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 17th January 2018, 10:25 PM   #3521
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,349
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
It has been pointed out to you numerous times that JFK was leaning over toward Jackie so that shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD lines up.
No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.
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 Yesterday, 01:42 AM   #3522
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: 1,911
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I myself do not have the necessary skills, but, if we know the angle of this supposed wound, and also when in the Zapruder film it was supposedly fired (something I believe MJ has mentioned), then it should be possible to determine the location of this second shooter. This would at least have the advantage of showing whether this shot was even possible (i.e. no obstructions etc.)
This is too close to an actual concrete theory for MJ to attempt, but I was wondering if anyone else would care to give this a try?
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.
Great. You have shown that you are both willing and able to draw a straight line to disprove Oswald's guilt.
Now you can take the next logical step and draw another one, showing where you think the second shooter was located.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 04:43 AM   #3523
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report says "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

But this could just be the based on the shallow back wound which was angled 45-60 degrees downward. A contemporaneous description of the trajectory through the head is in the 2:00 AM Teletype from Sibert and O'Neill:

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...d149_0001a.htm

...

TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL.

...

Suggesting more of an upwards trajectory as if you connected the EOP wound to the top of the head.
So you're arguing now for somebody shooting Kennedy from the trunk of the car? ('boot of the car' for those readers from England).

And you avoid the obvious conclusion, of course, that if you credit that Sibert & O'Neill teletype description, it confirms the autopsy photos, autopsy radiographs, and autopsy report, and totally destroys your own argument here:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.
It's funny to me how often you destroy your own prior argument with your own following argument.

There's a reason for that. It's because you're just criticizing the Warren Commission conclusion with no set argument of your own. You'll fling anything against the wall to see what sticks.

So in trying to salvage one argument, you yourself totally destroyed your earlier one, without any help from anyone else. Sibert and O'Neill reported, within a few hours of the completion of the autopsy, that the bullet entered the back of the head and exited the top of the skull.

Exited the top of the skull.

Not the back of the head. Not the throat. Nowhere but where the autopsy report claims it exited. Nowhere but where the autopsy doctors testified it exited. Nowhere but where the autopsy radiographs and autopsy photos show it exited.

So gone is your argument that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head then exited the throat.

Gone as well is your own argument that the autopsy report in existence isn't the original.

Gone is your argument that the autopsy wasn't completed until after 2:00am on Saturday morning.

Gone as well is your own argument that more than one bullet hit JFK in the head.

Gone as well is any argument for body alteration as I explained here using Lifton's research:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2304

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 05:31 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 Yesterday, 05:03 AM   #3524
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.
So the contemporaneous teletype you just cited disproves the EOP argument you advance above.

The entrance wound on the back of the skull MUST be higher on the skull to exit the top of the skull, right? (assuming no deflection).

And Sibert and O'Neill, shortly after the conclusion of the autopsy, sent a teletype that the exit wound of the bullet that hit JFK in the head exited the top of the skull, right?

You're destroying your own prior argument with the new one, once more.

Elsewhere, you were clear you assumed deflection downward to exit the throat. I've asked why you don't assume deflection upward to exit the top of the skull, if you're so confident in the EOP as the location of the entry wound.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1756
You never did answer.

Keep up the good work. These posts of mine practically write themselves once you post.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 05:20 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 Yesterday, 05:43 AM   #3525
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.
No, it has been shown by many sources posted here in this thread that the trajectory comes from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Your CT books and websites attempt to deflect that trajectory to somewhere else incorrectly. Get your nose out of those sources and start reading sources that have no economic incentive by writing books for profit.
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 Yesterday, 06:24 AM   #3526
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,258
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.
Where did the shot come from, MicahJava?
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 Yesterday, 07:22 AM   #3527
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: 1,911
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I myself do not have the necessary skills, but, if we know the angle of this supposed wound, and also when in the Zapruder film it was supposedly fired (something I believe MJ has mentioned), then it should be possible to determine the location of this second shooter. This would at least have the advantage of showing whether this shot was even possible (i.e. no obstructions etc.)
This is too close to an actual concrete theory for MJ to attempt, but I was wondering if anyone else would care to give this a try?
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Great. You have shown that you are both willing and able to draw a straight line to disprove Oswald's guilt.
Now you can take the next logical step and draw another one, showing where you think the second shooter was located.
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Where did the shot come from, MicahJava?
Asked and unanswered.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 07:38 AM   #3528
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,349
Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.

And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that. Lipsey did describe the autopsy pathologists discussing a scenario with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting the throat, and Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound. The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment. The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.
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 Yesterday, 07:43 AM   #3529
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,349
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
So the contemporaneous teletype you just cited disproves the EOP argument you advance above.

