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 June 2018, 10:34 AM   #441
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
All of the ones I questioned. You explicitly told me you would respond not [sic] "emeditaly," but rather "in due course." When pressed on what "due course" meant, you frankly admitted you just decided from day to day whom you would answer and whom you would ignore. That doesn't sound compatible with your stated commitment to provide evidence immediately when asked.



That you would answer my questions in due course, when in fact there is no due course but only your whim from day to day.
In due course = when time permits.

A couple of questions to you my friend:

What could hypothetically convince you of:

1. That Oswald did not shoot at JFK that day?

2. That the assassination was covered up by the aithorities?

3. That the assassination was coup d’etat?

Hypothetically?

Last edited by manifesto; 15th June 2018 at 10:38 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 15th June 2018, 10:50 AM   #442
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,338
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
In due course = when time permits.

A couple of questions to you my friend:

What could hypothetically convince you of:

1. That Oswald did not shoot at JFK that day?

2. That the assassination was covered up by the aithorities?

3. That the assassination was coup d’etat?

Hypothetically?
Actual ideas that don't come off as tin foil heard it a thousand times before regurgitation.

1. Who else would have had motive and opportunity to kill JFK and keep it quiet all these years later? The Mob is the only one I can think as the more people that know of any conspiracy the harder it is to keep it quiet.

2) Many of the irregularities can be explained by the authorities being bad at their jobs and trying to cover up the fact that they are bad at their jobs.

3) Actual reasonable evidence.
maximara 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 June 2018, 10:50 AM   #443
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,532
Some evidence would be a good start.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 June 2018, 10:58 AM   #444
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Actual ideas that don't come off as tin foil heard it a thousand times before regurgitation.

1. Who else would have had motive and opportunity to kill JFK and keep it quiet all these years later? The Mob is the only one I can think as the more people that know of any conspiracy the harder it is to keep it quiet.

2) Many of the irregularities can be explained by the authorities being bad at their jobs and trying to cover up the fact that they are bad at their jobs.

3) Actual reasonable evidence.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

I've long thought incompetence and ass-covering account for 99% of what is at the root of the Kennedy conspiracy theory.

The minutia MicahJava has been obsessing on for months is easily explained by physicians inexperienced in criminal autopsies cutting corners and making mistakes (forgetting to measure wounds, etc) and by memory fading over time as it tends to do.

Similarly, a lot of the evidence-based criticisms are borne partly out of simple mistakes made by Dallas PD, the FBI and the SS, and by bureaucratic pissing matches and ass-covering by several different law enforcement bodies fighting for control of evidence or trying to cover up their own mistakes.
traxy 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 June 2018, 11:08 AM   #445
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
In due course = when time permits.
No, that's not the explanation you gave at the time. But I'll accept this new answer as long as we agree that "when time permits" isn't "immediately" either. Pick whichever lie you want to be held to.

Quote:
A couple of questions to you my friend...
What makes you think you get to ask me questions after assiduously ignoring me? How rude.

Quote:
What could hypothetically convince you...
Evidence. But you're fresh out of that.
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 15th June 2018, 11:26 AM   #446
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, that's not the explanation you gave at the time. But I'll accept this new answer as long as we agree that "when time permits" isn't "immediately" either. Pick whichever lie you want to be held to.



What makes you think you get to ask me questions after assiduously ignoring me? How rude.



Evidence. But you're fresh out of that.
Let me rephrase. What would your ’evidence’ look like?
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 15th June 2018, 11:28 AM   #447
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Let me rephrase. What would your ’evidence’ look like?
Rephrase in the form of evidence.
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 15th June 2018, 11:36 AM   #448
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,895
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
As I said before, I think that CE 567 is probably because of the skin and tissue found on it. So your post does not contradict me at all, except for your DERANGED spam that the large head wound in the x-rays and photographs is somehow exclusive to 6.5.
This is why you fail: Ballistics, you don't understand anything about bullets, not in a functional way at the very least.

The Carcano was favored by elephant hunters in the early 20th century because the round could easily penetrate the thick skulls. The Carcano was a battle rifle, and therefor lighter.

The bottom line: JFK was killed with a defacto elephant gun.

Couple this with your dreadful lack of medical knowledge you are in no position to question anything in the autopsy in any way (neither am I BTW).

There was no second bullet to the back of the head, there is no evidence on any of the films, nor was it mentioned by anyone in the following car, or Parkland, or Jackie for that matter. There was no second gunman.
__________________
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 15th June 2018, 12:08 PM   #449
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Let me rephrase. What would your ’evidence’ look like?
Bullets, shell casings, autopsy evidence of another entry/exit wound, you know just like the evidence that exists.


