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 13th June 2018, 05:52 AM   #321
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Here is the evidence, the report from the HSCA acoustical investigation: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961

The other links contains my explanations of said evidence and arguments for its veracity.

If you have any complaints on the evidence, explanations or arguments, let me know, but remember, be specific with reference to relevant material.

Wholesale whining are not going to get you anywhere outside your Mighty Church.

Go ahead.
I asked you to show me (i.e.) citation in those links of evidence. A broad brush statement "contains my explanations" is not evidence. No one cares about your explanations. This is a stalling effort and is duly noted.

Please refrain from using ad hominems
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 13th June 2018, 06:21 AM   #322
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you really want to learn about a subject, and to rightfully claim to be "well read" in that subject, THEN YOU HAVE TO READ THE MATERIAL, and that means reading stuff that you may not necessarily agree with.

If you want to to remain an ignorant, one-dimensional CT, then continue to do what you have been doing; reading only the things you think you agree with, from the echo chambers of CT loony websites and the pages of CT nutter's books.

You would be surprised if you saw how many JFK conspiracy websites I lurk at, looking for something new. Unfortunately, I am always disappointed; its always tired old stuff that has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.
Baloney. If you have any information supporting your claim, cite it and argue for its veracity.

I can’t and I should not do that for you.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 06:23 AM   #323
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I asked you to show me (i.e.) citation in those links of evidence. A broad brush statement "contains my explanations" is not evidence. No one cares about your explanations. This is a stalling effort and is duly noted.

Please refrain from using ad hominems
So, instead of klicking the link and read my explanation, you want me to copy it and post it again?

Why is that? Don’t you know how to klick a link?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 06:25 AM   #324
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, instead of klicking the link and read my explanation, you want me to copy it and post it again?

Why is that? Don’t you know how to klick a link?
No what I asked was evidence for any of these statements, copying the same link doesn't provide evidence, unless it might contain evidence, of which I have not seen any.
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 13th June 2018, 06:36 AM   #325
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Here is the evidence, the report from the HSCA acoustical investigation [...]
As far as I can tell, the HSCA's acoustical conclusions are the rare, maybe unique, instance where you haven't suspected the government of error, bias, or calculated deception. Why the special treatment?

By the way, you haven't yet responded to the points I set out about the Federal Reserve operating circular. I've explained how, in my view, the "should" operates and how the circular differs from other federal regulations. I've also questioned the logic of your argument that if the stamps should be there, forgery is likely. Are you giving up on this point?
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 06:48 AM   #326
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,532
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12317577

Manifesto said: I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4860

Originally Posted by Hans View Post
This is day Eleven of no evidence from manifesto
Manifesto is now up to hundreds claims with no evidence provided.



We can now add to that another howler

Quote:
I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.
Quote:
Yes, I’m doing my best to keep up with all of you and all of your crap barrage of “requests” for evidence. Promise.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5237

Quote:
This post will be reposted until the questions are answered to H's satisfaction.
In addition he has added a new level of lying

Quote:
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

I’m still not claiming that the absense of said bank endorsing stamps is proof of forgery.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery
He refuses to explain his contradiction

Hilarious

Last edited by zooterkin; 17th June 2018 at 02:26 PM. Reason: Fixing broken tag
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 06:57 AM   #327
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Here is the evidence, the report from the HSCA acoustical investigation: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961
And here is the library of research that now supersedes the HSCA acoustic investigation:

National Academy of Sciences - http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html

James Bowles - http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles.html

R.C. Agarwal, R. L. Garwin, and B. L. Lewis, IBM Watson Research Center - http://www.jfk-online.com/acousibm00.html

Ralph Linsker ,Richard Garwin, Herman Chernoff, Paul Horowitz, and Norman Ramsey for Science & Justice - http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJus...%282005%29.pdf

https://fas.org/rlg/RL9b02_WithFigNu...geFigures).pdf

Michael O'Dell - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:55 AM   #328
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
No what I asked was evidence for any of these statements, copying the same link doesn't provide evidence, unless it might contain evidence, of which I have not seen any.
1. The evidence is in the HSCA acoustical investigation.

