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 5th November 2018, 07:26 PM   #2161
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
How much emphasis should we put on an estimate as opposed to a measurement? Which takes precedence?

If Robert Frazier, the FBI firearms expert, estimated Oswald's rifle as 27 inches broken down, would that resolve the issue here - and not eliminate Oswald's rifle from the package Wes Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle saw and estimated at 27 inches?

Why or why not?
You ignored this. Respond to the points I make.



Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
It has everything to do with resolving the assassination of the President. The statements of two witnesses, and their estimates of the length and width of the package they saw can be correct or incorrect. They can be confirmed or overridden by the hard evidence. But the hard evidence, not estimates by witnesses, take primacy. You are dismissing the hard evidence and pretending it has no bearing on what BWF and LMR said they saw.
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
It was Counsel that asked for an estimated length and both answers were qualified by saying they were not comfortable in guessing. One compared the length of the package to the upholstery but that did not include numbers and that was also not accepted by WC counsel.
It was accepted by Warren Commission counsel. It wasn't regarded as an accurate *ESTIMATE* by the Warren Commission members. Respond to the points I actually made.


Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Do you have a reasonable scenario for what was in the bag, why Oswald denied such a bag in custody, how his rifle and his bag got into the Depository?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
You mean speculation? You're doing a good job you do not need assistance.
Deflection noted. You can't provide any reasonable answers. CTs are always stuck when they are asked to put forth a reasonable scenario contrary to that of the Warren Commission. Respond to the points I actually made.


Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The Warren Commission put forward a reasonable scenario that relies on the eyewitness testimony and the hard evidence to explain how Oswald's rifle got from the Paine garage to the Depository.
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Evidence from the Paine garage? Which time are you referring to? The first time the Police searched the house? Or the second time after the scene was corrupted?
The rifle was missing from the Paine garage when the police first arrived and asked if Oswald owned a weapon. Marina led them to the garage and pointed out the blanket. But when the policeman picked up the blanket, it was determined to be empty. Oswald's rifle was found in the Depository shortly after the shooting. The Warren Commission weighed all the evidence and put forward a reasonable scenario for how the rifle got from the Paine garage to the Depository - something you can't do. This is just more deflection by you. Respond to the points I actually made. Your unproven claim about the corruption of the scene is just that - an unproven claim.


Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Your reasonable explanation so we can choose between equal alternatives is what? "I don't know"?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Go ahead and speculate, in fact, you sorta have to if you wish to side with the WC since their report's foundation is speculation.
Respond to the points I actually made. Don't deflect.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th November 2018 at 08:33 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 5th November 2018, 07:27 PM   #2162
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,599
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
What the WC did with the testimony of Buell was to believe a certain element of his interface with LHO and discount what it did not wish to believe. They believe Buell when he said LHO had a package but they did not believe him when he provided an estimation of the length yet they never followed up with why they thought Buell was mistaken.

So the WC in essence said: "Yes, we believe you when said LHO had a package but we think you are absolutely crazy if want us to believe your estimation of the length even though we are clueless since we have no other testimony to dispute yours."
1. That's entirely within the normal parameters of how an investigation progresses.

2. Your interpretation of the WC's conclusion leaves out the obvious.

Whether the Buells' testimony was accurate or not, a misreporting of the exact dimensions of the package has no bearing on the known facts of the criminal act being investigated - a phantom sized bag does not outweigh a rifle, a handgun and two dead and 1 wounded body.
__________________
"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 5th November 2018, 07:47 PM   #2163
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Did Oswald have a bag with him? Yes or No?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I have no idea; if he had one bag, he probably had another one for his lunch. Are people saying they saw LHO carry 2 bags in the TSBD?
You have no idea? But elsewhere you insist that BWF and LMR estimated the bag they saw in Oswald's possession as 27 inches, and declare -- nay, INSIST -- that means he didn't have the rifle in the bag.