Another thought might be discovery of anther weapon, tied to the previous bullets and shell casings, and of course autopsy data supporting another entry/exit.

Last edited by bknight; 15th June 2018 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Added a thought
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 15th June 2018, 12:20 PM   #450
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Let me rephrase. What would your ’evidence’ look like?
Evidence against another person that is more compelling than the case against Oswald.

A different weapon, shell casings, fingerprints, photographs, ballistic evidence, fibers, means, motive, opportunity, eyewitnesses, video evidence, a consciousness of guilt. Paint me a picture implicating someone else that is clearer than the one we have implicating Oswald.
traxy 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 June 2018, 12:26 PM   #451
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,696
Let me put it another way, I know nothing of Swedish laws and judicial proceedings, but suppose you were on a jury and there was this case of molestation of a minor(girl) by a man. There is NO physical evidence, just testimony by the plaintiff and the defendant. Are you going to vote for guilty/not guilty without any physical evidence?
That is what you are asking us to believe a crime or part of a crime was committed without the least bit of physical evidence.


I think it was Axxman300 that said if you want to look for a conspiracy look elsewhere than Dealey Plaza.

QED
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 15th June 2018, 12:49 PM   #452
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: 29,430
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Let me rephrase. What would your ’evidence’ look like?
It would look radically different to the actual evidence that exists now.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 12:56 PM   #453
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Let me rephrase. What would your ’evidence’ look like?
What Traxy has described. That's what you're fresh out of. You have a handful of ignorant, fanciful nitpicks against the conventional narrative. Then you make up a bad spy novel to create a different story, but with no evidence that it's what actually happened.
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 15th June 2018, 01:35 PM   #454
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by jeffas69 View Post
So my question now is are you giving up on the HSCA acoustic "evidence" and going with a new timeline? Should we move on to the next point?

If not there is still a lot of ground to cover in the acoustic "evidence". Like crowd noise.
There's no point. You cannot actually argue for what you don't understand, and manifesto doesn't understand the technical details of the acoustic analysis done by BBN and WA for the HSCA. I have challenged manifesto several times now.....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3814

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3892

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4068

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4195

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4234

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=237

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=348

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=361


....to explain in his own words how the acoustic analysis works, the rationale and the technical detail behind how the methodology. He has failed to even acknowledge that request (other than claiming he has already done it, which is a lie), let alone answer it. All he has done is Google a few key phrases, probably from CT loon websites, and copypasta them here.

The grown ups in the room know why this is.
__________________
“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 15th June 2018, 02:32 PM   #455
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,861
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Lol look at who didn't read the post linked.
What linked post?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 04:37 PM   #456
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,895
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Let me put it another way, I know nothing of Swedish laws and judicial proceedings, but suppose you were on a jury and there was this case of molestation of a minor(girl) by a man. There is NO physical evidence, just testimony by the plaintiff and the defendant. Are you going to vote for guilty/not guilty without any physical evidence?
That is what you are asking us to believe a crime or part of a crime was committed without the least bit of physical evidence.


I think it was Axxman300 that said if you want to look for a conspiracy look elsewhere than Dealey Plaza.

QED
It is my mantra.

Any well-meaning, HONEST conspiracy theorist can still put together a conspiracy that involved the CIA. JMWAVE was a huge CIA operation that spanned across Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas as well as a number of Central American countries. Lots of loose parts made up of small Cuban exiles, CIA paramilitary, and the mafia. Throw in the standard US intelligence surveillance of Cuba, and the counter-surveillance of the US by Cuba, and you have giant Black-Ops soup.

...but no.

We're stuck with phantom gunmen and phantom bullets in Dealey Plaza, and endless stories of cover-ups and forgeries which lead to nothing but a dead end every time. Do the CTists learn from their failures? No, they build on them to only fail more spectacularly the next time, and the next, and the next.

All of that could be avoided by just accepting Oswald as your gunman. With Oswald as the shooter you can still have the CIA involved on some level. With JMWAVE there seems to be endless cases of six degrees of separation linking key actors to a variety of events. This way there are no fake x-rays, documents, look-alikes, or a platoon-sized element of invisible gunmen in Dealey Plaza.

