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 23rd June 2018, 09:45 AM   #801
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,936
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, it's an ad hominem argument ("Anything the CIA says must be false") combined with an affirmed consequent ("These two articles say the same thing, so one must have been copied from the other").
Egads I've read books published eighty years apart and they both said that WWI was in the years 1914-1918 so the other one must have been copied off the first!
Hans 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 23rd June 2018, 09:49 AM   #802
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I see that you ended the quoting right when you should have continued, but that would defeat your position.

Here are the following Q&A from:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm


Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.

Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?
A: The first fraction of an inch.
Q: If you had dissected this area, Doctor, wouldn't you have been able to ascertain what the track was, as you have described in this courtroom, without dissecting it?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't know?
A: I don't know. Wounds are different in one case from another, and I did not dissect --
Q: Let me ask you this, Doctor: Let me ask you whether or not in dealing with this particular back of the neck wound, as you describe it, whether you dissected the skin area, took a cross-section of the skin, submitted that to microscopic examination, to ascertain whether or not there was any singed area or burnt area as a result of a high speed bullet passing through the skin? Did you or did you not do that?
A: I remember removing skin at the entry at the back of the neck, or I was present when this was done, and microscopic examination was made of this wound of entry.
Q: Is the result of that microscopic examination in this autopsy report?
A: No. I think it is part of the supplementary report where Dr. Humes describes the microscopic appearance of the wound of entry. I made a positive identification of entry in the back of the neck based on naked eye examination. I examined that very closely and it had the gross characteristics of the wound of entry.
Q: Isn't it the more accepted pathological procedure at an autopsy to submit a wound area such as this, or a cross-section of it, to microscopic examination to ascertain whether there is a scorch area or burn area of the skin to see if there was a high speed bullet passing through the skin?
MR. DYMOND: I would ask Counsel to confine his questions to one at a time.


[ I snipped the rest of the testimony because the testimony was dealing with the rest of the autopsy, all can read the testimony from the link I provided.]

So the pathologists probed the wound whether they were told not to do that by "someone"


Why did you leave out the most important piece of the testimony? I do believe this is cherry picking
No, it is citing the parts of his testimony where he clearly states that ”we where told not to probe it”. He clearly says that an ”Army general” was in charge of the autopsy, not the chief pathologist, Dr. Humes.

They were ordered what to do and, according to Dr. Finck, explicitly so when ordered not to probe the entrance wound in the back.

It could be that he tried to probe it but got the order to stop trying. It doesn’t matter, he was ordered not do go through with it.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 09:54 AM   #803
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, it's an ad hominem argument ("Anything the CIA says must be false") combined with an affirmed consequent ("These two articles say the same thing, so one must have been copied from the other").
It’s not ad hominem if the claim is that the source is ”neutral”. And yes, the source is Max Hollands article on the CIA homepage. The wording is the same. The conclusions are the same. Two authors can’t be wrong in exactly the same way, point by point, by chance alone.

No way.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 09:56 AM   #804
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Egads I've read books published eighty years apart and they both said that WWI was in the years 1914-1918 so the other one must have been copied off the first!
This is the substance I have been waiting for. A real catch.

Brilliant.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 10:00 AM   #805
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I think his logic works like this (and I know this is apparent to everyone reading this, even Manifesto):

"The CIA killed Kennedy. The article in question says pretty much the same thing as the Max Holland article on the CIA site, ergo, since you can't trust the CIA, you can't trust the article cited."

Of course, this all stems from his belief the CIA killed Kennedy. Which is still unproven by him, and he doesn't get closer to the truth by claiming a whole slew of falsehoods against Clay Shaw.

Hank
No, it stems from the fact that CIA by no known standards could be regarded as a ”neutral source” when it comes to the assassination of JFK.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 10:03 AM   #806
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I bolded the logical fallacy of Begging the Question by you.