2. My explanations to said evidence are in the posts that I provided the links to.

3. The arguments for its veracity are in the posts that I provided the links to.

If you have any complaints you have to state them in explicit reference to my posted evidence, explanations and arguments.

In order to do that, you have to KLICK the links, quote the relevant parts and explain what it is that you have issues with.

If not, it’s just whining in general.

So, stop whining and be productive, bknight.

Last edited by manifesto; 13th June 2018 at 08:20 AM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:57 AM   #329
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,232
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. The evidence is in the HSCA acoustical investigation.
Delusional and irrational denial. Do you have anything else to offer besides that?
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 13th June 2018, 07:58 AM   #330
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
And here is the library of research that now supersedes the HSCA acoustic investigation:

National Academy of Sciences - http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html

James Bowles - http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles.html

R.C. Agarwal, R. L. Garwin, and B. L. Lewis, IBM Watson Research Center - http://www.jfk-online.com/acousibm00.html

Ralph Linsker ,Richard Garwin, Herman Chernoff, Paul Horowitz, and Norman Ramsey for Science & Justice - http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJus...%282005%29.pdf

https://fas.org/rlg/RL9b02_WithFigNu...geFigures).pdf

Michael O'Dell - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
Have you abandoned your pet illustrator, Dale fraudster Myers? And your pet Nobel dude, Luis fraudster Alvarez?

Why?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:02 AM   #331
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Delusional and irrational denial. Do you have anything else to offer besides that?
Yes, it comes in the same post beneath the first sentence that you desided to quote. Here:

Quote:
2. My explanations to said evidence are in the posts that I provided the links to.

3. The arguments for its veracity are in the the posts that I provided the links to.

If you have any complaints you have to state them in explicit reference to my posted evidence, explanations and arguments.

In order to do that, you have to KLICK the links, quote the relevant parts and explain what it is that you have issues with.

If not, it’s just whining in general.
So, stop whining and be productive, RoboTimbo.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:06 AM   #332
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Have you abandoned your pet illustrator, Dale fraudster Myers? And your pet Nobel dude, Luis fraudster Alvarez?

Why?
Myers doesn't specifically deal with the acoustics, he comes at the question from the photographic record. The links you're replying to are strictly superseding studies of the acoustics.

I linked Myers report and supplemental material in my post to you from yesterday, the one where you plan on dealing with all of my debunking material in one shot.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:17 AM   #333
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,232
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, it comes in the same post beneath the first sentence that you desided to quote. Here:
Since you have chosen delusional and irrational denial, tell us what you think of the multiple debunkings of the HSCA acoustical crap.

Quote:
So, stop whining and be productive, RoboTimbo manifesto.
FTFY
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 13th June 2018, 08:31 AM   #334
jeffas69
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Not everyone reads JFK conspiracy literature.

Hank
In addition to all your plausible explanations. Even if they were readers of the literature, it would give a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for not coming forward.

Imagine after reading it thinking. Jesus, these crazy bastards are not going to believe anything I say and are going to look into every corner of my life and try to connect me to the killing of the President of the United States! Maybe I should just stay out of this particular spotlight.
jeffas69 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 13th June 2018, 08:32 AM   #335
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. The evidence is in the HSCA acoustical investigation.

2. My explanations to said evidence are in the posts that I provided the links to.

3. The arguments for its veracity are in the posts that I provided the links to.

If you have any complaints you have to state them in explicit reference to my posted evidence, explanations and arguments.

In order to do that, you have to KLICK the links, quote the relevant parts and explain what it is that you have issues with.

If not, it’s just whining in general.

So, stop whining and be productive, bknight.
The HSCA acoustic data has been refuted and just because you don't understand it, you hand wave the debunking away.
No one is interested in your "My explanations to said evidence" as they are speculations and contain no evidence.
There are no evidence in your links, just more speculations without evidence.

I have clicked the links above, and they don't have evidence, just more of your eye, ear, nose statements that are interesting, but not evidence.

I have asked you to refrain from using ad hominems, why do you continue to use them, is that the best you are able to discuss?
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 13th June 2018, 08:45 AM   #336
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 876
I would ask all in the discussion from using ad hominems, they don't accomplish what any poster wants
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 13th June 2018, 09:20 AM   #337
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Baloney. If you have any information supporting your claim, cite it and argue for its veracity.