With Oswald as the lone gunman in a conspiracy you might not change history, but there is enough raw material for a good old Mexican stand-off if one really wanted to dot the work...and that is obviously asking too much from the CT crowd.
__________________
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 15th June 2018, 05:05 PM   #457
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
All of that could be avoided by just accepting Oswald as your gunman. With Oswald as the shooter you can still have the CIA involved on some level. With JMWAVE there seems to be endless cases of six degrees of separation linking key actors to a variety of events. This way there are no fake x-rays, documents, look-alikes, or a platoon-sized element of invisible gunmen in Dealey Plaza.
And MOST important of all, they get the one thing that covert operations planners strive for, the veritable Holy Grail of Black Ops......plausible deniability!
__________________
“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 15th June 2018, 05:19 PM   #458
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
...if one really wanted to do the work...
I think I see what's holding them back.
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 15th June 2018, 05:29 PM   #459
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,895
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
And MOST important of all, they get the one thing that covert operations planners strive for, the veritable Holy Grail of Black Ops......plausible deniability!
And that's the beauty of a really good conspiracy theory. You know that there's a 95% chance it's BS, but that 5% makes you itch to keep digging.
__________________
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 15th June 2018, 08:54 PM   #460
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Here's the 100 claims by Manifesto that ...
Quote:
#10 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- On the knoll behind the white picket fence within a square yard and with a probality of P = 1/100 000 for being random static/noice.
Done: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=188


Quote:
#11 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- The majority of the asked witnesses (51 individuals) on and around Dealey Plaza stating that shot/s came from (direction of) the knoll.
Done: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3649

The evidence (51, not 52): https://www.maryferrell.org/DealeyPlazaWitnessDB.html


Quote:
#12 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- Multiple witnesses saw and smelled gunsmoke on and down Hill from the knoll.
Good summary by Ed LeDoux at Edu-Forum:
”Your smoke-ing witnesses references:

Earle V. Brown

http://historymatters.com/archive/jf...Vol6_0122a.htm

Royce Skelton

http://historymatters.com/archive/jf...Vol6_0124a.htm

http://historymatters.com/archive/jf...ol19_0257b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...ness/Index.htm

SM Holland

http://historymatters.com/archive/jf...Vol6_0127a.htm

http://historymatters.com/archive/jf...ol19_0249b.htm

Austin L. Miller

http://historymatters.com/archive/jf...ol19_0252a.htm

Thomas Murphy

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...ap/MurphyT.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol22_0433a.htm

Walter Winborn

http://history-matters.com/analysis/...ap/Winborn.htm

Ed Johnson

http://www.history-matters.com/analy.../JohnsonEd.htm

James Simmons

http://history-matters.com/analysis/...ap/Simmons.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol22_0432a.htm

Case Closed, Page 256)

Richard Dodd

http://history-matters.com/analysis/...ssMap/Dodd.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol22_0433a.htm

Clemon Earl Johnson

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...22_CE_1423.pdf

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol22_0433b.htm

Nolan Potter

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol22_0432b.htm

Lee Bowers

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...ness/Index.htm

Senator Ralph Yarborourgh

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...Yarborough.htm

LC Smith

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...ap/SmithLC.htm

A.D. McCurley

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...p/McCurley.htm

19H514

JL Oxford

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...Map/Oxford.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oxford1.htm

Contract on America: the Mafia murder of President John F. Kennedy By David E. Scheim

page 23 note#52 page 407 19H516;CD5,cited in Thompson,p.119;19H514,530

Joe Smith

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...ap/SmithJM.htm

Contract on America: the Mafia murder of President John F. Kennedy By David E. Scheim

Page 22 note#26, page 406, HAH 5H 553-695 (House Assassination Hearings)

Seymour Weitzman

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...p/Weitzman.htm

(24H228)

Contract on America: the Mafia murder of President John F. Kennedy By David E. Scheim

page 23 note#52 page 407 19H516;CD5,cited in Thompson,p.119;19H514,530

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif

Earle Brown

http://www.history-matters.com/analy...sMap/Brown.htm

Mrs. Donald Sam Baker,nee Virgie Rackley

7 H 512+CD5, pp. 66-67 (Mrs. Donald Baker)

Gunpowder is smelled near the top of Elm Street.

Virgie Baker (Rackley) (on the north side of Elm Street, in front of the

Texas School Book Depository), November 24, 1963: “She recalled that

after the second shot she smelled gunsmoke but did not know where it

was coming from.” [FBI interview, CD5]

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com...c=1210.20;wap2

Cheryl McKinnon, a journalism student who was standing on the grassy

knoll, recalls her shock as three shots rang out from behind her....she has

written:" [We] turned in horror toward the back of the grassy knoll where it

seemed the sounds had originated. Puffs of white smoke still hung in the air

in small patches. But no one was visible."