Why can't you ever post without
  • Logical Fallacies
  • Quotes out of context
  • Unsupported suppositions
  • Ignoring Contrary evidence
  • Suspicion and Innuendo masquerading as evidence
  • Hearsay
  • Hank
Ah, that explainz it.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 10:20 AM   #807
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,936
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
This is the substance I have been waiting for. A real catch
In other words you don't understand

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
Hans 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 23rd June 2018, 10:23 AM   #808
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,936
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ah, that explainz it.
So there is an explanation for your continuous failure to debate properly?

Looks like you've change tactics again and are putting up fluffy nonsense - probably to try and change the subject again away from your not putting up real evidence

yawn
Hans 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 23rd June 2018, 10:46 AM   #809
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, it is citing the parts of his testimony where he clearly states that ”we where told not to probe it”. He clearly says that an ”Army general” was in charge of the autopsy, not the chief pathologist, Dr. Humes.

They were ordered what to do and, according to Dr. Finck, explicitly so when ordered not to probe the entrance wound in the back.

It could be that he tried to probe it but got the order to stop trying. It doesn’t matter, he was ordered not do go through with it.
In all of this you are implying that the autopsy was performed by the General since he was in charge. Nothing could be further from the truth, they did probe the back wound as would be normal procedure, I assume.

Even though they had been told not to So they are performing the autopsy as medical procedures dictate.

You take too much testimony and depositions to attempt to prove your case, they are interesting but hard evidence beat outs those conversations.

How about some hard evidence for your belief, no?
Well that is settled.
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 23rd June 2018, 10:49 AM   #810
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
In other words you don't understand

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
That required a translation, it has been over 50 years since taking Latin.
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 23rd June 2018, 10:51 AM   #811
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,936
Originally Posted by bknight View Post

How about some hard evidence for your belief, no?
Well that is settled.
bknight you may be forgetting that Manifesto is self-anointed. He has made it clear that he actually believes the following applies to himself-

The Manifesto manifesto:


Hans 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 23rd June 2018, 10:56 AM   #812
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, it is citing the parts of his testimony where he clearly states that ”we where told not to probe it”. He clearly says that an ”Army general” was in charge of the autopsy, not the chief pathologist, Dr. Humes.

They were ordered what to do and, according to Dr. Finck, explicitly so when ordered not to probe the entrance wound in the back.

It could be that he tried to probe it but got the order to stop trying. It doesn’t matter, he was ordered not do go through with it.
Secondly, he states that he doesn't remember who told him that you are assuming it was an officer, but that is speculation, it could have been one of the SS guys, or an orderly. That fact remains they did the probe. Actions speak much louder than words. But you don't get that because your whole "proof" is based on eye, ear, nose testimony. It is amazing how the rain can think of aspects that aren't really there. The autopsy was performed in a very hurried pathologic manner. Yes those guys made errors, but nothing of consequence. One bullet to the back of the head, one bullet in the back. No more wounds = one shooter.
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 23rd June 2018, 10:57 AM   #813
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
bknight you may be forgetting that Manifesto is self-anointed. He has made it clear that he actually believes the following applies to himself-

The Manifesto manifesto:

https://i.imgur.com/uPfrzb7.jpg

Indeed.

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 23rd June 2018, 11:12 AM   #814
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,576
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
This is the substance I have been waiting for. A real catch.

Brilliant.
Or perhaps the sarcasm went right over your head along with the argument. You haven't proven that the one article was based on the other. Just because they both tell the same commonly available story doesn't mean one is arbitrarily the source for all the others.
JayUtah 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 23rd June 2018, 11:16 AM   #815
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,576
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ah, that explainz it.
It does. The principles Hank cites are not just arbitrarily rules make up by skeptics to win debates. They are ways by which flawed thinking has been shown over millennia to result in unreliable or flat-out wrong conclusions. Your indifference to them does not make them go away.
JayUtah 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 23rd June 2018, 11:20 AM   #816
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
In all of this you are implying that the autopsy was performed by the General since he was in charge. Nothing could be further from the truth, they did probe the back wound as would be normal procedure, I assume.
So, why is Dr. Finck saying that they were told not to probe the wound?