I can’t and I should not do that for you.
Your reply is not relevant to my statement!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 09:43 AM   #338
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,807
We already know a 6.5 round fired from the Depository could not have created the wounds as reported at autopsy, so people should loosen up when discussing whether or not the rifle paper trail is fake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...rs_in_the_jfk/
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 13th June 2018, 09:53 AM   #339
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,223
links broken on purpose

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We already know a 6.5 round fired from the Depository could not have created the wounds as reported at autopsy, so people should loosen up when discussing whether or not the rifle paper trail is fake.

https:
//www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8qbocn/there_were_multiple_shooters_in_the_jfk/
You can stop now.

carlitos 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 13th June 2018, 10:17 AM   #340
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by jeffas69 View Post
In addition to all your plausible explanations. Even if they were readers of the literature, it would give a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for not coming forward.

Imagine after reading it thinking. Jesus, these crazy bastards are not going to believe anything I say and are going to look into every corner of my life and try to connect me to the killing of the President of the United States! Maybe I should just stay out of this particular spotlight.
__________________
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 13th June 2018, 10:19 AM   #341
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,232
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
people should loosen up when discussing whether or not the rifle paper trail is fake.
So you are willing to admit that it was definitely Oswald's rifle he used to assassinate JFK?
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 13th June 2018, 10:20 AM   #342
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We already know a 6.5 round fired from the Depository could not have created the wounds as reported at autopsy, so people should loosen up when discussing whether or not the rifle paper trail is fake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...rs_in_the_jfk/
In your dreams, but the wounds were perfectly in line with the angle and trajectory of the bullet, in relation to the head.
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 13th June 2018, 10:27 AM   #343
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We already know a 6.5 round fired from the Depository could not have created the wounds as reported at autopsy, so people should loosen up when discussing whether or not the rifle paper trail is fake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...rs_in_the_jfk/
LOL
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 11:21 AM   #344
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 819
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
So you are willing to admit that it was definitely Oswald's rifle he used to assassinate JFK?
all I know is someone will not be pleased.
Whip 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 13th June 2018, 11:55 AM   #345
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,107
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We already know a 6.5 round fired from the Depository could not have created the wounds as reported at autopsy, so people should loosen up when discussing whether or not the rifle paper trail is fake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...rs_in_the_jfk/
No, the 6.5x52mm round not only caused those wounds, all that damage would be considered the round's signature. And nobody's going to Reddit, it's like 4chan without the talent.
__________________
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 13th June 2018, 12:06 PM   #346
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,107
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Firstly, creating this extensive and elaborate trail of false clues to frame LHO would only have been worthwhile if the plotters knew in advance of all of this that JFK would be travelling in front of the Book Depsitory on the fateful day. How far in advance was his itinerary fixed, and who would have known about it?
Oswald begins working at the TSBD on 16, October, 1963

The trip to Texas was confirmed on 4, November, 1963. Dallas Secret Service are alerted.

The Dallas Motorcade is confirmed on 16, November, 1963.

The Dallas Motorcade Route is published in the Dallas Morning News on 21, November, 1963.

There's your time-frame. What nobody would have known or controlled was the weather - there had been thunder storms in hours preceding JFK's arrival at Love Field, and there was a good chance that the limo would have had it's bubble-top put on had there been a threat of rain.

Bottom line: Oswald didn't even know if he was going to have a shot at the President that day.

When I come back I'll take a shot at your second question.
__________________
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 13th June 2018, 12:51 PM   #347
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oswald begins working at the TSBD on 16, October, 1963

The trip to Texas was confirmed on 4, November, 1963. Dallas Secret Service are alerted.

The Dallas Motorcade is confirmed on 16, November, 1963.

The Dallas Motorcade Route is published in the Dallas Morning News on 21, November, 1963.

There's your time-frame. What nobody would have known or controlled was the weather - there had been thunder storms in hours preceding JFK's arrival at Love Field, and there was a good chance that the limo would have had it's bubble-top put on had there been a threat of rain.

Bottom line: Oswald didn't even know if he was going to have a shot at the President that day.