'My Last Look at Mr. President'- San Diego Star News, Nov. 20 1983

see also 6 H 165+"POTP", p. 441 (Tom Dillard), 6 H 233 (DPD Earle Brown), 7 H 487+Capitol Records' "The Controversy"/ interview with Larry Schiller and Richard Lewis (Mrs. Elizabeth "Dearie" Cabell and re: Congressman Ray Roberts), 7 H 512+CD5, pp. 66-67 (Mrs. Donald Baker), 20 H 351 (Kantor re: Ralph Yarborough) + "The Death of a President", p. 156, "Murder From Within", page 65/ interview with Newcomb&Adams, "The Truth About The Assassination" by Charles Roberts, page 17, "Crossfire", p. 16 (all 4 re: Yarborough) , DPD B.J. Martin (see below), DPD Joe M. Smith (CD205, p. 310+"Texas Observer", 12/13/63+"Murder From Within", pages 65 and 92+"Conspiracy", p. 29), and Beverly Oliver ("Nightmare In Dallas", p. 122); ALSO: re: smoke---- 22 H 833 (James L. Simmons), "Rush To Judgment" film 1966 (Simmons, Richard Dodd, Sam Holland, and Lee Bowers), 22 H 834 (Nolan Potter), 22 H 836+"No More Si-lence" by Larry Sneed, pp.79-83 (Clemon Earl Johnson), 19 H 480, 514, 530 (Holland), 6 H 243 (Holland testimony), 19 H 485 (Austin Miller), Thomas Murphy: 5/6/66 interview ("Best Evidence", pages 16 and 723, and "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor, page 59), Walter Winborn: 3/17/65 and 5/5/66 interviews ("Best Evi-dence", pages 16 and 723, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor, pages 59-60), and 6 H 230 (Frank Reilly), as well as Jean Hill ("Crossfire", p. 38), Beverly Oliver ("Night-mare In Dallas", p. 122), W.W. Mabra ("Crossfire", pp. 19-20, and "No More Si-lence", p.519 ), and Ed Hoffman ("JFK Breaking The Silence", p. 18). Also, see page 204 of Groden's "TKOAP" for a still photo from the Dave Weigman film which seems to show a puff of smoke lingering out from the trees on the knoll. In addii-ton, the Nix film, the John Martin film, and the Patsy Paschall film are all alleged to have evidence of smoke/ flashes on them. ];

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part5.pdf

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH Vol.4 No. 2 © Copyright 2006 Vincent M. Palamara

Of note Weitzman said the footprints didn't make sense behind the fence because they were going different directions....Same as Holland. That equals corroboration by a LEO.

Ed”

Quote:
#13 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- Almost all of the witnesses observing JFK’s headwounds close up, ca 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and officers from two federal police agencies, saw a big gaping wound in the right back of the head - typical exit wound.
Done: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm


Quote:
#14 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- The doctors in Parkland observing JFK’s throat before the tracheotomy seeing a small round punctuated entrance wound.
Doctors Perry and Clark in a press conference at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas
November 22, 1963, 2:16 PM:
QUESTION -- "Where was the entrance wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say."

QUESTION -- "Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?"

DR. PERRY -- "It appeared to be coming at him"....

DR. CLARK -- "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck [throat] or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

QUESTION -- "That was the immediate cause of death -- the head wound?"

DR. CLARK -- "I assume so, yes"...

QUESTION -- "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat"?

DR. PERRY -- "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant."


Quote:
#15 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- Both the chief of DPD and Sheriffs Department radioed all of their men up behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting. They were both in the lead car on Elm Street when the shooting took place.
Decker:
”Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard [area behind the picket fence on the knoll] to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.”
Curry was a bit more uncertain, agree, and he said only ”a man” but considering Deckers (who sat next to him) orders, his order in the radio should be interpreted in a more general sense:
Get a man on top of that triple underpass [next to the railroad yard] and see what happened up there ...

Quote:
#16 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- All the bystanders who ran up the knoll to see if they could help catch the assassin/s.
The Bell film: https://youtu.be/Mcpv3VgGL5I


Quote:
#17 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- An unknown man identifying himself with Secret Service credentials to the two first officers coming up behind the fence, never to be seen again. No real Secret Service agents was on and around the Dealey Plaza until ca 20 minutes after the shooting.
Done: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=188


Quote:
#18 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- Multiple witnesses saw suspect individuals with suspect weapons behind the fence on the knoll.
Ed Hoffman:
Hoffman communicated that this must have been right after President Kennedy was shot. Hoffman saw two men, one with a rifle and one with a handgun, behind a wooden fence, approximately six feet in height, at this moment. This fence is located on the same side of Elm Street as the Texas School Book Depository building but closer to Stemmons Freeway. Since he is deaf, he naturally could not hear any shots but thought he saw a puff of smoke in the vicinity of where the two men were standing. As soon as he saw the motorcade speed away and saw the puff of smoke in the vicinity of the two men, the man with the rifle looked like he was breaking the rifle down by removing the barrel from the stock and placing it in some dark type of suitcase that the other man was holding. The two men then ran north on the railroad tracks by actually running on the tracks.