Now you have no idea whether Oswald had any package, and suggest he might have had none or two... but either answer - "none" or "two" conflicts with what the witnesses saw, and which you have been hammering as a fact that eliminates Oswald's rifle from the paper bag they saw. You don't know whether the witnesses are trustworthy or not, but expect us to accept their estimate of the length of the sack that you aren't even sure Oswald had.

Hilarious.

Two people -- Wes Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, said they saw Oswald with one long package that morning. No one mentioned seeing Oswald with two.

The two witnesses that saw Oswald with a bag estimated it as far longer than a simple lunch bag. They estimated it as 27 inches long. Oswald denied having any such long sack and denied telling Frazier the curtain rod story. He denied owning the rifle that is provably his. And the sack found on the sixth floor of the Depository near the sniper's nest window bore Oswald's print and was provably 38 inches long -- long enough to contain the rifle found elsewhere on the sixth floor.

We know for a fact that memory isn't like a tape recorder or a video that gets played back in high fidelity. It's a reconstruction... and the reconstruction can be - and will be - affected by stuff the witness didn't witness but was told or read or saw later.

How fast the witness estimates a car was travelling was shown in experiments to be affected by the verb used in the question. See studies by Elizabeth Loftus.

Witnesses incorporate other evidence in rebuilding and recalling their memories. That's a fact.

Frazier was told by Oswald that the package contained curtain rods. Could that claim by Oswald have affected Frazier's recollection of the length of the package?

We know it could have. You're putting far too much weight on Frazier's estimate of 27 inches and ignoring all the hard evidence that puts the rifle in Oswald's hand at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63 and that puts the paper bag in Oswald's hand that morning.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th November 2018 at 08:14 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 5th November 2018, 08:07 PM   #2164
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
What you showed was the bag that Frazier said was too long (compared to what he saw that morning).
What I showed was the bag that bore Oswald's print that was provably recovered from near the sniper's nest window where numerous witnesses saw the only shooter seen that day. That bag is hard evidence. It's 38 inches long and long enough to contain the rifle.

Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag is not hard evidence. His claim that the bag found was too long to be the bag he saw is likewise not hard evidence.

The bag is hard evidence. Other than his estimate of the dimensions differing from the actual bag found, did Frazier note any other differences between the bag he saw and the bag that was recovered and bore Oswald's print on it?



Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Was this the bag that when initially tested that no fingerprints were on it or is that something else that I am confusing?
Asked and answered the last time you went through this fringe reset 18 months ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3425

It was also covered in far greater detail earlier in the thread (FIVE YEARS AGO) in a discussion with a CT named ladmo.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4876
(Also read the next post as well). And this one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4839

In fact, you should read the thread from the beginning. We really don't need to cover all this for a third or fourth time just because you didn't get it the first or second time.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th November 2018 at 08:52 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 5th November 2018, 08:34 PM   #2165
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Probably where JFK's brain is, maybe where the autopsy's Doctor's notes are, and various frames from the Zapruder film.
The brain is buried with JFK's body.

The original blood stained doctor's notes were copied before Humes burned them.

Hard to say how many, if any, frames are "missing" from the Zapruder film.

You've strayed into Bigfoot/UFO territory here.
__________________
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 5th November 2018, 08:39 PM   #2166
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
I'd love for someone to conduct a test where 100 people are asked to estimate a size range between 18 inches and 5 feet. Most folks can pick out 12 inches, a few can pick out a yard, or a meter.

We have the bag with fibers from the same blanket it had been wrapped in while in Ruth Paine's garage, found near the sniper's nest in the TSBD where the Carcano belonging to Oswald was recovered.
__________________
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 5th November 2018, 09:21 PM   #2167
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I'd love for someone to conduct a test where 100 people are asked to estimate a size range between 18 inches and 5 feet..
A Lawyer once told me that people often under-report the sizes of things when they cannot see the whole object. He gave me an example about a young women who had been a witness to an attack, and she had testified that the iron bar she saw the attacker carrying was six inches long. When he showed her a 1 foot ruler, she said it was longer than that. What she was reporting was the amount of bar she could see; i.e. the part that was sticking out the front/top of the attacker's hand...

