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 27th February 2019, 08:22 AM   #2681
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,651
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
All of Stone's movies have an agenda. The political agenda at the root of Amadeus has long since been forgotten.

You raise a great point though. Every CT has a political agenda, and they exist to remove the guilty, and insert whatever private political bogey man the CTist feels should be punished. One of the man reasons the CT fell apart for me was that there was no single clear villain. Some claim it was the CIA, others the mob, the mob with the CIA, the FBI & CIA, LBJ, Hunt Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, Right-Wing politicians, Cuba, and so on.

Every active CT on this board is a front of an alternative political agenda. It's never Ted from Accounting, it's either The Clintons, CIA, Deep State, or whatever.

The difference is that 100 years from now the movie JFK will be forgotten. Amadeus is just a great story with great music. Plus, by then all the JFK assassination materials will be out in the public domain.

Triumph of the Will is a great horror movie today
I first read that as "Trump of the Will".

Also, we don't have that many candidates left, besides MicahJava.
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton

"And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong
tinribmancer 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 27th February 2019, 10:13 AM   #2682
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by tinribmancer View Post
I first read that as "Trump of the Will".

Also, we don't have that many candidates left, besides MicahJava.
MJ is absent, probably trying a fringe reset upon his return. I haven't seen him in the 9/11 threads either.
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 27th February 2019, 10:16 AM   #2683
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,007
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
MJ is absent, probably trying a fringe reset upon his return. I haven't seen him in the 9/11 threads either.
MJ has been reduced to hit and run posting. One of the last refuges of the losing.

The rest have simply run.
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 27th February 2019, 10:18 AM   #2684
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
MJ has been reduced to hit and run posting. One of the last refuges of the losing.

The rest have simply run.
Or they just got banned for their behavior.
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 27th February 2019, 10:56 AM   #2685
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
Those silly CTs, so stupid... hahaha!
Imhotep 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 27th February 2019, 11:32 AM   #2686
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Those silly CTs, so stupid... hahaha!
Well IF you like to see the BS they put out go over to Quora and check out Pascal Xavier(AKA hunchbacked) and see his constant drivel concerning Apollo. He comes up with "new" things, but is just as wrong.
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 27th February 2019, 11:53 AM   #2687
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Well IF you like to see the BS they put out go over to Quora and check out Pascal Xavier(AKA hunchbacked) and see his constant drivel concerning Apollo. He comes up with "new" things, but is just as wrong.
So this particular CT is even stupider than the average CT, and that's an attraction? This is kind of like rubbernecking I guess.

Ehh... I'm just as guilty of this as anyone
Imhotep 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 27th February 2019, 12:26 PM   #2688
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
So this particular CT is even stupider than the average CT, and that's an attraction? This is kind of like rubbernecking I guess.

Ehh... I'm just as guilty of this as anyone
He is rather strange in that most of his "new" finds pertain to electronic drawings or observational discrepancies. The electronics bewilder me as I'm not an EE, but there are others who easily debunk his lack of knowledge of electronics. His observations are easy to debunked once you think in three dimensions as he has a real problem there and his lack of plain visual skills are funning/sickening listening to his YT crowd that laps up any and everything he publishes.
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 27th February 2019, 06:00 PM   #2689
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Those silly CTs, so stupid... hahaha!
I wouldn't use that word. I would say misguided, misinformed, too easy to fool. Most CTs I've come across (including myself and my brother) read some CT books and accepted their arguments and their 'facts' without question, without attempting to verify any of it. I was no exception in the 1960s and 1970s. I've been debating this online since the early 1990s (Prodigy was my first encounter with debating CTs. I left a lot of meat on the bone back then. As I've aged, I've gained more wisdom without losing (hopefully) too much knowledge on the subject.

It wasn't until the early 1980s that I went to the Warren Commission 26 volumes and read them through twice that I understood how and why the CT authors were laughing all the way to the bank.

Mark Lane is among the worst of the CT authors. He deliberately manufactured false CT stories in RUSH TO JUDGMENT (published in 1966) and watched it become a number one best seller. He went back to the subject multiple times, publishing more books on the JFK assassination.

He's something I posted recently on alt.assassination.jfk: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....0/h6f-v9W4GAAJ

WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED

That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

Why does this chapter exist?

The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
Harvey Oswald".

Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.

This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
his book and make it seem more substantial.

The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
== QUOTE ==
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
== UNQUOTE ==

Arguing about why Oswald was wanted when the Warren Commission never said that Oswald was wanted (and when Oswald never was wanted) is an excellent example of a straw man argument.

Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
shot?"

They didn't. His statement in the Chapter title that Oswald was wanted is
a clear falsehood. His statement Oswald was wanted at 12:45, about 30
minutes before the shooting of Tippit, is likewise untrue. It's simply a loaded question.