Quote:
Even though they had been told not to So they are performing the autopsy as medical procedures dictate.
So, why is Dr. Finck saying that they did NOT probe the wound?

Quote:
You take too much testimony and depositions to attempt to prove your case, they are interesting but hard evidence beat outs those conversations.

How about some hard evidence for your belief, no?
Well that is settled.
The issue is if Dr. Finck stated that they were told/ordered not to probe the wound. I cited the parts where he is stating exactly that, that they where told/ordered not to probe the wound.

Are you claiming he didn’t state this when cross examined by the prosecution in the Shaw trial?

Are my quotes forgeries?

Last edited by manifesto; 23rd June 2018 at 11:21 AM.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 11:24 AM   #817
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,965
As Finck testified, and Humes repeatedly stated, probing the wound would have been a waste of time. Rigor mortis had set in, muscle tissue, and other internal tissues would have swollen, and the body was not kept in the position it had been in when it was shot.

As both doctors said, it would have been inconclusive.

This doesn't stop morons from arguing about it.

They had x-rays, they knew that part of the body was devoid of bullets or bullet fragments, and they didn't know that the throat wound was a bullet wound at the time of the autopsy. SO why would you probe an EMPTY WOUND?

And no, Generals do not give orders on an Navy base, the defer to Admirals.

More importantly, it was Humes who told him not to waste time probing the wound.
__________________
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 23rd June 2018, 11:29 AM   #818
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Secondly, he states that he doesn't remember who told him that you are assuming it was an officer, but that is speculation, it could have been one of the SS guys, or an orderly. That fact remains they did the probe. Actions speak much louder than words. But you don't get that because your whole "proof" is based on eye, ear, nose testimony. It is amazing how the rain can think of aspects that aren't really there. The autopsy was performed in a very hurried pathologic manner. Yes those guys made errors, but nothing of consequence. One bullet to the back of the head, one bullet in the back. No more wounds = one shooter.
If Finck states that an ”Army general” was saying that he was in charge of the autopsy, it’s safe to say that the order not to probe the wound came from the guy who claimed to be in charge of the autopsy, Finck’s ”Army general”.

The point is that it was not the three pathologists performing the autopsy who was in charge, it was their superiors in the military chain of command.

They followed the orders.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 11:32 AM   #819
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
As Finck testified, and Humes repeatedly stated, probing the wound would have been a waste of time. Rigor mortis had set in, muscle tissue, and other internal tissues would have swollen, and the body was not kept in the position it had been in when it was shot.

As both doctors said, it would have been inconclusive.

This doesn't stop morons from arguing about it.

They had x-rays, they knew that part of the body was devoid of bullets or bullet fragments, and they didn't know that the throat wound was a bullet wound at the time of the autopsy. SO why would you probe an EMPTY WOUND?

And no, Generals do not give orders on an Navy base, the defer to Admirals.

More importantly, it was Humes who told him not to waste time probing the wound.
So, why is Dr. Finck, pressed on the matter repetedly evading the question, finally admitting that he didn’t probe the wound because he was told not to probe it?

Who told him? The man in charge, the ”Army general”.
manifesto 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 23rd June 2018, 11:51 AM   #820
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,965
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The issue is if Dr. Finck stated that they were told/ordered not to probe the wound. I cited the parts where he is stating exactly that, that they where told/ordered not to probe the wound.

Are you claiming he didn’t state this when cross examined by the prosecution in the Shaw trial?

Are my quotes forgeries?
No, you're quotes are cherry-picked.

Quote:
Q: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?
A: I did not dissect the track in the neck.
Q: Why?
A: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would as the Court so to direct.
THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Why not, Doctor?
A: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --
Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?
A: I had the cause of death.
Q: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
A: As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.
Q: I didn't hear you.
A: I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.
Q: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't do this as a pathologist?
A: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
So the claim that a general told him not to probe the wound came from the prosecutor, who was leading the witness, and not from Finck.