Its not unreasonable to suggest that the two witnesses who reported what Oswald was carrying simply couldn't see the part that was tucked under his arm, so it didn't figure into their observation.
__________________
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 5th November 2018, 11:37 PM   #2168
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Its not unreasonable to suggest that the two witnesses who reported what Oswald was carrying simply couldn't see the part that was tucked under his arm, so it didn't figure into their observation.
More to the point, neither knew Oswald was going to kill the President that morning.

Think about the past 12 hours of your life; the people you saw, the conversations you had, and the things that you did. Suddenly one of the people you saw is wanted by the police.

What can you remember?

In my Marine Biology class we got a lecture on the difference between looking at something, and observing something.

Seriously, right now, can you recite your neighbor's car's license plate number? You see it every day, so it should be right on the top of your head, right?

Probably not. You likely don't know the plate number because you don't NEED to know the number.
__________________
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 6th November 2018, 04:48 AM   #2169
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Please link from the WR, where the dimensions are listed, plus link from the WR where the members indicated that Buelland his sister were mistaken. Then correlate the paper found on the sixth floor fits the descriptions of them, and the size of the weapon.
This is a bump for No Other since he has not answered my questions
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 6th November 2018, 05:53 AM   #2170
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,756
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
More to the point, neither knew Oswald was going to kill the President that morning.

Think about the past 12 hours of your life; the people you saw, the conversations you had, and the things that you did. Suddenly one of the people you saw is wanted by the police.

What can you remember?

In my Marine Biology class we got a lecture on the difference between looking at something, and observing something.

Seriously, right now, can you recite your neighbor's car's license plate number? You see it every day, so it should be right on the top of your head, right?

Probably not. You likely don't know the plate number because you don't NEED to know the number.
And even more to the point (from Frazier's WC testimony):
Quote:
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
...
Mr. FRAZIER -Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
The WC didn't need to "follow up with why they thought Buell was mistaken"; he told them why himself, at least three times.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 6th November 2018, 07:19 AM   #2171
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
The WC didn't need to "follow up with why they thought Buell was mistaken"; he told them why himself, at least three times.
I counted at least ten times back in 2013. He said it a LOT, and yet somehow CTs are conspiracy-blind to all those qualifiers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...95#post9674595

Even in the small portion you quoted, there's a fourth & fifth mention.

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
...
Mr. FRAZIER -Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.


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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 6th November 2018 at 08:11 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 6th November 2018, 08:09 AM   #2172
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
QUOTE WITHOUT COMMENT:

Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Probably where JFK's brain is, maybe where the autopsy's Doctor's notes are, and various frames from the Zapruder film.
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
You mean speculation? You're doing a good job you do not need assistance.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 08:13 AM   #2173
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
And even more to the point (from Frazier's WC testimony):


The WC didn't need to "follow up with why they thought Buell was mistaken"; he told them why himself, at least three times.
Testimony trumps speculation every time.
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 6th November 2018, 10:47 AM   #2174
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
QUOTE WITHOUT COMMENT:

Micah Java says:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11837398
The small head wound was low in the head. The autopsy report says it was 2.5 centimeters and slightly above the EOP. When the doctors reflected the scalp, pieces of the skull from around the large head wound either naturally chipped off or were removed with some sawing. This enlarged the skull down to the occipital bone, enough to remove the brain. The small head wound was low enough in the head to remain intact for Dr. Finck to examine. The depressed cowlick fracture is just a fracture related to the large head wound. The red spot on the BOH photographs, if not a drop of blood, could either be a laceration related to the large head wound or an exit for a fragment. That's my comprehensive theory that matches a consilience of evidence.

RoboTimbo says:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11837618
You haven't a clue what consilience means, do you?