Since the Warren Report never claimed that Oswald was wanted by the police
for either murder in the short time he was free, we can all see that Mark
Lane is simply employing a straw man argument, knocking down a claim that
the Warren Commission never advanced.

The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.

This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
earliest practitioners of the art.


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 27th February 2019, 07:04 PM   #2690
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
A lot of CT's arguments deal with fabrication or distortion of facts.
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 27th February 2019, 07:12 PM   #2691
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
A lot of CT's arguments deal with fabrication or distortion of facts.
Your point is unclear. Whose fabrication or distortion of facts?

CTs argue the Warren Commission ignored counter-evidence and acted only as a prosecutor, often ignoring anything that pointed away from Oswald. CTs arguments deal with fabrication or distortion of facts by the Warren Commission. But when you know the evidence, you know what arguments they are taking out of context, what arguments are logical fallacies, what arguments are simply presumptions, and which are outright falsehoods.

I would say that a lot of CT arguments are quite simply fabrications or distortions of fact.

Slightly different wording, but an entirely different meaning.

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; 27th February 2019 at 07:28 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 27th February 2019, 07:20 PM   #2692
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 486
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The movie on it's own is classic Oliver Stone; the lead character - Jim Garrison - toes the line until he has his "eyes opened", and from there it's Don Quixote, or Serpico depending on your point of view. One man takes on the establishment and takes a moral victory. All of his movies revolve around that theme.

JFK has an outstanding cast, amazing editing, and a phenomenal script. The problem some of us here have with the movie is similar to the physics guys reactions to science fiction movies where the ship goes faster than light, or has a worm hole, or has solved gravity.

The irony was that watching it on the big screen and seeing the Zapruder Film super enhanced on a massive scale was where I began to question the second gunman theory because the detail showed the skull flap blowing forward and not backward.

Stone's movies have never really worked for me personally. I'm not a huge fan of "message movies" in the first place, I generally watch movies just for entertainment, if I want to be informed, I'll read a book. But even then, Stone just lays it on with a trowel. I'm half surprised he doesn't have a halo over Costner's head for the entire movie and horns growing out of Tommy Lee Jones's (as Clay Shaw) head.

Another interesting point is that a lot of CT's were very disappointed that Stone choose On the Trail of the Assassins as the book to base his movie on, since Garrison had been so discredited even in the CT community for so many years. But Garrison was one of the few CT's in the "everybody did it" faction, so that's who he went with. Here's a great link of all the people accused by Garrison of either being involved in or covering up the assassination after the fact.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/suspects.htm
cmikes 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 27th February 2019, 07:32 PM   #2693
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Stone's movies have never really worked for me personally. I'm not a huge fan of "message movies" in the first place, I generally watch movies just for entertainment, if I want to be informed, I'll read a book. But even then, Stone just lays it on with a trowel. I'm half surprised he doesn't have a halo over Costner's head for the entire movie and horns growing out of Tommy Lee Jones's (as Clay Shaw) head.

Another interesting point is that a lot of CT's were very disappointed that Stone choose On the Trail of the Assassins as the book to base his movie on, since Garrison had been so discredited even in the CT community for so many years. But Garrison was one of the few CT's in the "everybody did it" faction, so that's who he went with. Here's a great link of all the people accused by Garrison of either being involved in or covering up the assassination after the fact.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/suspects.htm
Good link. Garrison was a nut, no other word will do. Garrison even named Robert Francis Kennedy as one of those hampering his investigation into the supposed conspiracy to kill RFK's brother:

"Kennedy has without any question made a positive effort to stop the investigation and if he denies it here, he is a liar. . . . Who was the Attorney General of the United States when this great fraud was perpetrated and the people of the United States were told it was a lone assassin?" [Brener, p. 217]

Interviewer: "Well, what you're saying, then, is that Senator Kennedy by not cooperating is, in effect, letting the murderers of his brother walk the streets." Garrison: "We, yes, that's a fair statement. Yes." [Brener, p. 219]

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; 27th February 2019 at 07:34 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 27th February 2019, 08:19 PM   #2694
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Your point is unclear. Whose fabrication or distortion of facts?

CTs argue the Warren Commission ignored counter-evidence and acted only as a prosecutor, often ignoring anything that pointed away from Oswald. CTs arguments deal with fabrication or distortion of facts by the Warren Commission. But when you know the evidence, you know what arguments they are taking out of context, what arguments are logical fallacies, what arguments are simply presumptions, and which are outright falsehoods.

I would say that a lot of CT arguments are quite simply fabrications or distortions of fact.

Slightly different wording, but an entirely different meaning.

