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 assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 15th March 2019, 11:59 AM   #2961
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,856
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"0.0000000000001%" would be too complicated for the users on this thread.
There's only one consistent poster in this thread that doesn't grasp the facts in evidence in this case.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 12:54 PM   #2962
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,594
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"0.0000000000001%" would be too complicated for the users on this thread.
Quote:
a type of cognitive bias in which the incompetent lack the skills and cognitive abilities to recognize their own inability.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmur.../#1badfde85d7c
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 01:33 AM   #2963
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: 2,565
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"0.0000000000001%" would be too complicated for the users on this thread.
Try us. Post your complete and detailed theory of how you think JFK was actually killed. Account for all of the evidence uncovered about Oswald, and back up your ideas with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.
Go for it.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 06:03 AM   #2964
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,239
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Try us. Post your complete and detailed theory of how you think JFK was actually killed. Account for all of the evidence uncovered about Oswald, and back up your ideas with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.
Go for it.
I believe you and many others have asked that question. IIRC the only response is/was "evidence" indicates a conspiracy(take your pick which kind) and this evidence is never backed up by any facts, just speculations. Go figure.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 09:39 AM   #2965
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,802
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...surely you would function better there than on a forum where 0% of the users understand how complicated this case is?
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Nice of you to admit that you don't understand how complicated this case is.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"0.0000000000001%" would be too complicated for the users on this thread.
Well, let's analyze that, shall we?

We'll see who it's too complicated for.

First, let's insert commas to make that number easier to read:

0.0,000,000,000,001 percent. That's equal to 1 in every 100,000,000,000,000 - or one in every hundred-thousand-billion.

You're saying it would be understandable only to one in a hundred-thousand-billion users on this thread. Presumably that one would be you. I should mention that leaves out all your fellow conspiracy theorists who have posted here, of course. Now, since there haven't been a hundred-thousand-billion users on this thread, let alone a hundred-thousand-billion humans alive in the history of this planet, it's clear that all you really established is that YOU are the only person who doesn't understand the meaning of what you wrote. That's a fact. Your estimate is wildly overinflated for not just posters on this thread, but for all humans in the history of the planet. Apparently you didn't realize how bizarre your figure was.

Otherwise you might have chosen a more reasonable number, like 0.004 (4 out of a thousand) or the like. Even that number is probably excessive and overstates the odds. There probably haven't been a thousand unique posters in this thread (including the predecessor threads) going back to the first post in this thread. 200 unique posters might be a more reasonable estimate.

Now, I understand the meaning of what you wrote, so if you wish to include yourself, that would be at a minimum 2 of about 200, or about 1%. That's a reasonable guess for the point you were trying to make. Your original number was wildly incorrect as an estimate of the numbers of those who understand what you wrote. The correct number of users who understand what you wrote is probably closer to about 199 out of every 200, or 99.5% of all posters. I am excluding you because you've clearly shown you don't understand what you wrote.

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; 16th March 2019 at 10:01 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 09:44 AM   #2966
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,856
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Well, let's analyze that, shall we?

We'll see who it's too complicated for.

First, let's insert commas to make that number easier to read:

0.0,000,000,000,001 percent. That's equal to 1 in every 100,000,000,000,000 - or one in every hundred-thousand billion.

You're saying it would be understandable only to one in a hundred-thousand-billion users on this thread. Presumably that one would be you. I should mention that leaves out all your fellow conspiracy theorists who have posted here, of course. Now, since there haven't been a hundred-thousand-billion users on this thread, let alone a hundred-thousand-billion humans alive in the history of this planet, it's clear that all you really established is that YOU are the only person who doesn't understand the meaning of what you wrote.

Otherwise you might have chosen a more reasonable number, like 0.004 (4 out of a thousand) or the like. Even that number is probably excessive and overstates the odds. There probably haven't been a thousand unique posters in this thread (including the predecessor threads) going back to the first post in this thread. 200 unique posters might be a more reasonable estimate.

Now, I understand the meaning of what you wrote, so if you wish to include yourself, that would be at a minimum 2 of 200, or 1%. Your original number was wildly overinflated as an estimate of the numbers of those who understand what you wrote. The correct number of users who understand what you wrote is probably closer to 199/200, or 99.5% of all posters. I am excluding you because you've shown you don't understand what you wrote.