The entrance wound on the back of the skull MUST be higher on the skull to exit the top of the skull, right? (assuming no deflection).

And Sibert and O'Neill, shortly after the conclusion of the autopsy, sent a teletype that the exit wound of the bullet that hit JFK in the head exited the top of the skull, right?

You're destroying your own prior argument with the new one, once more.

Elsewhere, you were clear you assumed deflection downward to exit the throat. I've asked why you don't assume deflection upward to exit the top of the skull, if you're so confident in the EOP as the location of the entry wound.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1756
You never did answer.

Keep up the good work. These posts of mine practically write themselves once you post.

Hank
There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect upwards as soon as if entered the skull bone. If you want to speculate on that, you can, as long as it starts with the EOP wound.
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 Yesterday, 07:54 AM   #3530
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,258
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect upwards as soon as if entered the skull bone. If you want to speculate on that, you can, as long as it starts with the EOP wound.
What does the selected "evidence" that you choose to believe tell you happened?
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 Yesterday, 08:10 AM   #3531
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.

And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that. Lipsey did describe the autopsy pathologists discussing a scenario with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting the throat, and Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound. The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment. The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.
He may have claimed that but the evidence is clear that no probe was inserted into the base of the head, since there was no entrance wound nay any wound at the base of the head. Another failure to do proper research before posting nonsense.
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 Yesterday, 09:59 AM   #3532
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent
It doesn't have to be even a little bit fraudulent - the Sibert and O'Neill teletype YOU CITED from 2:00am on 11/23/63 (just thirteen and a half hours after the assassination) establishes that.

Don't you remember citing this line from that teletype:
"TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL."

Sibert and O'Neill, along with the autopsy report, the autopsy doctors, HSCA forensic panel, the radiographs, and the autopsy photos, not to mention the Zapruder film, all establish one shot to the head. That shot exited the top of the skull.

Any pretense on your part otherwise is just that, pretense.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.
And that's the same result we get no matter where we look. One shot to the head, in the back, out the top.

We're just treading old ground now once more. This is just part of your fringe reset routine you sing and dance your way through.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that.
One conclusion changed. At the conclusion of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors in Washington were unaware that a tracheotomy had been performed in Parkland over an existing bullet wound in an attempt to save the President's life.

When they found out otherwise, the evidence they had gathered at autopsy fit the conclusion that the bullet transited the body.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Lipsey did describe the autopsy pathologists discussing a scenario with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting the throat...
How many years after the autopsy did he 'remember' this? More than 30?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...and Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound.
That's funny, because the evidence establishes Tom Robinson wasn't at the autopsy. And how many years after the autopsy did he 'remember' this? More than 30?

We covered all this months ago, repeatedly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3092
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3005
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2698

There are more in the prior thread, going back over a year:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1929
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2203
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2221

Repeating your points doesn't make them more true.
That admonishment goes back over a year too:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1746



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment.
Well, I want to be fair here. Asking you to list all these 'endless' reports would clearly take you to infinity and beyond. So I'll only ask for you to document ten reports 'about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment'.

Here, I'll even start you off, and provide the layout.

1.
2.
3.

Go ahead, list ten. Surely ten reports out of an 'endless' number of such reports won't be a hardship. We'll wait a rather long time for you to comply, I'll wager.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.
No, at the autopsy the throat wound was seen to be the tracheotomy performed at Parkland to attempt to save the President's life. It was only later that it was determined the throat wound was over an existing bullet wound, and the facts determined at autopsy fit the conclusion of a bullet transiting the President's neck.

This has been covered in detail with you in the past.

You're just treading old ground well after the point has been settled.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 10:48 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 Yesterday, 10:08 AM   #3533
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect upwards as soon as if [sic] entered the skull bone.
You conjectured a deflection downward to exit the throat. How do you rule out a deflection upward, especially since the top right quandrant of the brain was missing or badly damaged? *

There is also a trail of minute fragments in the existing brain radiographs pointing from the entry wound in the back of the head to the exit wound at the top of the head.

No evidence has been cited by you of any bullet track downward and out the throat.

In fact, your post would be a lot more accurate if you wrote:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect downwards to exit the throat as soon as it entered the skull bone.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If you want to speculate on that, you can, as long as it starts with the EOP wound.
I am comfortable with the evidence of a shot to the back of the head exiting the top of the skull. You want to change that conclusion, you need to cite some evidence. Your speculations about a deflection downward -- without explaining how you arrived at that and eliminated a deflection upward or to either side -- are just that, speculation. They don't rise to the level of anything greater than a WAG by an uninformed layman.