Micah Java says:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11837624
Spanish for "scatterbrained red herrings".
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 6th November 2018 at 10:50 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 6th November 2018, 11:40 AM   #2175
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Testimony trumps speculation every time.
This the 6th Floor Museum's interview with Frazier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAh1pGZiLxE&t=1469s

He says the bag was too short, and he doesn't believe the rifle was in the bag. However, starting at the 24:18 mark he talks about parking, and working his voltage regulator of his car, and his love of watching trains, and how these were the things he was paying attention to as Oswald walked away.

This interview is compelling for a number of reasons; first, Frazier is a simple man who walks the listeners through an average work day at the TSBD and what he and Oswald would have done there. Second, he was the guy who drove Oswald to Ruth Paine's house, and was the closest thing Oswald had to a casual friend, so through Frazier we get to meet Oswald the same way we would have if he showed up as the new guy at our jobs.

The most important part of this interview is his description of his arrest, and hostile treatment by the Dallas Police where they tried to force him to sign a confession admitting to being PART OF A CONSPIRACY TO KILL JFK. This runs counter to the CT legends that the fix for the lone gunman was in before JFK reached Parkland. The other reason it is important is because, and you can see it on Frazier's face, he holds a grudge against both the Dallas PD AND the Warren Commission for the way he was treated.

If you have time, check it out.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 6th November 2018 at 11:41 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 6th November 2018, 02:14 PM   #2176
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This the 6th Floor Museum's interview with Frazier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAh1pGZiLxE&t=1469s

He says the bag was too short, and he doesn't believe the rifle was in the bag. However, starting at the 24:18 mark he talks about parking, and working his voltage regulator of his car, and his love of watching trains, and how these were the things he was paying attention to as Oswald walked away.

This interview is compelling for a number of reasons; first, Frazier is a simple man who walks the listeners through an average work day at the TSBD and what he and Oswald would have done there. Second, he was the guy who drove Oswald to Ruth Paine's house, and was the closest thing Oswald had to a casual friend, so through Frazier we get to meet Oswald the same way we would have if he showed up as the new guy at our jobs.

The most important part of this interview is his description of his arrest, and hostile treatment by the Dallas Police where they tried to force him to sign a confession admitting to being PART OF A CONSPIRACY TO KILL JFK. This runs counter to the CT legends that the fix for the lone gunman was in before JFK reached Parkland. The other reason it is important is because, and you can see it on Frazier's face, he holds a grudge against both the Dallas PD AND the Warren Commission for the way he was treated.

If you have time, check it out.
OK, but the point being that the WC didn't disregard his estimate because "it didn't fit their preconceived notion", but rather his lack of conviction as to what the dimensions he estimated the package to be. It doesn't fit to well with a CT belief once you digest all the information, somethin No Other has not done concerning my questions to him. I wonder why this is the case?
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 6th November 2018, 03:05 PM   #2177
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
OK, but the point being that the WC didn't disregard his estimate because "it didn't fit their preconceived notion", but rather his lack of conviction as to what the dimensions he estimated the package to be. It doesn't fit to well with a CT belief once you digest all the information, somethin No Other has not done concerning my questions to him. I wonder why this is the case?
I know. The Human Factor is always ignored in any CT.

Any CTist who dodges direct question does so because they know they either cannot answer them, or that they have climbed far out on a limb, and to answer would be the same as taking a saw to the branch behind them.
__________________
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 6th November 2018, 04:28 PM   #2178
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,322
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
QUOTE WITHOUT COMMENT:

Micah Java says:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11837398
The small head wound was low in the head. The autopsy report says it was 2.5 centimeters and slightly above the EOP. When the doctors reflected the scalp, pieces of the skull from around the large head wound either naturally chipped off or were removed with some sawing. This enlarged the skull down to the occipital bone, enough to remove the brain. The small head wound was low enough in the head to remain intact for Dr. Finck to examine. The depressed cowlick fracture is just a fracture related to the large head wound. The red spot on the BOH photographs, if not a drop of blood, could either be a laceration related to the large head wound or an exit for a fragment. That's my comprehensive theory that matches a consilience of evidence.