When I come back I'll take a shot at your second question.
The point (I think) Yak is making is that, setting aside the claim that the paper trail was forged as maintained in CT fantasy world, the FACT remains that the 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial number C2766 (the exact rifle found in the 6th floor of the TSBD) WAS sold to "A Hidell" (in CT fantasy world, a fake ID used by the Alphabet Soup) on March 13, 1963 (with an order form in Oswald's handwriting), and picked up by the same person at the Dallas GPO on March 25. The evidence of this is irrefutable, the deposit of the payment, the shipping of the rifle by Klein's, the pickup from the Dallas GPO is all documented.

What was the purpose of buying the rifle and setting up Oswald by faking the paper trail (including forging the order form) in March 1963 at a time when no-one knew that JFK was even going to be in Texas, let alone driving through Dallas?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 13th June 2018 at 12:54 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 01:00 PM   #348
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
....the HSCA acoustical investigation...
Totally debunked.

The fact that you don't understand how it was debunked (because you don't even understand the science behind the HCSA flawed science in the first place) is your problem, not ours.

ETA: I'll offer you a deal - you explain in detail, in your own words, (no copypasta from CT websites or the work of CT loons) how the HSCA Acoustic analysis was supposed to work, i.e. the scientific premise they based their analysis on, and I will explain in detail, the flaws in their thinking and in that premise, the limitations in equipment they used and the reason why later analysis, using more sophisticated equipment, was able to prove them wrong.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 13th June 2018 at 01:08 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 01:03 PM   #349
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,532
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

What was the purpose of buying the rifle and setting up Oswald by faking the paper trail (including forging the order form) in March 1963 at a time when no-one knew that JFK was even going to be in Texas, let alone driving through Dallas?
I believe some CT (usenet) held that the evil conspiracy would have use their vast influence to cause all the people involved in the requests, and back and forth and decisions that ended up with Kennedy going to Dallas were all in their pay, under their influence or dupes.

A highly complicated plan that worked (in the CT world) but they decided to go the dumb idiot route in all aspects of the paper work for the rifle....go figure eh?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 01:10 PM   #350
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The HSCA acoustic data has been refuted and just because you don't understand it, you hand wave the debunking away.
1. It has NOT been ”debunked” and no, I’m not hand waving anything away. I have carefully responded to each and every claim and explained why it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. That is the opposite of hand waving.

2. The issue here is not in what way my evidence, explanations and arguments its to your liking. The issue here is that I contrary to ”Hank’s” request/implied absense, already hav provided evidence, explanations and arguments for its veracity.

Ergo. Hank was making a willfully faulty claim in order to make me look bad.

Quote:
No one is interested in your "My explanations to said evidence" as they are speculations and contain no evidence.
Well, since you obviously ’know’ this, you have to be interested enough to read through it, wouldn’t you?

Quote:
There are no evidence in your links, just more speculations without evidence.
That is your sectarian opinion from the get go, yes. Its going to continue to be your sectarian opinion no matter what evidence, explanations and arguments you get served to you.

Opinions based on Faith is per definition not accessible by evidence, facts or reason.

Quote:
I have clicked the links above, and they don't have evidence, just more of your eye, ear, nose statements that are interesting, but not evidence.
Well, in order for this to be in any way possible to respond to, you have to state your complaints in explicit and specific reference to what I’m actually providing.

Cite. Explain. Argue.

Quote:
I have asked you to refrain from using ad hominems, why do you continue to use them, is that the best you are able to discuss?
- Whining = complaining in a more general sense without being specific.

Do you have a better, more appropriate concept?

Please let me know.

But, be specific.

Last edited by manifesto; 13th June 2018 at 01:12 PM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 01:11 PM   #351
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Totally debunked.

The fact that you don't understand how it was debunked (because you don't even understand the science behind the HCSA flawed science in the first place) is your problem, not ours.
Shhhh, manifesto is "determined to list all your ”debunkings” one by one and comprehensively refute them i one single post"

I'm eagerly awaiting what is sure to be his super convincing, well thought out and comprehensive masterstroke.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 01:17 PM   #352
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,232
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. It has NOT been ”debunked”
No point in reading past that. It's just willful delusional and irrational denial.

