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

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


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

Reply
Old 7th December 2017, 05:36 AM   #3201
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
This is the exact passage from the Barnum diary dated 11/29/1963, shown in David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."



The second part where it says "this shot not coming out...." is what confuses me. It sounds kind of like a reference to the first theory on the shallow back wound, that the bullet did not make an exit wound but rather barely penetrated the back and then naturally squeezed out of it's own entry hole. But it appears to be referencing one shot which struck "above and to the rear of the right ear". A reference to the mythical "bullet lodged behind the ear" referenced in that FBI memo? Who knows.
So you admit Barnum got stuff wrong, butchering the findings of the autopsy.

What confuses me is why you then turn around and argue then for the veracity of his claims.

3:12AM is "sometime after midnight".

Isn't it?

How long was Burkley and Barnum at Bethesda? You never did answer. When did this happen? I've asked you this a number of times and you never did answer, ignoring the question each time. I've pointed out you've ignored it a number of times as well, and drew a conclusion from your failure to respond.

Now, if Burkley imparted that info to Barnum at 3:12AM on Saturday morning, that was after the autopsy concluded, was it not? And possibly after Humes phone call to Perry learning of the throat bullet wound?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
But the Barnum Diary is definitely describing a wound in his "lower neck".
And there was a wound in the lower neck found in the autopsy. And a wound in the head.

You are presuming Burkley knew all the facts and all the conclusions of the autopsy doctors and relayed them accurately to Barnum, and Barnum heard and understood accurately all the facts that Burkley stated, and recorded them accurately. All while admitting Barnum's account is wrong in places. Make up your mind. Can't be both.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We have been over why a "right after the autopsy while the morticians were treating the body" throat wound discovery doesn't work.
Remind me why it doesn't work.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dr. Humes has even said that he and his children went to a church function before he finally got around to calling Dr. Perry much later in the morning of 11/23/1963. He estimated to was 10-11 AM to the HSCA and 7-9 AM to the ARRB.
So you're still stuck trying to wedge 15 and 33-year after the round recollections into square holes and try to get them to conform to contemporaneous notes. Uh, no. We've covered recollections extensively in the past, and I even quoted the ARRB's own caution against what you're doing:

The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.

You are taking Humes 15- and 33-year after the fact recollections as gospel. And Barnum's hearsay account of what Burkley said as gospel as well.

Sorry, no.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 7th December 2017 at 05:42 AM.
HSienzant 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 7th December 2017, 05:42 AM   #3202
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,140
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
RoboTimbo, did you read that correctly?
LOL
Quote:
Trace amounts of human skin were identified on CE567. Human skin is one of the materials least likely to be found in bullets that have traveled through-an-through a wound. Human skin on CE567 is, however, perfectly compatible with a tangential shot in which a bullet, or a fragment of a bullet, glides along the side-surface of the scalp/skull bone/brain. This leaves more opportunity for contact with those tissues.
As long as you're ok with having your ass handed to you. I'd be mad at your one CT website that feeds you crap and then doesn't tell you how to extricate yourself if I were you.
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 7th December 2017, 05:48 AM   #3203
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
"Magic" bullet number two, of course.

MJ must have several doctorial thesis pending peer review, GSW to the body, Time dilation, English, finite analysis, Physics, and of course debating.
I'm up to three or four by now from his arguments. By my recollection, he's claimed this bullet did the damage to the EOP, and claimed separate shots for the back wound and throat wound, rather than one bullet causing both.

Now it's only a shot that grazed JFK's head. Trying to nail down a conspiracy theorist on what they think is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant 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 9th December 2017, 02:39 AM   #3204
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I would be happy to go over any post you choose and explain it to you, if you wish.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I've tried that. You can explain a non-conspiracy point to a CT until you're blue in the face.

Unfortunately, you can't understand said non-conspiracy point for the CT unless they want to understand it.

Or you certainly can't get the CT to admit he understands it but has no rebuttal.

So they resort to either ignoring the point entirely or weak dismissals of any and all points they disagree with claims like the above of incoherence.

Hank
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Over to you, MicahJava. Do you genuinely not understand the posts, or is it as HSienzant says, that this is just a cheap debating tactic allowing you to wriggle out of having to answer any of them?
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Ahem.
Bumped in case you didn't notice it, MicahJava.
MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 06:44 AM   #3205
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
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 9th December 2017, 07:24 AM   #3206
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,140
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
You don't have to run away your entire life, MicahJava. Answer the rebuttals pointing out the fatal flaws in the arguments your CT website feed you.