FBI report on the testimony of Ed Hoffman (25th March, 1977)

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm

Lee Bowers:
One was "middle-aged" and "fairly heavyset," wearing a white shirt and dark trousers. The other was "mid-twenties in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat... these men were the only two strangers in the area. The others were workers that I knew." Bowers also said that when the shots were fired at the President "in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment... a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there." Lee Bowers was questioned by the Warren Commission but was cut off in mid-sentence when he began describing the "something out of the ordinary" he had seen. The interrogating lawyer changed the subject.”

Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...reply&t=329916
Jean Hill:
”Then, in half the time it takes for me to tell it, I looked across the street and I saw them shooting from the knoll. I did get the impression that day that there was more than one shooter, but I had the idea that the good guys and the bad guys were shooting at each other. I guess I was a victim of too much television, because I assumed that the good guys always shot at the bad guys. Mary was on the grass shouting, "Get down! Get down! They're shooting! They're shooting!" Nobody was moving and I looked up and saw this man, moving rather quickly in front of the School Book Depository toward the railroad tracks, heading west, toward the area where I had seen the man shooting on the knoll.

Jean Hill, speech (November, 1991)

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhillJ.htm
There is more.


Quote:
#19 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- The Zapruder film showing JFK’s head violently snap back and to the left when hit by the fatal shot = shot from in front to the right = the knoll.
Done:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3500

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3504

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3553

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3584

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3589

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3590

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3636

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3638

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3681

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3686

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3689

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3704

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3714

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3724

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3748

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3755

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3766

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3807

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3820

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3825

Shall or should I continue?


Quote:
#20 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- Harpers fragment identified as a fresh 7x5 cm big cranial fragment of occipital bone by three forensic pathologists at Methodist Hospital = lower part of the back of the head = big gaping wound = exit wound = shot from in front.
The 5x7 cm cranial fragment found on the grass south of the Elm Street in Dealey Plaza: http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/F8/Fox...htm#harper_pik
”Harper took it to his uncle, Jack C. Harper, M.D., who in turn showed it to A.B. Cairns, the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital. A total of three Dallas pathologists examined the bone and they identified the site of origin as the occiput. (On 22 November 1992, on a Palm Springs radio talk show, I helped to interview one of these pathologists, Dr. Gerhard Noteboom, who reaffirmed that conclusion; he also recalled the lead deposit on the fragment.) The bone was then shipped to Admiral Burkley, who, in turn, gave it to the FBI, where it was lost. Fortunately, photographs were taken in Dallas (Here). A ruler on the photograph permits an estimate of size: it is about 7 x 5.5 cm, and trapezoidal in shape.”

- David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/F8/Fox_Eight.htm
20 claims from ”Hank’s” little list answered. 80 to go.

To be continued ...
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 15th June 2018, 09:24 PM   #461
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,895
All from CT websites or books. Big shock.
__________________
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 15th June 2018, 10:08 PM   #462
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
1. Links to CT websites is not evidence

2. Passages quoted from CT books is not evidence

3. Links to your own posts where where to link to CT websites, quoting passages from CT books or making up your own CT BS is not evidence

The only "evidence" you have linked to that is not a CT loon source is tha from The History Matters Archive, and everything you have linked there is either irrelevant to the claims you have made, or you have used your own unique interpretions to support your case. Either way, its not evidence.

Got any real evidence?
__________________
“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; 15th June 2018 at 10:54 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 15th June 2018, 10:18 PM   #463
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
1. Links to CT websites is not evidence

2. Passages quoted from CT books is not evidence

3. Links to your own posts where where to link to CT websites, quoting passages from CT books or making up your own CT BS is not evidence

The only "evidence" you have linked to that is not a CT loon source is tha from The History Matters Archive, and everything you have linked there is either irrelevant to the claims you have made, or you have used your own unique interpretions to support your case. Either way, its not evidence.

Got any real evidence?
Stop whining and quote what you find faulty and explain why you find it faulty or lacking in requeriment.

Be specific.
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 15th June 2018, 11:00 PM   #464
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Stop whining and quote what you find faulty and explain why you find it faulty or lacking in requeriment.

Be specific.
What's Faulty: Your "evidence" cannot be trusted.

What is lacking: A credible source for your "evidence".

Specifically: Your sources are CT loon websites and CT loon books. All CT sources lack credibility; without exception. You lack credibility as well. The BS you make up and spout off might be lapped up eagerly at CT loon websites, but it has zero value here.

PS:

Most of your "smoke" witnesses are either describing steam off the stream pipes or cigar, cigarette or pipe smoke. Smoking was a very common in the US in the 1960's over 40% of people smoked, and there was no restriction on smoking in public places like Dealey Plaza.