You were asked for your thoughts on the numerous debunkings of the HSCA crap. Answer that.
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 13th June 2018, 01:28 PM   #353
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I have clicked the links above, and they don't have evidence, just more of your eye, ear, nose statements that are interesting, but not evidence.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Well, in order for this to be in any way possible to respond to, you have to state your complaints in explicit and specific reference to what I’m actually providing.

Cite. Explain. Argue
How can he "Cite - Explain - Argue" any evidence in the links when what you want him to "Cite - Explain - Argue" isn't even present in those links?

One cannot cite, explain or argue about something that isn't there, except to say that... well, it isn't there (which is what bknight said..."they don't have evidence")!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:39 PM   #354
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,107
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The point (I think) Yak is making is that, setting aside the claim that the paper trail was forged as maintained in CT fantasy world, the FACT remains that the 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial number C2766 (the exact rifle found in the 6th floor of the TSBD) WAS sold to "A Hidell" (in CT fantasy world, a fake ID used by the Alphabet Soup) on March 13, 1963 (with an order form in Oswald's handwriting), and picked up by the same person at the Dallas GPO on March 25. The evidence of this is irrefutable, the deposit of the payment, the shipping of the rifle by Klein's, the pickup from the Dallas GPO is all documented.

What was the purpose of buying the rifle and setting up Oswald by faking the paper trail (including forging the order form) in March 1963 at a time when no-one knew that JFK was even going to be in Texas, let alone driving through Dallas?
Okay.

And yes, why indeed?

Also, why not buy the M-1, which Klein's also carried, a weapon Oswald was trained on while a Marine, and a weapon he could use in his sleep. Plus, .762 caliber bullets are as common as cowboy boots in Texas, perfect for adding confusion in a multiple shooter scenario. Instead Oswald buys a black swan in the 6.5x52mm Carcano.

I'll say it again, the Carcano is the true smoking gun. The 6.5x52mm round was over-powered, and the damage to the bodies was almost exclusive to this particular bullet.

If you want a conspiracy you have to accept Oswald was the shooter, and look eslewhere.
__________________
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 13th June 2018, 04:27 PM   #355
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,232
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If you want a conspiracy you have to accept Oswald was the shooter, and look eslewhere.
I get it that there's a particular personality aberration that predisposes some people to see conspiracy everywhere, but why not make it at least plausible? That Oswald pulled the trigger and was the only shooter is a dead certainty. That will never be in dispute by people who are honest and intelligent. CTs need to look beyond who the shooter was. That's simply a matter of historical fact.
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 13th June 2018, 05:00 PM   #356
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,107
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
I get it that there's a particular personality aberration that predisposes some people to see conspiracy everywhere, but why not make it at least plausible? That Oswald pulled the trigger and was the only shooter is a dead certainty. That will never be in dispute by people who are honest and intelligent. CTs need to look beyond who the shooter was. That's simply a matter of historical fact.
And it's very hard to link him to anybody.

The best scenario is that someone notices him while he's in New Orleans; maybe he mentions he took a shot at Walker to make an impression on his new friends (look at me, I'm a tough guy!). Maybe once word comes that JKF is coming to Dallas Oswald gets to a phone booth and calls this friend and runs the idea of killing the President by him. Maybe promises are made in regards to escaping to Cuba.

Someone drove Oswald to the firing ranges he was seen at, and that person remains anonymous.

I think Oswald acted alone, I think the guy driving him around was just being wise about not coming forward. I doubt this mystery driver knew what the plan 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 13th June 2018, 05:56 PM   #357
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. It has NOT been ”debunked” and no, I’m not hand waving anything away. I have carefully responded to each and every claim and explained why it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. That is the opposite of hand waving.

2. The issue here is not in what way my evidence, explanations and arguments its to your liking. The issue here is that I contrary to ”Hank’s” request/implied absense, already hav provided evidence, explanations and arguments for its veracity.

Ergo. Hank was making a willfully faulty claim in order to make me look bad.

Well, since you obviously ’know’ this, you have to be interested enough to read through it, wouldn’t you?

That is your sectarian opinion from the get go, yes. Its going to continue to be your sectarian opinion no matter what evidence, explanations and arguments you get served to you.

Opinions based on Faith is per definition not accessible by evidence, facts or reason.

Well, in order for this to be in any way possible to respond to, you have to state your complaints in explicit and specific reference to what I’m actually providing.