RoboTimbo says:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11837618
You haven't a clue what consilience means, do you?

Micah Java says:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11837624
Spanish for "scatterbrained red herrings".
LOL. Hard to deny when he so readily admits his capability.
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 6th November 2018, 04:54 PM   #2179
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,322
Come back, No Other. I want to hear some more facts about this bag that was found by the sniper's nest.

I think you did the right thing in bringing this important issue up.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 12:18 AM   #2180
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If you have time, check it out.
I agree, Axxman. The 6th Floor interview with Frazier is very interesting. As you suggest, he's a straightforward, uncomplicated guy who has stuck to his eyewitness impression for decades. There's no indication that he has weighed that impression against the ascertained facts of the found bag and rifle, or that he questions his or his sister's perception or memory. Many ordinary witnesses have overrated opinions of their percipient abilities, as Loftus points out. It also emerges that Frazier has retained some affection for Oswald. Perhaps they were both misfits at the TSBD and took comfort in each other.

The fact that Frazier and his sister agreed as to the size of the package is not mutual "corroboration," as No Other claims. Corroboration could exist if two people, ideally unknown to each other, had independently seen the package and described it in similar terms. However, courts and law enforcement are familiar with the very different phenomenon of people agreeing about eyewitness testimony when they know each other or live together. That fact often weakens, not strengthens, corroboration, because it typically means they have discussed the matter and consciously or unconsciously formed a shared memory.

No Other's argument here is a dead end. He suggests that Frazier's testimony should somehow erode the value of the physical evidence found on the sixth floor, yet he offers no reason why fleeting glimpses of a package should trump physical evidence. When pressed to explain how this purportedly smaller package and its contents, which Frazier saw Oswald carry towards the TSBD, vanished, he offers no answer. There is a strange symmetry to his self-serving contentions: "Frazier's testimony prevails, and I don't have to reconcile it with the physical evidence. And I don't have to explain why the physical evidence that Frazier purported to witness was never found."

This is a form of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. It remains forever a mystery to me why anyone with the least self-respect would try to insulate himself from real analysis by claims such as this one. Maybe being perpetually right in one's own demarcated world is one definition of solipsism. I suspect that recovering or recovered CTs are different: they always had the potential for self-doubt and flexible critique, however benighted they might have been for a time.

Last edited by OKBob; 7th November 2018 at 12:22 AM.
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 7th November 2018, 03:25 AM   #2181
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
I agree, Axxman. The 6th Floor interview with Frazier is very interesting. As you suggest, he's a straightforward, uncomplicated guy who has stuck to his eyewitness impression for decades. There's no indication that he has weighed that impression against the ascertained facts of the found bag and rifle, or that he questions his or his sister's perception or memory. Many ordinary witnesses have overrated opinions of their percipient abilities, as Loftus points out. It also emerges that Frazier has retained some affection for Oswald. Perhaps they were both misfits at the TSBD and took comfort in each other.

The fact that Frazier and his sister agreed as to the size of the package is not mutual "corroboration," as No Other claims. Corroboration could exist if two people, ideally unknown to each other, had independently seen the package and described it in similar terms. However, courts and law enforcement are familiar with the very different phenomenon of people agreeing about eyewitness testimony when they know each other or live together. That fact often weakens, not strengthens, corroboration, because it typically means they have discussed the matter and consciously or unconsciously formed a shared memory.

No Other's argument here is a dead end. He suggests that Frazier's testimony should somehow erode the value of the physical evidence found on the sixth floor, yet he offers no reason why fleeting glimpses of a package should trump physical evidence. When pressed to explain how this purportedly smaller package and its contents, which Frazier saw Oswald carry towards the TSBD, vanished, he offers no answer. There is a strange symmetry to his self-serving contentions: "Frazier's testimony prevails, and I don't have to reconcile it with the physical evidence. And I don't have to explain why the physical evidence that Frazier purported to witness was never found."