You ignore the rest of the testimony wherein Dr. Finck consistantly says both bullets struck from behind. You ignore the part where Dr. Finck testified that he inspected JFK's clothing to determine that the neck shot entered from the back.

So many fact in this testimony that prove that the shots came from behind, and yet you fixate on an null issue of who ordered them note to probe the back wound.

You fail again
__________________
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 23rd June 2018, 12:10 PM   #821
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, it stems from the fact that CIA by no known standards could be regarded as a ”neutral source” when it comes to the assassination of JFK.
And that's another great example of a Straw Man Argument by you.

You're twisting the claim that was made, assuming what you need to prove, and twisting yourself into a pretzel with your illogic.

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2018, 12:20 PM   #822
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If Finck states that an ”Army general” was saying that he was in charge of the autopsy
Where did Finck say that the Army General was in charge of the autopsy? Aren't you just assuming what you need to prove?



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
it’s safe to say that the order not to probe the wound came from the guy who claimed to be in charge of the autopsy, Finck’s ”Army general”.
Asked and answered1. Now you're repeating your claim that has already established as erroneous.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The point is that it was not the three pathologists performing the autopsy who was in charge, it was their superiors in the military chain of command. They followed the orders.
Asked and answered2. That's not what Humes said. Finck is repeating hearsay. He didn't testify to having any discussion with this Army general. Humes did. Instead of quoting Humes, who had the exchange and explains the exchange, you quote the hearsay from Finck.

As I asked previously: Why can't you ever post without
  • Logical Fallacies
  • Quotes out of context
  • Unsupported suppositions
  • Ignoring Contrary evidence
  • Suspicion and Innuendo masquerading as evidence
  • Hearsay

Hank
____________________

1 No. Finck himself told you that:
MR. OSER: Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from the Army General that was there directing the autopsy? [note the Begging the Question]
DR. FINCK: No, because there were others, there were Admirals.
Why do you ignore the very explanation Finck gave and attempt to twist things?

Why would you even presume a Army General would be in charge at a Naval Hospital?


2 Humes testimony to the Assassination Records Review Board:
Q. As you no doubt know, there have been allegations made about who was in control of the autopsy. I'd like to ask some questions about that. As best I understand, you're quite firm on the record that you were the person in charge of the autopsy; is that correct?
A. Regrettably, yes. There's no doubt about it, as a matter of fact, unfortunately.

...
Q. Prior to the arrival of President Kennedy's body, did you see any Secret Service or FBI officials?
A. No. I had one interesting encounter in that regard. When I found out what the problem was, I went downstairs and got into a scrub suit which I was going to wear to conduct the autopsy. And it was a brand-new morgue. We had just moved into it a couple of months before. And it had a loading dock outside, and that's where they were going to bring the President's body. So I walked outside to see what was going on. A lot of people- -oh, I saw a guy with a speed graphic camera in the building and didn't feel like running after him myself. So I went out to this loading dock, and several people were milling around. And I said, "Who's in charge here?" And some general said, "I am." Well, it turns out he was in charge of the military district of Washington. That was his role. And I said, "General, sorry to bother you, but there's some clown in there running around with a speed graphic camera." Well, he dispatched somebody to corral this guy.
That's the only other person that I had any conversation with at all. He responded very quickly when I asked who was in charge. He left no doubt in my mind. But he was in charge of the loading dock. He was not in charge of anything else. I never saw him again in my life.
__________________
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; 23rd June 2018 at 12:44 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2018, 12:25 PM   #823
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, why is Dr. Finck saying that they were told not to probe the wound?

So, why is Dr. Finck saying that they did NOT probe the wound?

He stated exactly the opposite. That they did probe the wound. You need glasses or reading comprehension classes.
Quote:

The issue is if Dr. Finck stated that they were told/ordered not to probe the wound. I cited the parts where he is stating exactly that, that they where told/ordered not to probe the wound.

Are you claiming he didn’t state this when cross examined by the prosecution in the Shaw trial?

Are my quotes forgeries?
There is no issue in any of this, as I attempted to tell you. Ok they were told not to probe the wound, and then they did just that. You are trying to obviscate the narrative.