Cite. Explain. Argue.


- Whining = complaining in a more general sense without being specific.

Do you have a better, more appropriate concept?

Please let me know.

But, be specific.

Here is the same post that I selected previously that you did not offer evidence.

Originally Posted by manifesto
”Legitimate”? Who’s the chief arbiter, here?

Your mentor Mr. McA ... ?

The HSCA acoustical evidence: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961

The actual in investigation, not the politically contrived conclusions made by Robert Blakey.

1. The investigation shows that it was five, not four, impulse patterns that had a significant match with 0.6 or more binary correlation.

2. That the shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot and did not miss.

3. That the probability for the knoll-shot being random noise or static was 1/100 000, not ca 1/20.

I have argued for this in the following posts (among others):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1338

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1367

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1482

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1536

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1541

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1587

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594

Let me know if this is not enough and tell me what additional information you need to see, if any.

But, be specific. Cite. Explain.

Much as I hate to do this but, you have asked for this. Post 1338

Originally Posted by pgwenthold
The probability that there are 4 rifle shots being random noise is 1/10000 IF and only there is a motorcycle with a stuck mike in the correct position.
5 shots. Chief of HSCA, Blakey, desided that one shot from behind had to be excluded because Oswald couldn’t possible have made 4 shots in that timeframe. Which of cource is circular reasoning.

If you look att the real investigation, not edited by Blakey, the number of detected rifle shots were 5. 4 from behind and 1 from the picket fence at the knoll with P for random noise less than 1/100 000. Pretty much a slam dunk.

Quote:
If there is not a motorcycle with a stuck mike in that position, the probability that it is random noise is 100%.
IF your evidence of placing the microphone at the Trade Mart is of the same probability (P = 1/100 000) for being somewhere else, you have a case.

Quote:
Therefore, in order to conclude they are gun shots, you first have to establish that the motorcycle is in the right position with a mike stuck open.

This is why the HSCA failed. They did not do that. They made the same error you did. Because they wanted it to be so.
No. The chance of the 5 echo pulses-patterns being random noise is 1/100 000. So, you have to establish the same or bigger probability that the microphone was at the Trade Mart if you disprove the HSCA’s findings.

Quote:
So tell me, where was Officer McLain at the time the shots were made? Please answer this without referring to the recording, since you have not established that McLain is the source of the recording.
You do not understand:

1. The recording show with next to 100% proof five rifle shots on it.

2. There is no photo or film showing the 5 areas where the microphone have to be in order to pick up the sound on the recording.

3. McLain is on photo and film before and after the shooting, making him the prime candidate for having the stuck microphone on said areas during the right time frame.

4. You have to show that the microphone instead was in the Trade Mart with a confidence of P < 1/100 000 for it being somewhere else.

Quote:
I'll give some help: He wasn't where he needed to be, and his mike wasn't stuck open.
How do you know?

Now lets dissect your evidence.

The first six paragraphs deal with the dicta-belt "evidence". It has been pointed out to you many times that this little bit of "evidence" you continue to cite has been de-bunked, and because you don't understand it, you continue to post this garbage. The 70's HSCA dicta-belt evidence has been refuted so many times it is funny to all of us but you. The last that I remember posted is
https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603#Declarations
You have never stated anything about this report, because I doubt you have read it, or it is more advanced than you(no criticism intended). The only attempt you made is Myers' video. You don't understand this either as you keep calling it "eye-balling". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then you continue on with this line of thought by attempting to place McClain in the correct location, which is impossible. Further the open mike location when listening to more of the belt than you wish we would listen to, one hears an officer whistling into the mike, then we hear the Doppler effect of sirens.
And you finish with more Officer McClain and the probability of the acoustic evidence being "P < 1/100 000" without submitting the limiting factors. That evidence is correct If and Only If the open mike is in the precise location, which it is NOT.

Now Tell us where your evidence is in ONLY the first entry. You fail miserably and won't have the courage to admit you are wrong.

No evidence is no evidence. I have asked politely for you to refrain from ad hominems I shall report this post.

Last edited by bknight; 13th June 2018 at 06:02 PM.
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 13th June 2018, 06:07 PM   #358
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Okay.

And yes, why indeed?