Additionally, the smell of a freshly stuck match (particularly the red top safety matches commonly used in the USA by that time) is very similar to, easily mistakable for the smell of bullet propellant to the uninitiated. This is due to the commonality of some chemicals in propellant and match heads, such as potassium chloride and potassium perchlorate.

Of course, as you have been repeatedly told (and have repeatedly handwaved away or ignored) if witnesses saw smoke near the grassy knoll, and it is smoke from gunshots, then the shooter on the Grassy Knoll was using a muzzle loading flintlock, because firearms have been using smokeless power propellant for over 100 years.

Oh, and some of your witnesses are saying the shots came from the TSBD (Oops! scratch those ones).
__________________
“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; 15th June 2018 at 11:06 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 15th June 2018, 11:44 PM   #465
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What's Faulty: Your "evidence" cannot be trusted.
Cite it one by one and explain why it can’t be trusted.

Quote:
What is lacking: A credible source for your "evidence".
Same here, cite it and explain.

Quote:
Specifically: Your sources are CT loon websites and CT loon books. All CT sources lack credibility; without exception. You lack credibility as well. The BS you make up and spout off might be lapped up eagerly at CT loon websites, but it has zero value here.
It is not me or whoever else at issue here, it’s the evidence.

Cite the evidence that you find faulty or lacking in requirements. Explain why you find it so.

Be specific.

Quote:
PS:

Most of your "smoke" witnesses are either describing steam off the stream pipes or cigar, cigarette or pipe smoke. Smoking was a very common in the US in the 1960's over 40% of people smoked, and there was no restriction on smoking in public places like Dealey Plaza.
No, they are describing what they thought were gunsmoke in direct connection to the shooting.

The fact that YOU wish it was other types of smoke doesn’t change this.

Quote:
Additionally, the smell of a freshly stuck match (particularly the red top safety matches commonly used in the USA by that time) is very similar to, easily mistakable for the smell of bullet propellant to the uninitiated. This is due to the commonality of some chemicals in propellant and match heads, such as potassium chloride and potassium perchlorate.
So, they mistook the smell of gunsmoke with the smell of match smoke?

Where do they say that?

Quote:
Of course, as you have been repeatedly told (and have repeatedly handwaved away or ignored) if witnesses saw smoke near the grassy knoll, and it is smoke from gunshots, then the shooter on the Grassy Knoll was using a muzzle loading flintlock, because firearms have been using smokeless power propellant for over 100 years.
Are you suggesting that this guy too are using ”a muzzle loading flintlock”?

https://youtu.be/1oK72g7mfvA

Quote:
Oh, and some of your witnesses are saying the shots came from the TSBD (Oops! scratch those ones).
No one is claiming that no shots were fired from TSBD.

The claim is that lots of witnesses heard shots , saw shootings/shooters, saw gunsmoke and smelled gunsmoke at or around the knoll.

You claim they did not.

Last edited by manifesto; 15th June 2018 at 11:47 PM.
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 16th June 2018, 12:44 AM   #466
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite it one by one and explain why it can’t be trusted.

Same here, cite it and explain.

It is not me or whoever else at issue here, it’s the evidence.

Cite the evidence that you find faulty or lacking in requirements. Explain why you find it so.

Be specific.
"Evidence" from CT loon sources has no value, so I dismiss it.

Frustrating.. isn't it, having what you think is evidence handwaved, dismissed and ignored?

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, they are describing what they thought were gunsmoke in direct connection to the shooting.
I have highlighted the operative word.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The fact that YOU wish it was other types of smoke doesn’t change this.
No, I don't wish it was other type of smoke, I am simply open to other possibilities. YOU are not... your CT mind is closed and bolted shut!

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, they mistook the smell of gunsmoke with the smell of match smoke?

Where do they say that?
If they didn't know they mistook it, they wouldn't know to say so.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Are you suggesting that this guy too are using ”a muzzle loading flintlock”?

https://youtu.be/1oK72g7mfvA
Maybe his ammunition were handloads. Charles Whitman was a gun enthusiast; many of them load their own ammunition.

Watch the following to learn about the difference between black power and smokeless powder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceuluh_pJE
__________________
“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; 16th June 2018 at 01:31 AM.
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 16th June 2018, 02:49 AM   #467
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,861
Wow. Manifesto is still hitching his wagon to the non-existent "gunsmoke".

It is to laugh.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 03:54 AM   #468
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Wow. Manifesto is still hitching his wagon to the non-existent "gunsmoke".
Manifesto hitches his wagon to a lot of non-existent stuff...