I have neither claimed he lied (one of your favorite ad hominems), nor have I indicated he didn't testify that they were told not to probe. What part of my post is so difficult?
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 23rd June 2018, 12:29 PM   #824
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If Finck states that an ”Army general” was saying that he was in charge of the autopsy, it’s safe to say that the order not to probe the wound came from the guy who claimed to be in charge of the autopsy, Finck’s ”Army general”.

The point is that it was not the three pathologists performing the autopsy who was in charge, it was their superiors in the military chain of command.

They followed the orders.
Your logic is truly messed up. No it is not "safe to say" that the order not to probe the wound came from the guy who claimed to be in charge of the autopsy. Nothing in his statement indicates who told him that, plain and simple. You are just idly speculating, admit it and move on.
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 23rd June 2018, 12:33 PM   #825
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Where did Finck say that the Army General was in charge of the autopsy? Aren't you just assuming what you need to prove?

Asked and answered1. Now you're repeating your claim that has already established as erroneous.

Asked and answered2. That's not what Humes said. Finck is repeating hearsay. He didn't testify to having any discussion with this Army general. Humes did. Instead of quoting Humes, who had and explains the exchange, you quote the hearsay from Finck.

As I asked previously: Why can't you ever post without
  • Logical Fallacies
  • Quotes out of context
  • Unsupported suppositions
  • Ignoring Contrary evidence
  • Suspicion and Innuendo masquerading as evidence
  • Hearsay

Hank
____________________

2 Humes testimony to the Assassination Records Review Board:
Q. As you no doubt know, there have been allegations made about who was in control of the autopsy. I'd like to ask some questions about that. As best I understand, you're quite firm on the record that you were the person in charge of the autopsy; is that correct?
A. Regrettably, yes. There's no doubt about it, as a matter of fact, unfortunately.

...
Q. Prior to the arrival of President Kennedy's body, did you see any Secret Service or FBI officials?
A. No. I had one interesting encounter in that regard. When I found out what the problem was, I went downstairs and got into a scrub suit which I was going to wear to conduct the autopsy. And it was a brand-new morgue. We had just moved into it a couple of months before. And it had a loading dock outside, and that's where they were going to bring the President's body. So I walked outside to see what was going on. A lot of people- -oh, I saw a guy with a speed graphic camera in the building and didn't feel like running after him myself. So I went out to this loading dock, and several people were milling around. And I said, "Who's in charge here?" And some general said, "I am." Well, it turns out he was in charge of the military district of Washington. That was his role. And I said, "General, sorry to bother you, but there's some clown in there running around with a speed graphic camera." Well, he dispatched somebody to corral this guy.
That's the only other person that I had any conversation with at all. He responded very quickly when I asked who was in charge. He left no doubt in my mind. But he was in charge of the loading dock. He was not in charge of anything else. I never saw him again in my life.
Thanks for the clarification.
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 23rd June 2018, 12:52 PM   #826
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If you are selling an article as written by a ”neutral source” and it turns out that the article is based on an notorious CIA assets 16 year old rantings on the CIA’s homepage, it’s not poisoning the well, it is pointing out the well.

Big difference.
AS POSTED BY ME:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I bolded the logical fallacy of Begging the Question by you.

Why can't you ever post without
  • Logical Fallacies
  • Quotes out of context
  • Unsupported suppositions
  • Ignoring Contrary evidence
  • Suspicion and Innuendo masquerading as evidence
  • Hearsay
Hank
AS POSTED BY MANIFESTO:
Quote:
Why can't you ever post without
  • Logical Fallacies
  • Quotes out of context
  • Unsupported suppositions
  • Ignoring Contrary evidence
  • Suspicion and Innuendo masquerading as evidence
  • Hearsay
  • Hank
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ah, that explainz it.
Your response ignored and failed to rebut my point, took my list and added my name to the list of problems you have, and claimed 'that explainz it'. You deliberately ignored the point I made, took a portion of my response out of context, deliberately changed my response, and gave a flip answer. That kind of game-playing doesn't help you or your credibility here.