Also, why not buy the M-1, which Klein's also carried, a weapon Oswald was trained on while a Marine, and a weapon he could use in his sleep. Plus, .762 caliber bullets are as common as cowboy boots in Texas, perfect for adding confusion in a multiple shooter scenario. Instead Oswald buys a black swan in the 6.5x52mm Carcano.

I'll say it again, the Carcano is the true smoking gun. The 6.5x52mm round was over-powered, and the damage to the bodies was almost exclusive to this particular bullet.

If you want a conspiracy you have to accept Oswald was the shooter, and look eslewhere.
A very important point this.

There could still have been a conspiracy to kill JFK. If more than one person was involved in planning or providing support (and that would include arranging an escape plan for the shooter) then you have a conspiracy. If there was, the most likely conspirators would be Cubans seeking revenge from either side of their particular shitfight; motive is strong on both sides...

a. Castro's side over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
b. The rebels' side over the perceived betrayal at the Bay of Pigs.

However, if elements within the US Government wanted to kill Kennedy, there were numerous far easier opportunities to do so. An unreliable, impoverished nutcase like Oswald would be absolutely the worst choice they could have made if they needed to recruit an assassin.. so many things could have gone wrong with this guy. The risk of failure and exposure would have been intolerable. The CT version of an all-powerful Secret US Government plot to...

- forge documents
- fake ballistics
- plant fingerprints and palmprints
- fake photos
- alter x-rays
- amend autopsy reports
- buy off private individuals,
- buy off banks
- buy off business owners
- bribe government employees
- pay Jack Ruby to play hitman

...is not only a paranoid fantasy, it is absolutely NOT the way a government conspiracy works... far too many moving parts that can go wrong, far too many loose ends that need tying off. We've seen what a Government conspiracy looks like... Watergate! It was straightforward and uncomplicated with hardly any moving parts, and even then, they got exposed and caught.

If the secret US Government (with its unlimited budget for the cover up) is so all-powerful then;

a. why did they make so many of these alleged mistakes that allowed their plot to be uncovered?

b. how is it that they were unable to infiltrate Bolt, Beranek and Newman, and subvert the HSCA acoustic evidence?

c. How was the loose end, Jack Ruby, not taken care of by the "death squad" immediately? He lived another four years - plenty of time to sing!

d. Why not have some of the Alphabet Soup agents testify at the Warren Commission that they were on the Grassy Knoll at the time of the shooting and that no shots came from there.

e. Why not cook up some witnesses to walk in on Oswald while he was taking the shots.

f. Why not cook up some witnesses to positively identify Oswald in the sixth floor window.

If this really was a US Government conspiracy to assassinate JFK, then what we saw on Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 from the Alphabet Soup was a cross between Amateur Hour and the Keystone Cops.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:16 PM   #359
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,107
And if it was a frame-up, why did the DPD try to force Buell Wesley Frazier to sign a confession that he conspired with Oswald - hence a conspiracy?

Why did the FBI continue to follow up on leads about the assassination well into the 1970's, no matter how off the wall (they were taking statements from psychics)?

Why does the DCI issue an internal think-piece in 1972 on the assassination asking if the CIA had missed something if the CIA was in on it?

All you need is one other person who knew what Oswald was going to do and you have a conspiracy. It might not be the big, sexy "CIA/FBI/LBJ/Hunt Oil/ Military Industrial Complex conspiracy, but it's still a conspiracy.

Many of our mass shooters and spree killers have had help in some way before or after the fact.

Oswald didn't seem to have a lot of friends, but he was a sucker for a pretty face as long as she made the first move. His psyche profile is that of a guy who just wanted to be famous, but didn't want to work for it.
__________________
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 13th June 2018, 08:34 PM   #360
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Here is the same post that I selected previously that you did not offer evidence.
Originally Posted by manifesto
”Legitimate”? Who’s the chief arbiter, here?

Your mentor Mr. McA ... ?

The HSCA acoustical evidence: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961

The actual investigation, not the politically contrived conclusions made by Robert Blakey.

1. The investigation shows that it was five, not four, impulse patterns that had a significant match with 0.6 or more binary correlation.