Shooters on the Grassy Knoll
Fourth and fifth gunshots
Recorded gunshots
Alphabet Soup conspirators
Additional ear-witnesses to Grassy Knoll shooters
A Mauser rifle
Curtain rods

etc
__________________
“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; 16th June 2018 at 04:58 AM.
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 16th June 2018, 05:06 AM   #469
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
All this is part of a ’big picture argument’ showing what I’m personally convinced of actually happened and continues to happen. Hence no detailed claims of proofs validating my outlook. So far.

As I said earlier, sometimes I see a need to counter false sweeping statements in line with the ”Lone Nut Oswald” official narrative promulgated by the US National Security State since day one, with equally sweeping, but true, statements regarding what actually happened.

That said, I’m NOT refusing to provide evidence of these big picture argument with reference to som pathetic ”null” or ”concilience”, I’m saying that my ’big picture-narrative’ takes time to more firmely establish with often circumstantial evidence and deductions from what evidence there is.

This is an ongoing process and will in time become crystal clear.

No worries.

Hank’s little whining list is now down from alleged 100 to an alleged 91.

More to come.
You *admit* you haven't presented the evidence or argued for its veracity here: "All this is part of a ’big picture argument’ showing what I’m personally convinced of actually happened and continues to happen. Hence no detailed claims of proofs validating my outlook."

But you then remove it from the list despite not establishing your claims are true here: "Hank’s little whining list is now down from alleged 100 to an alleged 91."

Sorry, no. The list is still exactly where it was. 100 claims by you. None of them supported with actual evidence.

Articles written by fellow conspiracy theorists are not evidence. Evidence is actual eyewitness testimony and expert testimony, not taken out of context, not subject to the often unique interpretations of the conspiracy theorist writing the article, or to your or your source's taking the claim out of context, or your or your source's assumptions, or your or your source's logical fallacies.

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 June 2018 at 06:42 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 June 2018, 05:16 AM   #470
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
You haven't established what you're being asked to establish. Here's one obvious example:

Quote:
#16 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231 [fixed your broken link]
- All the bystanders who ran up the knoll to see if they could help catch the assassin/s.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Hilarious. Nobody is questioning the fact that people ran up the knoll. What we're questioning is your mind reading ability where you stated the reason they ran up the knoll.

You pretend posting a link to a film showing people running up the knoll is akin to knowing why they ran up the knoll. That's the statement you're being asked to establish.

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 June 2018 at 06:40 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 June 2018, 05:32 AM   #471
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,210
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You haven't established what you're being asked to establish. Here's one obvious example:

Hilarious. Nobody is questioning the fact that people ran up the knoll. What we're questioning is your mind reading ability where you stated the reason they ran up the knoll.

You pretend posting a link to a film showing people running up the knoll is akin to knowing why they ran up the knoll. That's the statement you're being asked to establish.

Hank
Given that this was the 1960s, and some mad gunman was shooting, people running up the knoll are more likely to be running away from where the bullets are landing (in the street where the president is) as they try to get out of the line of fire while looking for cover from the shooter.

The very idea that they ran up the knoll to chase the gunman is just preposterous! Did any of the witnesses claim that what they were doing?
__________________
“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 16th June 2018, 05:42 AM   #472
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
#17 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231
- An unknown man identifying himself with Secret Service credentials to the two first officers coming up behind the fence, never to be seen again. No real Secret Service agents was on and around the Dealey Plaza until ca 20 minutes after the shooting.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. Not Done.

I pointed out that the only Secret Service agents eliminated from Dealey Plaza were those in the President's detail, the agents stationed in Washington, D.C. that traveled with the President. I pointed out that other Secret Service agents were stationed in Dallas, and Fort Worth, and other Texas cities. I pointed out the huge assumption by CTs everywhere was that other Secret Service agents from other cities weren't stationed along the route (and in Dealey Plaza). You haven't eliminated them, so your last sentence above is unproven: "No real Secret Service agents was on and around the Dealey Plaza until ca 20 minutes after the shooting." You also didn't eliminate Treasury agents that weren't Secret Service or other agents from other agencies (like James Powell and Frank Ellsworth).

You make a claim, you don't get to assume the answer. You don't link to a prior post of yours where you provided claims that have already been debunked, pretending they weren't rebutted. That's a great example of a fringe reset.

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 June 2018 at 06:39 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 June 2018, 05:45 AM   #473
Pooneil
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Let me rephrase. What would your ’evidence’ look like?
As a lurker her, this is what I would like to see.

A full thesis examining the entirety of the assassination that points out numerous mistakes in other accounts and provides a better explanation of the events. Published with full notes and sources. That is what it would take to get me to consider an alternative. Scattered posting on the Internet don't hold much sway just as guys ranting and selling books at tables in Dealey Plaza haven't in the past.

Since we know that won't happen here, how about starting with a simple timeline of events stating how many shots were fired and where they were fired from. Support this with a defense that shows what other scenarios missed and how the new timeline better explains the evidence. Stay strictly to the physical events and evidence, rather than delving into theories, motives and conspiracy.