JayUtah explained my point here:
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It does. The principles Hank cites are not just arbitrarily rules make up by skeptics to win debates. They are ways by which flawed thinking has been shown over millennia to result in unreliable or flat-out wrong conclusions. Your indifference to them does not make them go away.
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; 23rd June 2018 at 12:57 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2018, 04:11 PM   #827
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,936
Question since Manifesto isn't making any sense I have a question.

If Zapruder had forgotten his camera and no movie had been taken would it have caused more or fewer CTs?
Hans 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 23rd June 2018, 04:15 PM   #828
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,965
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
That kind of game-playing doesn't help you or your credibility here.
Heh...begs the question: What credibility?

Manifesto posted cherry-picked quotes from the Garrison trial, and yet again proved that he was unfamiliar with the testimony of Finck in its entirety. Finck clearly laid out the evidence for both shots coming from behind, and that both shots were fired by the Carcano.

MJ is guilty of this nonsense too. We post links to testimony, and even quote the relevant parts, and yet they ignore it, and then later act as if that information was never brought up.

I will say it again; if you want to believe in a conspiracy you can still have one as long as Oswald is your lone shooter. You can still try to slime the CIA with it or any of the other usual suspect, but you have to work with the facts.
The facts is Oswald shot JFK.

If you want a second gunman, give me someone waiting at the Trademart...you know...something realistic...
__________________
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 23rd June 2018, 04:21 PM   #829
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,965
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Question since Manifesto isn't making any sense I have a question.

If Zapruder had forgotten his camera and no movie had been taken would it have caused more or fewer CTs?
I think it would be the same number. Most of the theories rose before people ever saw the film. Most were fueled by the Vietnam War and the rise in Marijuana use in the country.
__________________
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 23rd June 2018, 04:52 PM   #830
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,576
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If Finck states that an ”Army general” was saying that he was in charge of the autopsy...
And where is that in the record?

Quote:
...it’s safe to say that the order not to probe the wound came from the guy who claimed to be in charge of the autopsy, Finck’s ”Army general”.
No, that just begs the question rather blatantly. Please learn the difference between an inference and a fact.
JayUtah 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 23rd June 2018, 05:04 PM   #831
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Question since Manifesto isn't making any sense I have a question.

If Zapruder had forgotten his camera and no movie had been taken would it have caused more or fewer CTs?
Far fewer.

Much of the earliest criticisms of the Warren Commission conclusions were based on [faulty] analysis of the Zapruder film. You can throw all that out if there is no film.

Stuff like:
  • Oswald could not fire three shots with two hits in 5.6 seconds.
  • The rifle couldn't be operated that fast.
  • There was at most 1.6 seconds between Kennedy being hit and Connally being hit.
  • Frames were excised at Z208-Z212 to hide the impact of a bullet on the traffic sign.
  • Secret Service agent Greer turned and fired the fatal head shot.
  • The back and to the left head snap nonsense.
  • Jackie went on the trunk to retrieve some brain tissue.
  • A man on the far side of Elm shot Tippit (masquerading as JFK) with a machine gun.
  • Umbrella man fired a poison dart to paralyze JFK.
  • Umbrella man signaled the start of the assassination.
  • Frames 314 and 315 were reversed to change JFK's backward movement.
  • The single bullet theory was invented to hide the problem with a shot hitting James Tague.
All of the above were raised by critics in the 1960s, most of them by 1967. None of them would be viable without the faulty analysis of the Z-film fueling the conspiracy theories. I'm sure I'm overlooking a few dozen.

You also get rid of stuff that surfaced later, like:
  • The Z-film was altered by the CIA to remove the limo slow-down.
  • The Z-film was altered to blacken the rear head wound.
  • Yellow stripes painted on the curb signaled the shooting location.
  • Anything claimed by Robert Harris.
The above johnny-come-lately's that question the veracity of the extant film would mean the original criticisms are all moot.