2. That the shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot and did not miss.

3. That the probability for the knoll-shot being random noise or static was 1/100 000, not ca 1/20.

I have argued for this in the following posts (among others):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1338

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1367

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1482

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1536

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1541

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1587

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594

Let me know if this is not enough and tell me what additional information you need to see, if any.

But, be specific. Cite. Explain.

Much as I hate to do this but, you have asked for this. Post 1338

Originally Posted by pgwenthold
The probability that there are 4 rifle shots being random noise is 1/10000 IF and only there is a motorcycle with a stuck mike in the correct position
.
[Originally posted by manifesto]
5 shots. Chief of HSCA, Blakey, desided that one shot from behind had to be excluded because Oswald couldn’t possible have made 4 shots in that timeframe. Which of cource is circular reasoning.

If you look att the real investigation, not edited by Blakey, the number of detected rifle shots were 5. 4 from behind and 1 from the picket fence at the knoll with P for random noise less than 1/100 000. Pretty much a slam dunk.

Quote: [pgwenthold]
If there is not a motorcycle with a stuck mike in that position, the probability that it is random noise is 100%
.
[manifesto]
IF your evidence of placing the microphone at the Trade Mart is of the same probability (P = 1/100 000) for being somewhere else, you have a case.

Quote: [phwenthold]
Therefore, in order to conclude they are gun shots, you first have to establish that the motorcycle is in the right position with a mike stuck open.

This is why the HSCA failed. They did not do that. They made the same error you did. Because they wanted it to be so.

[manifesto]
No. The chance of the 5 echo pulses-patterns being random noise is 1/100 000. So, you have to establish the same or bigger probability that the microphone was at the Trade Mart if you disprove the HSCA’s findings.

Quote: [pgwenthold]
So tell me, where was Officer McLain at the time the shots were made? Please answer this without referring to the recording, since you have not established that McLain is the source of the recording.

[manifesto]
You do not understand:

1. The recording show with next to 100% proof five rifle shots on it.

2. There is no photo or film showing the 5 areas where the microphone have to be in order to pick up the sound on the recording.

3. McLain is on photo and film before and after the shooting, making him the prime candidate for having the stuck microphone on said areas during the right time frame.

4. You have to show that the microphone instead was in the Trade Mart with a confidence of P < 1/100 000 for it being somewhere else.

Quote: [pgwenthold]
I'll give some help: He wasn't where he needed to be, and his mike wasn't stuck open.

[manifesto]
How do you know?

[pgwenthold]
Now lets dissect your evidence.

The first six paragraphs deal with the dicta-belt "evidence". It has been pointed out to you many times that this little bit of "evidence" you continue to cite has been de-bunked, and because you don't understand it, you continue to post this garbage. The 70's HSCA dicta-belt evidence has been refuted so many times it is funny to all of us but you. The last that I remember posted is
https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603#Declarations
You have never stated anything about this report, because I doubt you have read it, or it is more advanced than you(no criticism intended). The only attempt you made is Myers' video. You don't understand this either as you keep calling it "eye-balling". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then you continue on with this line of thought by attempting to place McClain in the correct location, which is impossible. Further the open mike location when listening to more of the belt than you wish we would listen to, one hears an officer whistling into the mike, then we hear the Doppler effect of sirens.
And you finish with more Officer McClain and the probability of the acoustic evidence being "P < 1/100 000" without submitting the limiting factors. That evidence is correct If and Only If the open mike is in the precise location, which it is NOT.

Now Tell us where your evidence is in ONLY the first entry. You fail miserably and won't have the courage to admit you are wrong.

No evidence is no evidence. I have asked politely for you to refrain from ad hominems I shall report this post.

Ok, first I cleaned up your post in order to sort out who is who saying what.

Second, my post (quoted by you at the top of this post) was a response to ”Hanks” claim that I had not provided evidence, explained it or argued for its veracity. It is now crystal clear that I have.

Third. That YOU do not like my evidence, explanations and arguments isn’t the same as me not having presented it. It’s there, like or not.

That is, you have to separate your opinion of my evidence, explanations and arguments, from the issue of me at all having presented such or not.

Do do you think you can do that?

Btw, I firmly disagree with most of your arguments above, but I do not claim that you have not presented them. You certainly have.

Last edited by manifesto; 13th June 2018 at 09:51 PM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 04:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.