Last edited by Pooneil; 16th June 2018 at 05:55 AM.
Pooneil 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 June 2018, 06:27 AM   #474
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
#18 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4231 [Fixed your broken link - Hank]
- Multiple witnesses saw suspect individuals with suspect weapons behind the fence on the knoll.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ed Hoffman:
Hoffman communicated that this must have been right after President Kennedy was shot. Hoffman saw two men, one with a rifle and one with a handgun, behind a wooden fence, approximately six feet in height, at this moment. This fence is located on the same side of Elm Street as the Texas School Book Depository building but closer to Stemmons Freeway. Since he is deaf, he naturally could not hear any shots but thought he saw a puff of smoke in the vicinity of where the two men were standing. As soon as he saw the motorcade speed away and saw the puff of smoke in the vicinity of the two men, the man with the rifle looked like he was breaking the rifle down by removing the barrel from the stock and placing it in some dark type of suitcase that the other man was holding. The two men then ran north on the railroad tracks by actually running on the tracks.

There is serious questions about whether Hoffman was anywhere near the assassination scene at the time of the assassination. The first report by Hoffman is from years after the assassination.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
FBI report on the testimony of Ed Hoffman (25th March, 1977)
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm
So this is his story 14 years after the assassination. So what? I think you first need to establish he was actually a witness before you cite his claims about what he saw. You can't establish he was a witness via his claims. This person does not support your claim.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Lee Bowers:
One was "middle-aged" and "fairly heavyset," wearing a white shirt and dark trousers. The other was "mid-twenties in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat... these men were the only two strangers in the area. The others were workers that I knew." Bowers also said that when the shots were fired at the President "in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment... a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there." Lee Bowers was questioned by the Warren Commission but was cut off in mid-sentence when he began describing the "something out of the ordinary" he had seen. The interrogating lawyer changed the subject.”

Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...reply&t=329916
I'm sorry, all Lee Bowers said he saw was something out of the ordinary. That does not equate to seeing a weapon or weapons. All that is simply your presumption. The flash of light could have come from a reflection of the sun off the highly polished limo as it sped past. You are assuming what you need to prove. In addition, you said individuals (plural) with weapons (plural). Bowers did not mention seeing individuals with weapons. This person does not support your claim.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Jean Hill:
”Then, in half the time it takes for me to tell it, I looked across the street and I saw them shooting from the knoll. I did get the impression that day that there was more than one shooter, but I had the idea that the good guys and the bad guys were shooting at each other. I guess I was a victim of too much television, because I assumed that the good guys always shot at the bad guys. Mary was on the grass shouting, "Get down! Get down! They're shooting! They're shooting!" Nobody was moving and I looked up and saw this man, moving rather quickly in front of the School Book Depository toward the railroad tracks, heading west, toward the area where I had seen the man shooting on the knoll.

Jean Hill, speech (November, 1991)

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhillJ.htm
There is more.
Jean Hill's initial statements from 11/22/63 (the day of the assassination) on the shooting says she saw nobody shooting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6W0UMyUe10 (TV)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6W0UMyUe10 (radio)

That's evidence.

What she said 28 years later isn't evidence. Hill was a publicity hog who would change her claims at the drop of a hat. This has been pointed out to you. This person does not support your claim.

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 June 2018 at 06:38 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 June 2018, 07:05 AM   #475
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
NOT Done:
FTFY

You will need new material. All of that has been debunked or refuted already. Try again.
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 June 2018, 07:46 AM   #476
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Stop whining and quote what you find faulty and explain why you find it faulty or lacking in requeriment.

Be specific.
And you'll get to it in "due course?" Does anyone actually fall for your bluster anymore?
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 16th June 2018, 08:04 AM   #477
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
FTFY

You will need new material. All of that has been debunked or refuted already. Try again.
Like he is going to find anything new, or that has not been trashed for many decades.

manifesto, you still haven't posted evidence of multiple shooters by statements and/or testimony. No physical evidence.
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 June 2018, 10:14 AM   #478
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And you'll get to it in "due course?" Does anyone actually fall for your bluster anymore?
In due course, JayUtah.
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 16th June 2018, 10:17 AM   #479
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. Name one claim where I have not provided evidence and I provide it emeditaly [sic - immediately].
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
In due course, JayUtah.
So NOT immediately.

Right?

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 June 2018 at 10:25 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 June 2018, 10:24 AM   #480
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,036
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite ONE thing I have made up
There's this typical CT lie:
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. Name one claim where I have not provided evidence and I provide it emeditaly.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
In due course, JayUtah.
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
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 01:51 PM.
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.