______________________

* As in this drawing of the brain, looking down on the brain, with the front of the brain at the top, and the back of the brain at the bottom:
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 10:22 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 Yesterday, 10:15 AM   #3534
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
And I'll just point out that MicahJava ignored all my points in these posts to bring up points not raised:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3523

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3524

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 Yesterday, 10:20 AM   #3535
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Deleted duplicate post.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 10:25 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:10 PM   #3536
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,270
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report says "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

But this could just be the based on the shallow back wound which was angled 45-60 degrees downward. A contemporaneous description of the trajectory through the head is in the 2:00 AM Teletype from Sibert and O'Neill:

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...d149_0001a.htm

...

TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL.

...

Suggesting more of an upwards trajectory as if you connected the EOP wound to the top of the head.

And yet when we go to the film:



You're painfully wrong.

All of your assertions only work if JFK was sitting level and straight, but he wasn't, and Elm Street is on an incline.

Neither Sibert and O'Neill were doctors, and the teletype is not a legal document, nor is it meant to be 100% accurate. This is just a simple communication from the agents in the field to HQ, and has no official weight whatsoever. Both men had likely been awake for over 20 hours by the time this was written.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 12:23 PM   #3537
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,270
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.
That's the ONLY GSW to the head.


Quote:
And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that.
There is no evidence. We have shown your source material for this to be fraudulent.

Quote:
Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound.
Which never happened since we know the bullet entered the upper back and exited the front. This was proved by the fiber evidence alone. So we know Robinson is inaccurate.

Quote:
The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment.
CT gossip does not count as "endless reports".

Quote:
The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.
Incoming field updates are not always accurate, most are NEVER accurate. That's why they're updates, and not the final report. These communications are meant to keep HQ in the loop on an important investigation, and had you bothered to read the latest document dump from the National Archives you'd see the entire chain where the following field reports correct the previous ones, and then go on to report something that is then corrected later.

All that matters is what the FBI gave to the Warren Commission.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 02:07 PM   #3538
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,349
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Deleted duplicate post.
While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.
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 Yesterday, 03:39 PM   #3539
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,476
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.
I'm not surprised you're getting tired of having every one of your posts shown to be complete nonsense. The best way to stop it would be to stop posting complete nonsense.
CORed 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 Yesterday, 04:07 PM   #3540
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,258
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.
You don't seem to get tired of running away from answering questions. Typical for CTists. Do you know of any who could answer questions and be coherent?

Refer them to here, please.
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 Yesterday, 04:25 PM   #3541
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,349
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I'm not surprised you're getting tired of having every one of your posts shown to be complete nonsense. The best way to stop it would be to stop posting complete nonsense.
Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films. I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.
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 Yesterday, 04:59 PM   #3542
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,258
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films.
But your "explanations" have proven to be wilfully naive repetitions from less than intelligent CTist websites. You haven't even found one that was interesting that you could crib from.

Quote:
I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.
I don't think you realize people are openly mocking the silliness you post. Your CT websites have left you out in the cold when you're asked any questions. Haven't you noticed?
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 Yesterday, 05:36 PM   #3543
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films.
And it's not convincing, because it's built on recollections from 15 years or 33 years after the fact, along with a heaping dollop of logical fallacies and quotes out of context. Along with quoting a witness one day as if their recollection is gospel, and then turning around and accusing them of lying the next day when something else they said contradicts your beliefs.

And I patiently show you the logical fallacies, the quotes out of context, and how the recollections disagree with the hard evidence and with the other evidence you cite. And how accusing someone of lying whose testimony you're citing as evidence elsewhere isn't exactly the best approach.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with.
What misunderstandings by me are you alluding to?

I've asked before. You never got specific. You never get specific about these so-called 'misunderstandings'. Man up and let's discuss my 'misunderstandings'.

Your problem isn't that I misunderstand you.

Your problem is I was a JFK conspiracy theorist myself for the better part of two decades. Until I actually stopped accepting everything I read in conspiracy books (because those authors were contradicting each other), and actually went back to the primary source evidence and read what was actually testified to by the witnesses and the experts.

Then I understood exactly how the conspiracy authors I read (there was no internet web sites devoted to JFK conspiracy theories back then) were lying to me. And I read everything I could get my hands on. I own over 500 books on the JFK assassination. And have read them all, most more than once.

You lack that understanding of the evidence, because you read exclusively (or primarily) about the case from conspiracy books and conspiracy web sites, and accept those lies without researching them independently.

Your problem isn't that I misunderstand you.

On the contrary, your problem is that I do understand you. I understand you and where you're coming from and why you believe what you believe exactly. I was you forty years ago.

If you think otherwise, post what I 'misunderstood'.

Let's discuss and clarify these supposed 'misunderstandings'.