Hank
MJ doesn't know the guzinta's?!
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 09:53 AM   #2967
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,802
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
..Maybe it's not "complicated" per say, but if there were ever a debate about ancient Egypt on the internet, you would seldom see a user link to the original papyrus with a direct translation. You can read 1960's English, right?
Of course, you're the one who wrote "per say" instead of the correct "per se" [it's Latin] then asked if I could read 1960s English in the same post you came up with the wildly inflated one in a hundred-thousand-billion.

Dunning-Kruger indeed.

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; 16th March 2019 at 09:54 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2019, 10:09 AM   #2968
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,529
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
He gets plenty of practice educating you.
I think that should be "attempting to educate you". I have seen nothing to indicate that he has had any success in educating MJ. Mind you, I don't believe this is Hank's fault.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2019, 11:14 AM   #2969
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,239
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I think that should be "attempting to educate you". I have seen nothing to indicate that he has had any success in educating MJ. Mind you, I don't believe this is Hank's fault.
After the continual bombardment of facts the blow his fantasyland away, he comes back for more
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2019, 12:02 PM   #2970
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,674
It will be another fringe reset, as if this conversation never happened...per usual...
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 01:01 PM   #2971
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,239
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It will be another fringe reset, as if this conversation never happened...per usual...
You are probably correct, since you have more time in the thread than I.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 02:23 PM   #2972
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,674
It's all based on poor reading of the autopsy, and selective reading guided by CTists in regards to the interviews with the pathologists present. He's piggybacked his theory on the "They used silencers" theory that was easily blown out of the water when it appeared. When he first started it was the claim that the brain was removed through the five inch wound in the top of JFK's skull. We pointed out that they did in fact cut the skull cap off per standard procedure while cutting carefully around the damaged area of the head.

We have posted links to the very same interviews MJ has posted wherein Humes talks about the process. We have posted those links multiple times.

Then he uses Dr. Finck's testimony in the Garrison Trial to attempt to prove that the bullet hole in the back of the skull is too low to have come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. This theory is based on a series of really bad guesses made from the two or three photos of the head wound, none of which detail the entry point. What he ignores is that in the same testimony we learn that it was Dr. Fink who took time to look at the physical evidence of JFK's shirt, coat, and necktie, and determined that the shots came from behind, and from the same rifle.

This last clown show was based on the "We don't have all the skull fragments so there is no conclusive evidence of a single shot" line of nonsense. This ignores the fact that they had the brain, held said brain in their hands, and took pictures of it for the record. The brain shows damage from a singe 6.5x52mm bullet, and the cavitation caused by the missile passing through tissue at 2,700fps. MJ has argued against cavitation...except for when he argues for it...
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 07:32 PM   #2973
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,239
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It's all based on poor reading of the autopsy, and selective reading guided by CTists in regards to the interviews with the pathologists present. He's piggybacked his theory on the "They used silencers" theory that was easily blown out of the water when it appeared. When he first started it was the claim that the brain was removed through the five inch wound in the top of JFK's skull. We pointed out that they did in fact cut the skull cap off per standard procedure while cutting carefully around the damaged area of the head.

We have posted links to the very same interviews MJ has posted wherein Humes talks about the process. We have posted those links multiple times.

Then he uses Dr. Finck's testimony in the Garrison Trial to attempt to prove that the bullet hole in the back of the skull is too low to have come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. This theory is based on a series of really bad guesses made from the two or three photos of the head wound, none of which detail the entry point. What he ignores is that in the same testimony we learn that it was Dr. Fink who took time to look at the physical evidence of JFK's shirt, coat, and necktie, and determined that the shots came from behind, and from the same rifle.

This last clown show was based on the "We don't have all the skull fragments so there is no conclusive evidence of a single shot" line of nonsense. This ignores the fact that they had the brain, held said brain in their hands, and took pictures of it for the record. The brain shows damage from a singe 6.5x52mm bullet, and the cavitation caused by the missile passing through tissue at 2,700fps. MJ has argued against cavitation...except for when he argues for it...
Yes I have seen others that attempt to draw lines to anywhere but the 6th floor of the TSBD, claiming the angle is all wrong for that shot. They all miss the road angle and the head angle at the time of the hit.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 10:30 AM   #2974
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,522
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Yes I have seen others that attempt to draw lines to anywhere but the 6th floor of the TSBD, claiming the angle is all wrong for that shot. They all miss the road angle and the head angle at the time of the hit.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 10:56 AM   #2975
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,239
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Yes Dale has done it correctly, IMO.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 01:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.