ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 10th January 2018, 12:59 PM   #3401
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
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 by MicahJava; 10th January 2018 at 01:01 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 01:22 PM   #3402
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie.
Conspiracy book logic. Two wrongs make a right, but only if one wrong is smaller than the other.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th January 2018 at 02:06 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 01:34 PM   #3403
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Did you figure out who altered Connally's wounds yet?
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th January 2018 at 02:06 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 01:38 PM   #3404
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 03:11 PM   #3405
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 03:31 PM   #3406
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,235
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.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 08:13 PM   #3407
Wolverine
Centered and One
 
Wolverine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,722
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 09:56 PM   #3408
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,093
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
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.
Yes, there is no doubt that HSeinzant's knowledge is encyclopedic.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 06:37 AM   #3409
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Yes, there is no doubt that HSeinzant's knowledge is encyclopedic.
HSienzant isn't exactly a dummy, either.

I before E and all that.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th January 2018 at 06:47 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 09:42 AM   #3410
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:21 AM   #3411
StackOverflow
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
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.
StackOverflow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:22 AM   #3412
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,732
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:27 AM   #3413
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
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.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:51 AM   #3414
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
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?
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th January 2018 at 11:52 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 11:03 AM   #3415
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
You have misquoted or ignored all forensic evidence that did not support your misguided beliefs.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:04 PM   #3416
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,479
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.
__________________
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
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:16 PM   #3417
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,093
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
I dare you to present a coherent story of whatever it is you think actually happened.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:54 PM   #3418
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 01:58 PM   #3419
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,479
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
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

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.
__________________
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
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 02:38 PM   #3420
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,093
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
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.
Sure. Jay simply will not allow the nonsense. We all could learn from that.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 10:41 AM   #3421
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,275
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 12:30 PM   #3422
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,235
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
At most, it implies that something shady could have happened.
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.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 07:05 PM   #3423
Wolverine
Centered and One
 
Wolverine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,722
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
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.
Wolverine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 09:31 PM   #3424
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
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.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 09:32 PM   #3425
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
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.
BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 09:33 PM   #3426
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
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.
That crap about the location of the entrance wound.

Yeah, this isn't the subject for you.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 09:40 PM   #3427
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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?
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.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 09:44 PM   #3428
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 10:26 PM   #3429
Wolverine
Centered and One
 
Wolverine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,722
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 10:29 PM   #3430
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 10:32 PM   #3431
Wolverine
Centered and One
 
Wolverine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,722
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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?
You're doing it again.
Wolverine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 10:39 PM   #3432
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
You're doing it again.
I don't play any debunked "4 inch above the EOP" games, but feel free to answer any way you'd like.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 12:58 AM   #3433
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 01:00 AM   #3434
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
How is a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD on your side?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 01:04 AM   #3435
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 01:08 AM   #3436
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 02:11 AM   #3437
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 07:33 AM   #3438
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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/arch...s/contents.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...a/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
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 07:48 AM   #3439
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
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...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...postcount=3402

You do this repeatedly, anytime there is any points raised that you cannot rebut. That is why you were cautioned here thusly:
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
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.
You deflected from that argument by raising a strawman argument here:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.
And so we wind up going in circles with you.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 13th January 2018 at 09:26 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 08:04 AM   #3440
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,273
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?
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.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.