This is a form of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. It remains forever a mystery to me why anyone with the least self-respect would try to insulate himself from real analysis by claims such as this one. Maybe being perpetually right in one's own demarcated world is one definition of solipsism. I suspect that recovering or recovered CTs are different: they always had the potential for self-doubt and flexible critique, however benighted they might have been for a time.
I don't see that the witness testimony of a "smaller" package being carried into the TSBD by Oswald is any different in its impact on the veracity of the physical evidence to what it would be if no-one saw him carrying in any package.

The sack was still found, with Oswald's fingerprint on it
The rifle had Oswald's fingerprints on it
There exists an irrefutable chain of paperwork to prove that Oswald owned that actual rifle.
The bullets that killed JFK came from that actual rifle, to the exclusion of all other firearms.

Is anything else really needed?
__________________
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 7th November 2018, 04:53 AM   #2182
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Is anything else really needed?
For what it's worth: No. You are quite correct.
The guesses were within the accuracy would expect, without measuring.
The descriptions are close enough to the package to know they meant the same package.

Short of CT-grade mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious, the only reasonable conclusion is they saw the package in evidence, and offered honest descriptions as best as they could remember.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Last edited by Tomtomkent; 7th November 2018 at 04:55 AM.
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 09:51 AM   #2183
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Is anything else really needed?
Absolutely nothing else is really or virtually needed. Frazier and his sister were wrong; the found package proves that.
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 7th November 2018, 10:46 AM   #2184
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
This week in 1963:

On November 4, the Texas, and Dallas trip is confirmed with the Dallas Secret Service office.

On November 8, Governor Connally announced JFK will speak at the Trademart Luncheon on November 22.

This is your lead time to plan an assassination.
__________________
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 7th November 2018, 11:01 AM   #2185
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This week in 1963:

On November 4, the Texas, and Dallas trip is confirmed with the Dallas Secret Service office.

On November 8, Governor Connally announced JFK will speak at the Trademart Luncheon on November 22.

This is your lead time to plan an assassination.
Get me Fidel on the horn!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 03:09 PM   #2186
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Larry Carlton on guitar, and the late Jeff Porcaro on drums.

Great album.

Oh, and Oswald act alone (just to stay on topic)
__________________
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 7th November 2018, 03:58 PM   #2187
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,479
What did the FBI learn in their interviews with Marina in Oct/early Nov?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2018, 09:53 PM   #2188
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
What did the FBI learn in their interviews with Marina in Oct/early Nov?
Not a lot. Hosty said the interviews were short (around fifteen minutes). It took him three weeks to track Marina down by asking around town for a Russian speaking woman and baby.

The first conversation was with Ruth Paine. He learned that Oswald was working at the TSBD (he would call there and learn Oswald had given a false adress), and Paine described Oswald as a Trotskyite. Marina had been napping in another room, and wandered out. She panicked when she learned Hosty was FBI. She'd come from the Soviet Union, and a visit from a government agent was never a good thing. He managed to calm her down, and soon left promising to return.

The second meeting allowed Hosty to get Oswald's address, and was focused on getting Marina to trust him. The over-arching fear was that Soviet agents would coerce her into becoming an operative, and Hosty needed her to trust him enough to tell him if she was approached.

The FBI's focus was on Marina, not Oswald.

In hindsight the FBI's handling of Lee Harvey Oswald is embarrassing. They never directly told Hosty about Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy, and he learned about the Cuban Embassy visit from a Customs Agent in casual conversation. You'd think that on the Dallas FBI field office (four blocks from the TSBD) they would have put a big red dot on the Elm Street address when the motorcade was announced...but no. And they never knew where Oswald was half the time.
__________________
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 8th November 2018, 06:26 AM   #2189
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The second meeting allowed Hosty to get Oswald's address...
No, that's not right. Hosty never obtained Oswald's address at the rooming house. He had never given it to anyone, not even his own relatives, not even his brother Robert. He always gave the PO Box where he could be reached, claiming he moved too often for the actual address to be of much value. He started doing this once he learned it was Robert who ratted him out to the FBI the first time, upon his initial interview with the FBI after his return from the Soviet Union.