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; 23rd June 2018 at 05:29 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2018, 05:27 PM   #832
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
It’s not ad hominem if the claim is that the source is ”neutral”. And yes, the source is Max Hollands article on the CIA homepage. The wording is the same. The conclusions are the same. Two authors can’t be wrong in exactly the same way, point by point, by chance alone.

No way.
M and MJ do a pretty good job of it.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2018, 05:56 PM   #833
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Question since Manifesto isn't making any sense I have a question.

If Zapruder had forgotten his camera and no movie had been taken would it have caused more or fewer CTs?
I believe that had Ruby not shot and killed LHO and he was tried and convicted the world would still be full of JFK CT's - look at how many convict fanboys are runing around loose.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2018, 06:04 PM   #834
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,393
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Looks like your ”neutral” source has copied and paste most of it from ....

Tadam! https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...article02.html
Aha. I was wondering how long it would be before you got around to using yet another logical fallacy....Poisoning the Well. But wait, there's more! This time you combined it with another.. Affirming the Consequent.

Two for one.... I'm impressed at how much fallacy you can pack into such a short post.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd June 2018 at 06:40 PM.
smartcooky 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 23rd June 2018, 06:45 PM   #835
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,393
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Question since Manifesto isn't making any sense I have a question.

If Zapruder had forgotten his camera and no movie had been taken would it have caused more or fewer CTs?

IMO probably less (see Hank's reply) http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=846

However, I am sure that, had Zapruder chosen not to stop filming between Z132 and Z133, we might have a better idea of exactly when that first shot was fired.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 23rd June 2018, 07:14 PM   #836
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I find it somewhat *caugh” hard to belive your conversion story. Do you have any proof of this?
So you do recognize the concept of testimonial credibility. It's just that you apply it only to your critics, not to assassination witnesses.
OKBob 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 23rd June 2018, 07:38 PM   #837
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,965
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, yes, they ”were told” not to probe the entrance wound. Who told them? Presumably the ”army general” stating: ”I am”, when ’chief’ pathologist Dr. Humes asked who was in charge of the autopsy.

So, Dr. Finck either lied at the Shaw trial, under oath, or he lied years later in a self serving statement to a reporter.

Hmm ...

Finck didn't lie about anything.

Finck clearly said he was under the impression that the restrictions on the autopsy came directly from the Kennedy family - which they did.

The exchange between Humes and the mythical general never happened.
__________________
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 23rd June 2018, 07:38 PM   #838
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I believe that had Ruby not shot and killed LHO and he was tried and convicted the world would still be full of JFK CT's - look at how many convict fanboys are runing around loose.
I think you are correct, but also for the reason that any closely watched trial--and LHO's trial would have received great scrutiny--allows critics to claim that the result was reached by unfair procedures or tainted testimony. Oswald would have had certain advantages that many forget about today, such as the ability to claim a privilege against Marina's testifying to spousal communications. But I still believe that Oswald would have been convicted by a Texas jury--and also that his conviction would have fueled as many conspiracy claims as it eliminated.
OKBob 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 23rd June 2018, 07:40 PM   #839
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,965
I think Oswald would have confessed to save his mother from having to endure a trial.

I don't think he was planning to be caught alive.
__________________
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 23rd June 2018, 07:56 PM   #840
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I don't think he was planning to be caught alive.
I agree with this. I think he must have been shocked and even disappointed to walk out of the TSBD into a disorienting freedom--all dressed up for suicide-by-secret-service and nowhere to go. He found himself with a karmic bank balance in his favor and didn't know how to spend the unearned cash, so at each subsequent step he invited death: the shooting of Tippit, the attempted shooting of McDonald, and the fisticuffs with law enforcement in the theater. And then when fate just wouldn't give him his little martyrdom, he went into the tried-and-true Oswald act of blaming authority: "police brutality," "a policeman hit me," "I'm just a patsy," and so on. Better to go out with a whimper if fate withholds the bang.

Last edited by OKBob; 23rd June 2018 at 09:03 PM.
OKBob 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 10:47 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.