You can start by explaining why the bullet that struck the back of JFK's head could deflect downward to exit the throat (something there's no evidence for) but a deflection upward to exit the top of the head is ruled out by you (despite the evidence of the brain damage and the radiographs and the autopsy photographs and the autopsy doctors and the HSCA forensic pathologists who reached that very conclusion - that a bullet hit JFK in the back of the head and exited the top of the head.

Despite all that evidence, you believe - and argue for here - the exact opposite, that the bullet went anatomically downward, not anatomically upward. Clear up my 'misunderstanding' there.

Ball in your possession. Advance it or punt it away.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So Hank is most likely just screwing with me.
Nope. I am trying my darnedest to clear up your apparent confusion by actually pointing out the facts you're ignoring, the logical fallacies you're employing, the quotes out of context you're utilizing, and how many of your current attempts to clarify your argument just contradict other arguments you advanced previously.

You're screwing yourself into knots trying to keep your arguments straight, and blaming me. Keep pretending I'm screwing with you if it helps you sleep at night.

I'm quite sure anyone else not beholden to a conspiracy mindset understands quite clearly the points I'm making.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 05:51 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 Yesterday, 06:38 PM   #3544
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,711
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.
You're a victim of a self inflicted wound.

You recycle arguments based on speculation that are refuted by facts in evidence.

Because your MO is limited to regurgitation of speculation you'll be subjected to continued references to the facts in evidence you want to ignore.
__________________
"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 Yesterday, 06:53 PM   #3545
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,711
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films. I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.
You have done no such thing.

What you have done is describe your (actually some other CTist's) interpretation of inconsistencies in various sources from day one to today as evidence for conspiracy.
__________________
"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 Yesterday, 08:33 PM   #3546
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,270
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films.
You might as well go with faked films and body alteration since you are using those CT books as sources for your "evidence". Your case is based on misinterpretation of a handful of low-resolution photographs combined with zero medical knowledge compounded with zero ballistic knowledge.

Quote:
I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.
Hank is posting documented statements and evidence which counter your pet theory. He does it over and over in response to you posting the same drek over and over instead of adding concrete evidence to support your case. The problem is that you cannot, and you've been willingly sucked into the JFK-CT rabbit hole where the evidence you'd need is locked away from view (which you already know), and this allows you (in your mind anyway) to assail the Autopsy and the pathologists involved. This in spite of the fact you didn't know what an RN was.
__________________
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 Today, 12:45 AM   #3547
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,160
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.
Irony. It isn't something made of iron.

Really, did you say that? The prince of the fringe reset? The very person whose claim is that "something else happened"? And at the same time claims to not know WHAT ELSE happened?

Sorry, but if you are going to make such a claim in the face of all of the available evidence, claiming a vague "SOMETHING ELSE" that you cannot identify is just not going to cut the mustard.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:30 AM   #3548
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,270
It's not enough to fabricate stuff about a secret second GSW to the back of the head that JFK doesn't react to, bleed from, and is not visible on the Zapruder Film, nor was seen by anyone on the sidewalk, or at Parkland, or the Autopsy.

You also have to lay out the scenario:

Where was this gunman?
How did he get there?
Why did no one see him?
Why did no one hear him?
How did he get away with his rifle?
Who was he?
Who did he work for?
Where did he go?
Was he working with Oswald, and if so why was he working with an obvious loose canon?

You can't just claim a second GSW to the head without - adequately - explaining how it go there.

You also have to explain why the pathologists didn't see it (GSW's to the head are OBVIOUS).

You have to explain why a lone gunman was preferred by the conspirators while a second shooter was not. How does two gunmen foil their plans? Why couldn't they frame two people?

You have to account for and answer these questions.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; Today at 01:31 AM.
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 Today, 05:46 AM   #3549
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Deleted duplicate posting
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Today at 06:00 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 Today, 05:53 AM   #3550
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.
And I'll just point out that MicahJava ignored all my points in this post, instead simply telling me to delete all my posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3533

Then he went out to assert that I am pretending to misunderstand him - but of course, posted no specifics on exactly what I'm misunderstanding, nor did he post any clarifications to any of his points to alleviate those supposed misunderstandings (MJ is always short on specifics and clarifications).

More than likely, his next post will be another red herring... a change of subject where he neither addresses any of the points I made above, nor specifies what specific misunderstandings he is alluding to.

We've all seen it too many times to count.

And of course, three or six months from now, he'll crank up the JFK conspiracy carousel once more, pretending none of his points were already rebutted.

All Aboard the JFK Conspiracy Carousel!

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Today at 06:05 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
Old Today, 07:29 AM   #3551
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.
I suggest you quit posting nonsense beliefs and Hank won't post links.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.