Hank
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
A lot of CT's arguments deal with fabrication or distortion of facts.
I think the meaning was clear, but that is me.
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 27th February 2019, 08:52 PM   #2695
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Stone's movies have never really worked for me personally. I'm not a huge fan of "message movies" in the first place, I generally watch movies just for entertainment, if I want to be informed, I'll read a book. But even then, Stone just lays it on with a trowel. I'm half surprised he doesn't have a halo over Costner's head for the entire movie and horns growing out of Tommy Lee Jones's (as Clay Shaw) head.

Another interesting point is that a lot of CT's were very disappointed that Stone choose On the Trail of the Assassins as the book to base his movie on, since Garrison had been so discredited even in the CT community for so many years. But Garrison was one of the few CT's in the "everybody did it" faction, so that's who he went with. Here's a great link of all the people accused by Garrison of either being involved in or covering up the assassination after the fact.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/suspects.htm
Garrison was nuttier than a Redondo Beach fruit salad. He was on a fishing expedition where one theory was embraced only to be cast out in favor of a new theory. Compounding this issue was the fact that JMWAVE and MONGOOSE had people, and facilities in Louisiana that needed to be kept secret, so when Garrison's people knocked on the wrong (or right) doors alarm bells went off, and a smoke screen deployed. From the outside this looked like they were covering up involvement in JFK's death when in fact they were covering up a significant, complex intelligence operation.

Garrison could point to the more ham-handed attempts of cover-up to make his case that he was "on to something big".

As for the movie, Kevin Costner's performance of the closing argument is the best thing in the movie because it's a single take without cuts, or editing. He hasn't been asked to do anything that good since.
__________________
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 28th February 2019, 03:38 AM   #2696
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I think the meaning was clear, but that is me.
I knew what you meant, but it's not what you said.

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 28th February 2019, 09:51 AM   #2697
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
A lot of CT's arguments deal with are based on fabrication or distortion of facts?
Imhotep 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 28th February 2019, 09:59 AM   #2698
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
A lot of CT's arguments deal with are based on fabrication or distortion of facts?
[or ignoring contrary information or logical fallacies or repeating conclusions by other CTs as fact, etc.]

Almost all of the CT arguments advanced over the past 55.3 years are wrong in some way(s).

Do you have any in mind that you think are correct?

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong. Only one way to be 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; 28th February 2019 at 10:00 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 28th February 2019, 11:01 AM   #2699
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,296
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Garrison was nuttier than a Redondo Beach fruit salad. He was on a fishing expedition where one theory was embraced only to be cast out in favor of a new theory. Compounding this issue was the fact that JMWAVE and MONGOOSE had people, and facilities in Louisiana that needed to be kept secret, so when Garrison's people knocked on the wrong (or right) doors alarm bells went off, and a smoke screen deployed. From the outside this looked like they were covering up involvement in JFK's death when in fact they were covering up a significant, complex intelligence operation.

Garrison could point to the more ham-handed attempts of cover-up to make his case that he was "on to something big".

As for the movie, Kevin Costner's performance of the closing argument is the best thing in the movie because it's a single take without cuts, or editing. He hasn't been asked to do anything that good since.
Long time local NOLA opinion on Garrison:

He'try to indict a ham sandwich, fail in court, eat the sandwich then wonder where it went.
__________________
"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 28th February 2019, 11:37 AM   #2700
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[or ignoring contrary information or logical fallacies or repeating conclusions by other CTs as fact, etc.]
Ignoring contrary information is a big one. Also called cherry picking evidence. There's some of that on both sides of pretty much any debate known to man, JFK case being no exception.

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Almost all of the CT arguments advanced over the past 55.3 years are wrong in some way(s).
That's very generic so impossible to disagree with...

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Do you have any in mind that you think are correct?
Not at this time
Imhotep 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 28th February 2019, 11:43 AM   #2701
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
[or ignoring contrary information or logical fallacies or repeating conclusions by other CTs as fact, etc.]
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Ignoring contrary information is a big one. Also called cherry picking evidence. There's some of that on both sides of pretty much any debate known to man, JFK case being no exception.
I'll await your citations to actual evidence known to the the Warren Commission that they ignored. Otherwise it's so generic it's impossible to verify or dispute.


Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Almost all of the CT arguments advanced over the past 55.3 years are wrong in some way(s).
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
That's very generic so impossible to disagree with...
Just pick your favorite JFK CT claim(s) you think is(are) correct. I'll show you why it's wrong.


Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Do you have any in mind that you think are correct?
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Not at this time
What's your point then?


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; 28th February 2019 at 11:55 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 28th February 2019, 08:34 PM   #2702
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Personally I don't think any of the CT's claims are valid and I never had unlike a few on here that once believed. But they got their heads on straight now and debunk the individuals that happen here spouting conspiracy beliefs. Congratulations on coming back to reality instead of living in fantasy land.
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 1st March 2019, 07:21 AM   #2703
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
What's your point then?
Interested in the case and the community around it since the early 90s. I have evolving views and not supporting any CT to fine detail at this time. I'm sure you can find a sparring partner somewhere
Imhotep 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 1st March 2019, 08:37 AM   #2704
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Interested in the case and the community around it since the early 90s. I have evolving views and not supporting any CT to fine detail at this time. I'm sure you can find a sparring partner somewhere
:snore:
__________________
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 1st March 2019, 08:56 AM   #2705
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
:snore:
Now Hank, it isn't good to sleep in class.
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 1st March 2019, 08:58 AM   #2706
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,169
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I wouldn't use that word. I would say misguided, misinformed, too easy to fool. Most CTs I've come across (including myself and my brother) read some CT books and accepted their arguments and their 'facts' without question, without attempting to verify any of it. I was no exception in the 1960s and 1970s. I've been debating this online since the early 1990s (Prodigy was my first encounter with debating CTs. I left a lot of meat on the bone back then. As I've aged, I've gained more wisdom without losing (hopefully) too much knowledge on the subject.

It wasn't until the early 1980s that I went to the Warren Commission 26 volumes and read them through twice that I understood how and why the CT authors were laughing all the way to the bank.

Mark Lane is among the worst of the CT authors. He deliberately manufactured false CT stories in RUSH TO JUDGMENT (published in 1966) and watched it become a number one best seller. He went back to the subject multiple times, publishing more books on the JFK assassination.

He's something I posted recently on alt.assassination.jfk: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....0/h6f-v9W4GAAJ

WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED

That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

Why does this chapter exist?

The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
Harvey Oswald".

Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.

This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
his book and make it seem more substantial.

The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
== QUOTE ==
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
== UNQUOTE ==

Arguing about why Oswald was wanted when the Warren Commission never said that Oswald was wanted (and when Oswald never was wanted) is an excellent example of a straw man argument.

Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
shot?"

They didn't. His statement in the Chapter title that Oswald was wanted is
a clear falsehood. His statement Oswald was wanted at 12:45, about 30
minutes before the shooting of Tippit, is likewise untrue. It's simply a loaded question.

Since the Warren Report never claimed that Oswald was wanted by the police
for either murder in the short time he was free, we can all see that Mark
Lane is simply employing a straw man argument, knocking down a claim that
the Warren Commission never advanced.

The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.

This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
earliest practitioners of the art.


Hank
Considering you've read them all, are there any examples of where Lane's later work directly contradicts his earlier claims, like those in his 1966 book? Does he acknowledge those contradictions, or does he just pretend like they never happened?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 1st March 2019, 09:03 AM   #2707
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Considering you've read them all, are there any examples of where Lane's later work directly contradicts his earlier claims, like those in his 1966 book? Does he acknowledge those contradictions, or does he just pretend like they never happened?
To read even on of his books would require a tin foil hat and you want to compare more?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 10:09 AM   #2708
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Now Hank, it isn't good to sleep in class.
Imhotep isn't conducting class. He's spitballing from the back of the room, and hoping the teacher never calls on him, because he apparently has nothing to add.

I'm a high school dropout, so I've been there, done that.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 1st March 2019 at 10:20 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 1st March 2019, 10:43 AM   #2709
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,682
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Imhotep isn't conducting class. He's spitballing from the back of the room, and hoping the teacher never calls on him, because he apparently has nothing to add.

I'm a high school dropout, so I've been there, done that.

Hank
I never knew that or at the worst don't remember you posting this. With that said you do very well in reasoning powers and apparently comprehension, reading the 26 volumes of the WC. Are they real or digital? I would fall asleep after reading a few pages myself, so they wouldn't work for me.

I again, congratulate you on your recovery from the CT fantasy world.
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 1st March 2019, 12:03 PM   #2710
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Imhotep isn't conducting class. He's spitballing from the back of the room, and hoping the teacher never calls on him, because he apparently has nothing to add.

I'm a high school dropout, so I've been there, done that.

Hank
Lay off with the assumptions of a personal nature please. If we could have one interaction where you don't finish with some kind of insult or passive aggressive comment that would be great.
Imhotep 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 1st March 2019, 01:17 PM   #2711
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Lay off with the assumptions of a personal nature please.
You yourself said you had nothing to add, then suggested I find someone else to discuss this with. My characterization was of what your were doing here that is obvious to all, spun off into the 'classroom' motif, because of the prior post saying I shouldn't sleep in class. You should perhaps stop reading too much into comments. Growing a pair also couldn't hurt. Or is that too gender specific an assumption of a personal nature for you?


Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
If we could have one interaction where you don't finish with some kind of insult or passive aggressive comment that would be great.
Been there, done that too:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2701

I tried to draw you out. Class participation is apparently not your thing. Spitballing from the back of the room? Apparently suits you fine.

Now, if you don't care to discuss the JFK Assassination in a forum set up for that very purpose, may I suggest you take your umbrage somewhere else?

Hank

PS: I find it amusing that you would characterize my characterization of your comments as 'spitballing from the back of the classroom' of a personal nature, somewhat insulting, and passive/aggressive as well, but I should apparently take in stride that you characterize my spitballing comment as 'of a personal nature, somewhat insulting, and passive/aggressive' as well. Sorry, not buying the umbrage.
__________________
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; 1st March 2019 at 01:31 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 1st March 2019, 03:16 PM   #2712
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I never knew that or at the worst don't remember you posting this.
I'm pretty up front about it and usually mention that when it's appropriate. Pretty sure I've mentioned it here on this forum more than once. Maybe it was before your time.



Originally Posted by bknight View Post
With that said you do very well in reasoning powers and apparently comprehension, reading the 26 volumes of the WC.
Well, I'm not the typical high school dropout from Newark, NJ who grew up in the projects (government housing). I spent my days cutting classes and reading at the library more often than not. I wasn't disinterested in learning - I was just bored to tears in class. I would read any of the assigned literature and just skip the homework assignments. That didn't go over well with many of my public high school teachers in Newark. Then RFK got shot and I never went back for my senior year. It was the 1960s. It was a tumultuous time.



Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Are they real or digital?
Well, they are both now. But what I bought from the Presidents Box Bookshop in the early 1980s was 26 hard-copy volumes printed in 1964 by the Government Printing Office. I would stay up nights reading the testimony, sometimes to two or three in the morning.



Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I would fall asleep after reading a few pages myself, so they wouldn't work for me.
You should try it. It's actually pretty interesting once you get into it.
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...s/contents.htm

The first 15 volumes are mostly testimony. The final 11 are evidence of other kinds, photos, diagrams, depositions, reports, etc. Start somewhere in the first 15 volumes at random. Just read the testimony. If it's expert testimony, assume they know what they're talking about (they usually do). If it's eyewitness testimony, look at a map and mentally put yourself in the same place they were in Dealey Plaza. Remember that all witnesses are fallible, so there are going to be problems. As you read more, the discrepancies fall away and you're left with a mental image of what the bulk of the witnesses saw and heard.



Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I again, congratulate you on your recovery from the CT fantasy world.
I was one of the biggest CT fanboys out there. One of the few homework assignments I was actually motivated to complete in high school was a twenty-page paper (two pages was the minimum requirement) on the JFK assassination (our choice of topic). Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg were my primary sources.

Reading the actual testimony and seeing how it was twisted to point to a conspiracy was a real eye-opener.

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; 1st March 2019 at 04:46 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 1st March 2019, 07:11 PM   #2713
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Considering you've read them all
I never read all of Lane's books. I made it a point not to contribute to his retirement fund by not buying his last book.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
...are there any examples of where Lane's later work directly contradicts his earlier claims, like those in his 1966 book? Does he acknowledge those contradictions, or does he just pretend like they never happened?
I've never looked for direct contradictions in that manner. I have seen numerous examples of Lane charging the Warren Commission with doing something, then he turns around and does it himself. Or worse.

For example, on page 70-71 of Rush To Judgment, he charges the Warren Commission with having an inherent bias:

Quote:
To maintain its thesis, the Commission had either to explain, contrary to its own experts, how four or more shots could have been fired from the antiquated rifle in too short a period of time or to reduce the number of shots from four or more to three or less. It chose the latter course:
The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired . . . The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges . . .23
It seems from this more apparent than ever that the Commission was biased toward its conclusions before the facts were known. It tacitly admitted as much more than once. When the Commission disclosed that the presence on the sixth floor of three shells led it to the conclusion that three shots were fired, SUP]24[/sup] it revealed a predisposition to find that all of the shots came from the Book Depository window. If any shots had been fired from anywhere else, the three shells on the sixth floor could hardly be said to provide 'the most convincing evidence' establishing the total number of shots. The Commission worked from the a priori assumption that Oswald was on the sixth floor, was the assassin and acted alone.

Rather than investigate the possibilities indicated by the evidence of a total of at least four shots, the Commission salvaged its basic working hypothesis by concluding that the bullet which struck Governor Connally first struck the President. 25 In that way it could maintain that there were three shots without further stretching the capacity of the alleged assassination weapon—even when fired by experts—in terms of the time needed for re-loading. The Report offered assurance that the conclusion that the same bullet which struck the Governor also struck the President was 'not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission', 26 but that is not so. If the bullet which hit the Governor did not pass through the President first, then four shots were fired and for that reason alone the entire case against Oswald as the lone assassin becomes untenable.

What is the 'very persuasive evidence from the experts' 27 which suggested to the Commission that the same bullet both pierced the President's neck and wounded Governor Connally ? The Governor flatly stated that "he knew that the bullet which hit the President could not have been the one that struck him." 28 He told the Commission, "It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet". 29 He said that the limousine had turned west onto Elm Street and had traveled about '150 feet, maybe 200 feet . . . when I heard what I thought was a shot'.
28. IV, 135-136.
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol4_0072a.htm

The Commission wasn't biased against Oswald. They weighed the witness evidence - the bulk of the witnesses claimed they heard three shots. Three shells were accounted for when they were recovered from the Sniper's Nest window. The Commission had overwhelming eyewitness testimony of three shots (about 90% of all witnesses who gave a number said three shots) and had hard evidence of three shots. They could conjecture a fourth shot, unheard by all but a few witnesses that there was no hard evidence for and scant eyewitness testimony for (more people said fewer than three shots than said four or more), but then, they could also conjecture a fifth, sixth, or a a hundredth shot. The commission was tasked with determining what actually happened, not inventing a conspiracy.

See the bold-faced claim? The Governor never said that in his testimony that I can find. Lane put it in quotes as if the Governor said it, but it appears he made that quote up. Lane sources that as pages 135-136 of volume 4. I've provided the link to page 135. You will see that the Governor says he wasn't hit by the first shot, but doesn't say "he knew that the bullet which hit the President could not have been the one that struck him". That is Lane revealing his own bias, that the bullet that struck the President was the first shot, and that the bullet that struck the Governor was the second.

Here's another - searchable - link to the Governor's testimony. See if you can find the quote attributed to John Connally in that testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm

Just to drive the point home, the Governor couldn't say when the President was hit, because he admitted in testimony he never saw the President during the shooting sequence:
Quote:
Governor CONNALLY. We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in pproximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
He did conclude the President was struck with the third shot because he said as a result of that shot he was spattered with brain matter.

Quote:
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.
Lane built his case for conspiracy by selecting judiciously from the record. Where the record didn't contain what he needed, he simply made up the quotes and facts as needed. Lane does this constantly throughout RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

Just above the quoted portion, to cite another example, also on page 70, Lane wrote this:
Quote:
The majority of witnesses to the assassination, including Secret Service agents,15 agreed that the shots, whether three or four or more in number, were all fired within a period of not more than five to six seconds.16 The Commission confirmed this estimate by finding that from the time that the first bullet struck the President until the time that a bullet shattered his skull approximately five seconds elapsed.17 *
The Commission did NOT confirm the five to six second estimate. That's another falsehood by Lane. Lane reaches this conclusion by again pretending the first shot hit the President and the last shot hit the President as well. The Commission concluded there were three shots, two of which caused all the damage to the two victims, and a missed shot they could not account for. Since none of the films of the assassination the Commission had access to had sound, the missed shot could have been the first shot, the middle shot, or the last shot. And in fact, the Commission dealt with all three possibilities, offering pros and cons for each possibility (most people who believe Oswald was guilty alone and unaided believe the first shot missed). The Commission did not decide on when the missed shot was fired and they conceded if the first or last shot missed, there could be eight or more seconds for the entire shooting sequence:

Quote:
TIME SPAN OF SHOTS

Witnesses at the assassination scene said that the shots were fired within a few seconds, with the general estimate being 5 to 6 seconds.365 That approximation was most probably based on the earlier publicized reports that the first shot struck the President in the neck, the second wounded the Governor and the third shattered the President's head, with the time span from the neck to the head shots on the President being approximately 5 seconds. As previously indicated, the time span between the shot entering the back of the President's neck and the bullet which shattered his skull was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. If the second shot missed, then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was the total time span of the shots. If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased.
I've documented above two major mischaracterizations by Lane of what the Commission concluded and what one witness said, both from pages 70-71. I assure you facts are treated in this haphazard manner throughout Lane's entire book.

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; 1st March 2019 at 07:30 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 1st March 2019, 08:33 PM   #2714
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,967
Boring. Meanwhile, I found a letter from J. Edgar Hoover stating THREE bullets were recovered.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=104&tab=page

"I told Mr. Jenkins that Oswald had four shells and only fired three shells; that we have one complete bullet found on the stretcher on which the President was carried into the hospital, which apparently fell out of the President's head; that the other two bullets were pretty well broken up but sufficiently complete to allow us to identify them as being the three fired by this particular gun"
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 08:57 PM   #2715
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,304
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Boring. Meanwhile, I found a letter from J. Edgar Hoover stating THREE bullets were recovered.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=104&tab=page

"I told Mr. Jenkins that Oswald had four shells and only fired three shells; that we have one complete bullet found on the stretcher on which the President was carried into the hospital, which apparently fell out of the President's head; that the other two bullets were pretty well broken up but sufficiently complete to allow us to identify them as being the three fired by this particular gun"
You found it, did you? OK now provide evidence of its authenticity.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 1st March 2019, 09:09 PM   #2716
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,967
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
You found it, did you? OK now provide evidence of its authenticity.
"I talked to SAC Shanklin in Dallas" [handwritten notation: "at 9:18 pm", presumably Eastern Standard Time]. "He said arrangements have been made with Carswell Air Force Base to fly one of our Agents up to Washington with the rifle that was recovered by the police together with the fragments of the bullet taken from Governor Connelly and the cartridge cases. I told SAC Shanklin that Secret Service had one of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and the other is lodged behind the President's ear and we are arranging to get both of these. I told him to notify us when the gun will reach Washington so we can have the Laboratory standing by" (ARRB MD 176) [scan 2]
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 10:14 PM   #2717
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Boring. Meanwhile, I found a letter from J. Edgar Hoover stating THREE bullets were recovered.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=104&tab=page

"I told Mr. Jenkins that Oswald had four shells and only fired three shells; that we have one complete bullet found on the stretcher on which the President was carried into the hospital, which apparently fell out of the President's head; that the other two bullets were pretty well broken up but sufficiently complete to allow us to identify them as being the three fired by this particular gun"
No, you have found a memo where Hoover thinks they have recovered three bullets. We know the bullet found in Parkland did not "fall out of the President's head", but was the one that hit JFK and Connally, and came from Connally's stretcher.

We also know that the bullet fragments recovered are from the head shot, and I even posted photos of these recovered fragments after your last stupid post.

What you are quoting is an update from Hoover to the people listed at the header of the document. The investigation was ongoing at this time, and he is keeping people in the loop. It is not evidence of anything more than a graphic example of the confusion, and pressure everyone involved was under six days after the assassination of Kennedy, and the murder of Oswald.
__________________
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 1st March 2019, 10:35 PM   #2718
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"I talked to SAC Shanklin in Dallas" [handwritten notation: "at 9:18 pm", presumably Eastern Standard Time]. "He said arrangements have been made with Carswell Air Force Base to fly one of our Agents up to Washington with the rifle that was recovered by the police together with the fragments of the bullet taken from Governor Connelly and the cartridge cases. I told SAC Shanklin that Secret Service had one of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and the other is lodged behind the President's ear and we are arranging to get both of these. I told him to notify us when the gun will reach Washington so we can have the Laboratory standing by" (ARRB MD 176) [scan 2]
Neat - O.

Here's the problem, Hotrod, the guy writing this is not in Dallas. The Autopsy is either underway, or has not yet begun. This means there is no way Mr. Tolson, at the time he wrote this, to know what - if anything - was behind JFK's ear.

Again, this was a real-time status report from Tolson to A.H. Belmont, and is not reflective of concrete information, but of the fluid nature found in the early hours of any murder investigation.

You ignore the rest of the memo:

Quote:
I told Shanklin that President Johnson has been in touch with the Director and wants to be sure we axe on top of this Case,and is looking to the FBI solving the case. It is, therefore, imperative that w do everything possible in this case. Shanklin understood.

Shanklin was advised that we acre sending out another teletype to all offices instructing that any allegations or leads pertaining to the assassination must be run out on an urgent basis, and the Bureau and Dallas, office of origin, advised,
He also advises that he's sending 20 additional FBI agents to Dallas to help.

Why? They're looking for accomplices.
__________________
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 2nd March 2019, 03:30 AM   #2719
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Boring.
Wait, what? I expose the perfidy of one of the most prolific conspiracy writers about the assassination, and all you can say is that's boring?

I think that says a lot about why you're a conspiracy theorist.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Meanwhile, I found a letter from J. Edgar Hoover stating THREE bullets were recovered.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=104&tab=page

"I told Mr. Jenkins that Oswald had four shells and only fired three shells; that we have one complete bullet found on the stretcher on which the President was carried into the hospital, which apparently fell out of the President's head; that the other two bullets were pretty well broken up but sufficiently complete to allow us to identify them as being the three fired by this particular gun"
And of course, there's the ever-present logical fallacy by you. This one is the red herring (or 'change of subject') where you ignore what the discussion is about and simply introduce some other subject matter into the thread.