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 9th December 2017 at 07:26 AM.
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 9th December 2017, 07:41 AM   #3207
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 421
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank MJ intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
FTFY, any evidence that supports you weak invalid conspiracy beliefs is "incredible" while you continue to hand wave any refutation or ignore facts that disprove any conspiracy.
You are too easily lead astray by disproven comments or ideas.
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 9th December 2017, 08:15 AM   #3208
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.
Nice. Blame me for what you're clearly doing.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists. [emphasis added]
Did you really write "incredible"? Thank you for that admission.

INCREDIBLE means "not credible".
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unbelievable
1. so extraordinary as to seem impossible
2. not credible; hard to believe; unbelievable

More evidence English is not your native tongue. Or an admission by you Barnum's account seems impossible. Take your pick. Those are your options.

Below is the list of (non-inclusive) posts still requiring rebuttal by you. I left some off but can add them back if you ever respond to the below.

We'll wait.

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Your arguments about Barnum were addressed back when it was warm... in July of this year.

Another fringe reset?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1010

Brought up again in November:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2558

and rebutted again and again since then:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2647

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2650

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2688

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2698

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2797

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2809

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2812

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2813

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2818

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2824

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2826

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2830

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2834

And so on and on and on...

It appears you have no argument, you understand you have no argument, but you don't want to concede you have no argument, so you keep bringing up old items that were examined months earlier as if they were never addressed.

They were. Your arguments are still toast, no matter how many times you recycle them.

And it's amusing that while you originally claimed Barnum's account was garbled, you're now taking a different approach and pretending it's not: "No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account."
Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th December 2017 at 08:36 AM.
HSienzant 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 9th December 2017, 12:01 PM   #3209
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.
Wait so now you're saying the posts missed the point? I thought you didn't understand them because they were- to you- incoherent?
I'm struggling to see how both these positions can be simultaneously true.

Can you clarify, please?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2017, 12:07 PM   #3210
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Too bad literally none of them [Hank's rebuttal posts] can even be considered coherent.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Wait so now you're saying the posts missed the point? I thought you didn't understand them because they were- to you- incoherent?
I'm struggling to see how both these positions can be simultaneously true.

Can you clarify, please?
Helpful hint #238 when dealing with Conspiracy Theorists:
Take some time to listen to the crickets chirping.
Always a good way to alleviate stress.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th December 2017 at 01:00 PM.
HSienzant 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 9th December 2017, 01:10 PM   #3211
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,192
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...
__________________
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 9th December 2017, 02:06 PM   #3212
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 421
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...
Ah man you left off altering he body
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 9th December 2017, 05:21 PM   #3213
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,192
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Ah man you left off altering he body
Yeah, because that always made sense.

MJ says he spent 5 weeks reading CT books. I spent 5 weeks going through the new JFK documents at the National Archives.

MJ cherry-picks information without acknowledging his sources directly undermine his pet EOP theory completely.

I read as many documents as I can, and come away with the opinion that the FBI and CIA WANTED AND HOPED FOR A CONSPIRACY TO LINK OSWALD TO OUR COLD WAR FOES. The CIA made at least three separate inquiries to their Mexico City sources desperately hoping to link Oswald to Castro. The FBI shook down all of their informants in the Gulf States trying to tie Oswald to someone bigger.

If the autopsy was going to be faked then it would have been to link Oswald to someone, and not to frame him. A second gunman gives the FBI and CIA carte blanche to target everyone on their enemies list in the name of justice.

Both the CIA and FBI went to some real dark places in 1964 while investigating the assassination, and the documents show that after the Warren Commission published their finding there were some in the FBI and CIA who continued to believe Oswald was working with or for someone else. It is quite possible the reason the assassination CT's continued to grow from the mid-60's onward is a direct result of insiders from both agencies running their mouths at parties, or other gatherings where laymen took their CT rants as proof something was afoot in Dallas other than what actually happened.

We saw the same thing after 9-11 with key people in the CIA, and Bush NSC refusing to believe Al Qaeda could have pulled the attacks off alone. That's why they looked to Iraq on 9-12. Smart people can still have problems with the facts when they conflict with their world view.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 9th December 2017 at 05:23 PM.
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
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 05:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.