Hosty only had the Paine residence, not Oswald's rooming house. He had left Mrs. Paine's address when he applied at the Depository for a job and also had his mail being delivered there. There was no record of his rooming house anywhere.

And Mrs. Paine expressed regret that she didn't connect the phone number she had for Oswald at the rooming house with the fact that the FBI could do a reverse search and determine Oswald's address from the phone number.

Oswald did a great job of covering his tracks.

Except for the phone number of the rooming house he had left with Mrs. Paine so he could be notified when Marina gave birth to their second child.

In light of all this, the phone call Oswald made to Marina a few days before the assassination (that ended in a shouting match) insisting Marina remove his phone number from Mrs. Paine's address book takes on new meaning.

The testimony:
Mr. DULLES. Was there any particular reason why you did not have some contact with Lee during the period November, Thanksgiving 1962, and your departure for Arkansas in March of 1963?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; none that I was aware of. I did write him on two or three occasions asking him to advise me of his address in Dallas, Tex., so when I had an opportunity either on business or otherwise passing through where I could possibly stop and see him, if not Marina and the child.
His response to this was as it is stated in the letter of March 17, 1963, that generally he was moving and it was not settled and he would always retain the pest office box in Dallas, Tex., where I might reach him through the mail and that I would not be able to see him. or his family when I came through town.
Mr. DULLES. Did that surprise you?
Mr. OSWALD. It did not at first, sir, because I realized he was not settled as to a stable job and to an apartment. However, it did concern me later, and I refer to my letter that I wrote him in March of 1963 which he replied to on March 17 or March 16, 1963.
Mr. JENNER. Which is Commission Exhibit 322.
Mr. OSWALD. That I would like to have an address other than a post office box, and when again he did not furnish me this information, I did not respond to his letter of March 17, 1963. The last time I wrote him was in September 1963 when I returned to Texas and our moving into Denton, Tex., advising him of my new address, and still at that time requesting again an address where they were staying at in Dallas so that I might contact him, since again we were close together, approximately 30 miles away.
Mr. JENNER. And he did not respond to that?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; he never responded to that letter that I wrote him in September other than on the day that I visited him at Dallas County Jail or Dallas City Jail on November 23, 1963, he did say before I had an opportunity to say anything to him, "Robert, you now are living in Denton, aren't you?" And I said yes.
In other words, he had received my letter of September 1963.

===========

Mr. HOSTY. Yes; after Mrs. Paine told me that she would try to find out where Lee Oswald was living, I then gave her my name and telephone number. I wrote it down on a piece of paper for her. I am fairly certain I printed it so she would be able to read it all right. I printed my name and wrote down my office telephone number, and handed it to Mrs. Paine.
...
Mr. STERN. Is there anything else at all that you can recall being said on November 1?
Mr. HOSTY. As I said earlier, I think I should bring this in, that Mrs. Paine was a little bit reluctant to give me his place of employment at first. She said that Lee Oswald had alleged that the FBI had had him fired from every job he ever had. I told her this was not true, that I had never had anyone fired from any job nor did I know of any other FBI agents that had ever done this.
I reassured her that I wanted to know his place of employment for the Purpose of determining whether or not he was employed in a sensitive industry, and when I found out that he was working in a warehouse as a laborer, I realized this was not a sensitive industry.

===========

Mrs. PAINE - ... I regret, and I would like to put this on the record, particularly two things in my own actions prior to the time of the assassination.
One, that I didn't make the connection between this phone number that I had of where he lived and that of course this would produce for the FBI agent who was asking the address of where he lived.
Mr. JENNER - I will get to that, Mrs. Paine.
Mrs. PAINE - Well, that is regret 1.
Mr. JENNER - I don't want to cover too many subjects at the moment.
Mrs. PAINE - But then of course you see in light of the events that followed it is a pity that I didn't go directly instead of waiting for the next visit, because the next visit was the 23d of November.
(Her second regret, expressed elsewhere, is that she didn't realize Oswald was a violent man).

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 8th November 2018 at 06:45 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 8th November 2018, 07:18 AM   #2190
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,599
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Come back, No Other. I want to hear some more facts about this bag that was found by the sniper's nest.

I think you did the right thing in bringing this important issue up.
Probably testing a rifle with a no-go gauge to determine when it had been fired.
__________________
"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 8th November 2018, 09:42 AM   #2191
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Come back, No Other. I want to hear some more facts about this bag that was found by the sniper's nest.

I think you did the right thing in bringing this important issue up.
Yes, I would like him to answer my questions, which he has avoided.
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 8th November 2018, 10:28 AM   #2192
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,599
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Yes, I would like him to answer my questions, which he has avoided.
Don't hold your breath.
__________________
"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 8th November 2018, 01:43 PM   #2193
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,390
On November 8, 1963 I was 6 days old and can't confirm my actions or location. I don't remember contacting Oswald or if I owned a gun. My mother says I was in Rochester, NY, but I don't know if I can trust her.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 02:03 PM   #2194
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Don't hold your breath.
I didn't want to turn blue waiting on No Other.
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 8th November 2018, 03:48 PM   #2195
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
On November 8, 1963 I was 6 days old and can't confirm my actions or location. I don't remember contacting Oswald or if I owned a gun. My mother says I was in Rochester, NY, but I don't know if I can trust her.
That's what they want you to believe!

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:54 PM   #2196
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,641
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This week in 1963:

On November 4, the Texas, and Dallas trip is confirmed with the Dallas Secret Service office.

On November 8, Governor Connally announced JFK will speak at the Trademart Luncheon on November 22.

This is your lead time to plan an assassination.
No wonder, then, it was such a sloppy job and they had to alter the body, suppress the films, and kill all those inconvenient witnesses. No wonder all that evidence pointing to Oswald had to be fabricated.

Right?

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
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 8th November 2018, 07:24 PM   #2197
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
No wonder, then, it was such a sloppy job and they had to alter the body, suppress the films, and kill all those inconvenient witnesses. No wonder all that evidence pointing to Oswald had to be fabricated.

Right?

Hank
Imagine the CIA SOG team's horror when they found out Oswald had a Carcano. I wonder if Oswald's CIA handler tried to talk him into an M-1 instead?

I fully expect to learn someday that the first shot vanished because a time-traveler jumped in front of the bullet,and was instantly returned to his time-line as he died.

I should also point out the the TSBD was never fully inspected to confirm that in fact it was the same building that had stood there on 11/21/1963, and instead, as rumors I plan to start, suggest that the original building was replaced with a life-sized, fully functioning replica that was disassembled on Sunday night after the assassination to have the original returned.

Cops never see that one coming.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 08:47 AM   #2198
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Imagine the CIA SOG team's horror when they found out Oswald had a Carcano. I wonder if Oswald's CIA handler tried to talk him into an M-1 instead?

I fully expect to learn someday that the first shot vanished because a time-traveler jumped in front of the bullet,and was instantly returned to his time-line as he died.

I should also point out the the TSBD was never fully inspected to confirm that in fact it was the same building that had stood there on 11/21/1963, and instead, as rumors I plan to start, suggest that the original building was replaced with a life-sized, fully functioning replica that was disassembled on Sunday night after the assassination to have the original returned.

Cops never see that one coming.
Well EVERYBODY knows it was the cigarette smoking man from the drainage inlet, so the TSBD is a misdirection.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 12:23 PM   #2199
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,330
Today, November 9, 1963, Ruth Payne takes Oswald to the Driver Examination Station along with Marina and the kids. The station is closed, so they and up shopping at a Five & Dime.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 01:28 PM   #2200
Imhotep
Muse
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
a Five & Dime.
Is that a generic term? My dad used to call the Ben Franklin store the Five & Dime.
Imhotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 04:14 PM.
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.