And on top of that, you don't even cite evidence. Hoover's memo is hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in court. Did Hoover find the bullet or the fragments? Did he handle them? Did someone even show them to him? No. None of that. Hoover is simply documenting his understanding of the situation, and in fact, we know exactly what Hoover misunderstood.

There was one nearly-whole bullet recovered from Parkland hospital, and two large bullet fragments. Hoover (and possibly whoever relayed the information) thought that was sufficient to conclude three bullets. It's not. It's sufficient to conclude two bullets, because the two large fragments each comprise less than 50% of the copper outer shell of one of Oswald's bullets, and there are no overlapping areas that establishes they came from two separate bullets.

Here's the actual testimony on that bullet:
Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.
Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.

(The item, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 569, was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG - Now 569 is without the core; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you estimate how much weight you would add if you had the core?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, I cannot.
Mr. EISENBERG - Not at all?
Mr. FRAZIER - No. I do not have the figure on the core weight.
Mr. EISENBERG - In your opinion, is it possible that if you did make such an estimate, the weight, the projected weight of 569 plus the actual weight of 567 would exceed the bullet weight of the 6.5 mm bullet.
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh. no; it would not.
Mr. EISENBERG - It would not?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would not come even close to it, because the amount of core is only--one-quarter inch of the bullet is all that remains at the base, and that much core would not weigh more than 40 grains at the most.
Hoover claims the two bullet fragments are from different bullets. I don't know his source for that claim, but it's not Robert Frazier, the FBI's ballistics expert.

The Commission Exhibit 139 is Oswald's rifle, recovered from the Depository's sixth floor, near the stairwell in the northwest corner of the building. CE399 is the nearly whole bullet. Fragments 567 and 569 are the photographs of the two bullet fragments recovered from the limo. You could have introduced the actual evidence of Robert Frazier's expert testimony. The Commission concluded, based in part on Frazier's testimony, that the two bullet fragments were from the bullet that struck the President in the head at Zapruder frame 313. The lead core was never recovered, and in fact, it should be remembered that another person was struck in the cheek during the shooting with something during the shooting. James Tague was standing further down the street from the President, and that lead core from the head shot could have been what struck Tague. When the curb in front of Tague was examined (Tague testified it was struck before he was), it was determined to have a lead smear on it. The core of Oswald's bullets consisted of lead. So what happened to the core of the bullet that struck the President in the head? It is quite possible it struck Tague.

Two bullets, each of which struck two men.

You could have discussed all that.

But that wouldn't accomplish your goal, which is to make it appear there is evidence for conspiracy. So you turn to introducing the hearsay memorandum of J. Edgar Hoover, whose document contains hearsay and wouldn't be admissible in court.

You ignore Robert Frazier's testimony, which establishes that the Parkland bullet and the two large fragments recovered from the limo were all fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. That's the evidence we have. If you were changing the subject to the ballistics evidence recovered, that's the evidence you could have introduced and discussed here.

But introducing and discussing evidence has never been the goal of any of the various CTs that have [cough] 'graced' this forum. Just keeping the discussion moving so it appears the case for conspiracy has some validity has always been the goal.

And so you do what you gotta do. Change the subject. Turn to the hearsay. Ignore the expert testimony.

Hank

PS: Hoover discussed several other items of evidence correctly. You ignored all that (that the rifle can be determined to have been purchased by Oswald; that Marina said Oswald owned a rifle but couldn't identify the recovered one as specifically his; that Wes Frazier had given Oswald a ride to work the morning of the assassination, saw Oswald with a long paper-wrapped package and Oswald claimed there were curtain rods within; that the paper sack was recovered from the building). You ignored all that Hoover got right to focus on the one item Hoover got wrong. Congratulations. You could write a book that rivals Mark Lane's.
__________________
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; 2nd March 2019 at 04:13 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 2nd March 2019, 03:56 AM   #2720
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
No, you have found a memo where Hoover thinks they have recovered three bullets. We know the bullet found in Parkland did not "fall out of the President's head", but was the one that hit JFK and Connally, and came from Connally's stretcher.

We also know that the bullet fragments recovered are from the head shot, and I even posted photos of these recovered fragments after your last stupid post.

What you are quoting is an update from Hoover to the people listed at the header of the document. The investigation was ongoing at this time, and he is keeping people in the loop. It is not evidence of anything more than a graphic example of the confusion, and pressure everyone involved was under six three days after the assassination of Kennedy, and [one day after] the murder of Oswald.
FTFY. Otherwise great post. Memo is dated 11/25/63. Scroll back a page. The date is more clear on the first page of the memo. JFK shot and killed on 11/22/63, Oswald shot and killed on 11/24/63. Memo dated 11/25/63.

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; 2nd March 2019 at 04:05 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
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 08:25 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.