gunman. That's why his "research" is worthless.

You can't cite Lifton unless you share his conclusions - period.
 
MicahJava said:
Really? You're against the core concept of one-on-one debate? The regular thread would still be open for comment if there was a two-person-only debate thread. How about because it can be fun sometimes? BTW so far you have provided no evidence for the official story besides to pop in a couple of times to vaguely allude to the official story being correct.
Click to expand...

Dave doesn't have to provide evidence. The Warren Commission, Dallas Police, and the FBI all concluded Oswald acted alone.

You, on the other hand, haven't even put forth a theory of what happened in Dallas. Why is that?
 
MicahJava said:
I want a one-on-one thread because so far your routine has been to vaguely allude to non-existent earlier, better posts of yours that actually address my arguments, including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know. That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.
Click to expand...

Axxman300 said:
You have demonstrated time and again that you do not read the information we link to on this thread. We are not going to repeat ourselves to make you feel powerful. Answer the questions as they come along.



This is an example of you NOT reading YOUR OWN SOURCE MATERIAL before you spam it here. Lifton's whole case hinges on his theory that both the President and Connally's woulds were altered to hide a frontal attack, and to frame Oswald as the lone gunman. That's why his "research" is worthless.

You can't cite Lifton unless you share his conclusions - period.
Click to expand...

MicahJava, tusk, tusk. You played the feigned incomprehension card before, and were called out on it. Pretending not to understand properly-constructed questions in perfect English, just because you can't answer them, will not help you at all.
We all know you understand. Stop auto-censoring around and just answer the auto-censoring question.
 
MicahJava said:
Really? You're against the core concept of one-on-one debate? The regular thread would still be open for comment if there was a two-person-only debate thread. How about because it can be fun sometimes? BTW so far you have provided no evidence for the official story besides to pop in a couple of times to vaguely allude to the official story being correct.
Click to expand...

How many people need to provide evidence for the official story before you read any of it?

Here's an example of the evidence that was previously provided to you.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/contents.htm

Why does that need to be provided a second, third, or fourth time?

If you ignore it the first time, why should anyone bother to provide it anew?

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
Click to expand...

First off, thanks for letting us know when your argument that follows is BS.

And yours is a straw man argument. You were being criticized for repeating yourself after the point had been addressed, repeatedly. You were also being criticized for ignoring the rebuttal points made that were counter to your arguments.

For example, you raised the issue of an interview of Francis X. O'Neill conducted by William Law, but you never responded to the post asking for further information. You claimed O'Neill's statements to Law supported your arguments.

You ignored follow-up reminders to that post.

Here's the link to the link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12140127&postcount=3387

After citing O'Neill's claims to Law, you then tried to slough off criticisms by suggesting O'Neill was lying!

But that raised further criticisms of your argument posted here, which you likewise ignored:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12142100&postcount=3402

You do this repeatedly, anytime there is any points raised that you cannot rebut. That is why you were cautioned here thusly:
Wolverine said:
If you'd spend some time honestly and diligently attempting to actually answer the scores of questions you've been posed here (and ignored), it'd do vastly more to improve your understanding of the topic than griping about the format or chucking random gauntlets.

Seriously. Try it out.
Click to expand...

You deflected from that argument by raising a strawman argument here:
MicahJava said:
BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
Click to expand...

And so we wind up going in circles with you.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
Click to expand...
Where do you think it would work from? And who fired the shot? With what weapon? Where did that person and weapon go? How did three spent rifle casings end up by Oswald's sniper nest? Why did Oswald murder Officer Tippitt? Why did he try to murder more officers who confronted him where he was hiding in the theater?

Answer those and I'll have some more homework for you, otherwise your repetitiveness is just boring. Come on, MicahJava, be a CT unlike any other.
One who can answer questions and be honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom