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 17th July 2018, 09:52 PM   #1401
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,299
The telegraph was an adjunct to the carrier pigeons that flew the coup
__________________
"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 20th July 2018, 08:22 AM   #1402
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,803


ret·con
ˈretkän/
noun
noun: retcon; plural noun: retcons; noun: ret-con; plural noun: ret-cons

1.
(in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
"we're given a retcon for Wilf's absence from Donna's wedding in ‘The Runaway Bride’: he had Spanish Flu"

verb
verb: retcon; 3rd person present: retcons; past tense: retconned; past participle: retconned; gerund or present participle: retconning; verb: ret-con; 3rd person present: ret-cons; past tense: ret-conned; past participle: ret-conned; gerund or present participle: ret-conning

1.
revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.
"I think fans get more upset when characters act blatantly out of established type, or when things get retconned"



The EOP wound was retconned for the sake of consistency with a Carcano shot from the 6th floor in the official fictional story.
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 20th July 2018, 08:24 AM   #1403
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,214
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The EOP wound was retconned for the sake of consistency with a Carcano shot from the 6th floor in the official fictional story.
No, don't be silly. Where do you think the shot came from?
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 20th July 2018, 10:07 AM   #1404
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
No, don't be silly. Where do you think the shot came from?
The trunk of the car apparently.

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 20th July 2018, 10:40 AM   #1405
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://i.imgur.com/g9a2gBZ.jpg

ret·con
ˈretkän/
noun
noun: retcon; plural noun: retcons; noun: ret-con; plural noun: ret-cons

1.
(in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
"we're given a retcon for Wilf's absence from Donna's wedding in ‘The Runaway Bride’: he had Spanish Flu"

verb
verb: retcon; 3rd person present: retcons; past tense: retconned; past participle: retconned; gerund or present participle: retconning; verb: ret-con; 3rd person present: ret-cons; past tense: ret-conned; past participle: ret-conned; gerund or present participle: ret-conning

1.
revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.
"I think fans get more upset when characters act blatantly out of established type, or when things get retconned"

https://i.imgur.com/vv6iAh8.jpg

The EOP wound was retconned for the sake of consistency with a Carcano shot from the 6th floor in the official fictional story.
This is what the big kids call "Transference", where someone projects their own failings onto others.

The head shot is on film from multiple angles. We know where the shot came from and who fired it.

Thanks for playing.
__________________
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 20th July 2018, 10:46 AM   #1406
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
<snip>

The EOP wound was retconned for the sake of consistency with a Carcano shot from the 6th floor in the official fictional story.
There is no official "fictional" story, only the official results of the autopsy.
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 20th July 2018, 11:32 AM   #1407
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,420
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
There is no official "fictional" story, only the official results of the autopsy.
There are however a number of fictional CT stories of what happened.

I have to ask. So the evil conspiracy's plan CTs was to kill the president then adapt the body to pretend the shot came from the Depository? Why go to that level of complexity why not just shoot him from the depository? What would have happened if a bullet had hit Jackie or the car? How did they know it would hit the head?

Sounds highly complex and vulnerable to disaster.
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 20th July 2018, 12:25 PM   #1408
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
There are however a number of fictional CT stories of what happened.

I have to ask. So the evil conspiracy's plan CTs was to kill the president then adapt the body to pretend the shot came from the Depository? Why go to that level of complexity why not just shoot him from the depository? What would have happened if a bullet had hit Jackie or the car? How did they know it would hit the head?

Sounds highly complex and vulnerable to disaster.
Of that I know full well participating in this never ending discussion, plenty of stories, but way short on evidence. They only have eye/nose/ear evidence and we know how imprecise those can be.
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 20th July 2018, 01:40 PM   #1409
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,529
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post


ret·con
ˈretkän/
noun
noun: retcon; plural noun: retcons; noun: ret-con; plural noun: ret-cons

1.
(in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
"we're given a retcon for Wilf's absence from Donna's wedding in ‘The Runaway Bride’: he had Spanish Flu"

verb
verb: retcon; 3rd person present: retcons; past tense: retconned; past participle: retconned; gerund or present participle: retconning; verb: ret-con; 3rd person present: ret-cons; past tense: ret-conned; past participle: ret-conned; gerund or present participle: ret-conning

1.
revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.
"I think fans get more upset when characters act blatantly out of established type, or when things get retconned"



The EOP wound was retconned for the sake of consistency with a Carcano shot from the 6th floor in the official fictional story.
Debunked, many, many, many times before.

Don't you have anything new to bring to the table so that we can discuss that rather then your regurgitated, previously debunked stuff?
__________________
► God does not exist!
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
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 20th July 2018, 03:48 PM   #1410
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,420
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Debunked, many, many, many times before.

Don't you have anything new to bring to the table so that we can discuss that rather then your regurgitated, previously debunked stuff?

Hmmm so is there anything in the assassination that has been beaten to death? What would be in your opinion the least noted aspect of the case that CT's having chewed down to atoms yet?
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 20th July 2018, 08:45 PM   #1411
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Hmmm so is there anything in the assassination that has been beaten to death? What would be in your opinion the least noted aspect of the case that CT's having chewed down to atoms yet?
Oswald's visit to Mexico City.

This is the one area that the recent document release is finally shedding light on, at least as far as what the CIA station was doing. It still comes back with Oswald shooting JFK, but there are nagging blind-spots about what he did in between visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies, and his return.

The other gray area is New Orleans. Mostly because Oswald goes straight to Mexico City from there, and the question is why? Was he compelled by someone to cross the border, or was he just desperate?

I know, nothing as sexy as a circus-stunt multiple, synchronized, invisible gunmen, but that's where the things might get interesting no matter what is discovered.
__________________
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 20th July 2018, 10:07 PM   #1412
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,529
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I know, nothing as sexy as a circus-stunt multiple, synchronized, invisible gunmen, but that's where the things might get interesting no matter what is discovered.
The idea that Oswald was part of a conspiracy (albeit a small scale one) and was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza, has a single distinct advantage over the other multiple, synchronized, invisible gunmen theories; its actually plausible. The others are all batcrap crazy "halfwit conspiracies".

IMO, its plausibility makes in more sexy, and, there is some evidence in support of it.
__________________
► God does not exist!
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
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 21st July 2018, 11:09 AM   #1413
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,420
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oswald's visit to Mexico City.

This is the one area that the recent document release is finally shedding light on, at least as far as what the CIA station was doing. It still comes back with Oswald shooting JFK, but there are nagging blind-spots about what he did in between visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies, and his return.

The other gray area is New Orleans. Mostly because Oswald goes straight to Mexico City from there, and the question is why? Was he compelled by someone to cross the border, or was he just desperate?

I know, nothing as sexy as a circus-stunt multiple, synchronized, invisible gunmen, but that's where the things might get interesting no matter what is discovered.

Yep my own CT is that someone unknown may have motivated LHO either accidentally or deliberately, perhaps a Cuban official or someone else.

Something like,\: You wish to come to our communist paradise - show your worth and support the revolution, protect it from its enemies, etc., Words like that might have inspired him to do something. As he had already - probably taken a shot at the General why not continue?

Last edited by Hans; 21st July 2018 at 11:12 AM.
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 21st July 2018, 11:33 AM   #1414
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,081
I can't see a conspiracy involving Oswald that would have a solid connection to Cuba or the CIA or any large entity like organized crime.

Looking at Oswald's background you see a guy who is unreliable in every facet of his life. He goes AWOL from the USMC, he changes his mind about his defection to Russia, he can't keep a job longer than six months, and he's separated from his wife and child. Hell, he didn't even drive a car. He was not a guy anyone would count on to be the trigger man to kill the President of the United States.

So what kind of conspiracy would we be looking at?

The best I can fathom is an Oswald-generated plot. We know he wanted to move to Cuba. There are unconfirmed stories about Oswald hanging around with Cuban exiles in Dallas, and for a moment let's assume they are true. What if he came in contact with these exiles because he was given a name by someone from Cuban intelligence while in Mexico City. Suppose the original plan was to get a better look at Oswald so they could decide to give the guy a visa or not.

Then the news that JFK is coming to town drops, and Oswald gets his brilliant idea. He meets up with his Cuban friends and tells them his plan. My guess is they did their Jerry Seinfeld impression and said, "Well, good luck with all that." I doubt they took him seriously, at least at first. But then the parade route is printed in the newspaper and it rolls right past Oswald's place of employment. Now Oswald's plan suddenly has a chance of success, he has access to the building, by then he knows the ebb and flow of the place, and he'll have the best seat in the house for the motorcade. That weekend is when the Oswald sightings at the gun ranges began. Oswald didn't drive, and the person thought to be Oswald arrived as a passenger in a sedan.

The whole time the Cubans are treating this as a wait and see kind of thing.

My guess is that they were just as shocked as everyone else when Oswald pulled it off. I doubt any of these Cubans would have been in Dealey Plaza, mostly out of security concerns, but mostly because they expected Oswald to chicken out.

So the question becomes: were these Castro's Cubans, or our Cubans, or nobody's Cubans?

As history stands right now we cannot link Oswald to anyone, and as much as I love a good conspiracy this is the biggest fact standing in the way of one. There are still files to be released, who knows what they say?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 21st July 2018 at 11:35 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 21st July 2018, 10:13 PM   #1415
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Hmmm so is there anything in the assassination that has been beaten to death? What would be in your opinion the least noted aspect of the case that CT's having chewed down to atoms yet?
I'd also like to raise again a question I asked many pages ago, that got drowned out in all the "show me, show me" nonsense, which is this:
CTs claim the x-rays and autopsy reports were faked, so as to incriminate Oswald and hide the evidence of the "real' culprit.
As the Warren Commission started only a week after the event, what opportunities were there to accomplish this? Is there a chain of custody for the documents, and who would have had access to them? In terms of altering or forging an x-ray, was the technology in the 1960's able to do this, and to remain undetected to this day? One week seems like quite a short time to achieve all this: is it plausible?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2018, 10:36 PM   #1416
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,420
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I'd also like to raise again a question I asked many pages ago, that got drowned out in all the "show me, show me" nonsense, which is this:
CTs claim the x-rays and autopsy reports were faked, so as to incriminate Oswald and hide the evidence of the "real' culprit.
As the Warren Commission started only a week after the event, what opportunities were there to accomplish this? Is there a chain of custody for the documents, and who would have had access to them? In terms of altering or forging an x-ray, was the technology in the 1960's able to do this, and to remain undetected to this day? One week seems like quite a short time to achieve all this: is it plausible?
Yep and they didn't know where the bullets would hit so they couldn't prepare before hand.
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 Yesterday, 01:56 AM   #1417
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,529
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In terms of altering or forging an x-ray, was the technology in the 1960's able to do this, and to remain undetected to this day? One week seems like quite a short time to achieve all this: is it plausible?

Forging convincing X-Rays in the 1960s? Impossible.

It would require the actual X-ray film itself to be physically altered. Such alterations would be visually obvious, and would certainly be easily and immediately spotted by any first year intern radiologist or trainee radiographer.

Making a copy of the altered X-Ray film would be possible, but there are limits. There were no photographic scanners available in the 1960s, so there would be only two ways this could be done;

Method 1. Contact print the x-ray film to make a positive on low contrast photographic paper, make the alterations to the print, then use a large format copy camera like this...



to create a new negative with the alterations.

Method 2. Shoot the negative with B&W reversal film.

However, there are problems with both of these methods; the final product will be a third generation copy (for method 1) or a second generation copy (for method 2) so there will be considerable loss of dynamic range compared with the original x-ray film, especially in the highlights. Also, duplication is never perfect, there will be loss of resolution and additional grain. All of these lead to significant loss of detail.

However these are not the major problem. Anyone attempting to pass off one of these copies as an original x-ray film will be immediately caught out because the copy will be ordinary photographic film, not x-ray film. I could teach anyone to spot the different with a 15 second lesson.
__________________
► God does not exist!
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
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 Yesterday, 12:00 PM   #1418
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I'd also like to raise again a question I asked many pages ago, that got drowned out in all the "show me, show me" nonsense, which is this:
CTs claim the x-rays and autopsy reports were faked, so as to incriminate Oswald and hide the evidence of the "real' culprit.
As the Warren Commission started only a week after the event, what opportunities were there to accomplish this? Is there a chain of custody for the documents, and who would have had access to them? In terms of altering or forging an x-ray, was the technology in the 1960's able to do this, and to remain undetected to this day? One week seems like quite a short time to achieve all this: is it plausible?
The chain of custody for the x-rays and autopsy photos is straight forward. The Kennedy family took all materials from the autopsy, and only deeded them to the National Archives on October 29, 1966. There are strict conditions for which these materials may be viewed:

Quote:
The autopsy photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy family by an agreement dated October 29, 1966. This agreement limits access to such materials to: (1) persons authorized to act for a Committee of Congress, a Presidential Commission, or any other official agency of the Federal government having authority to investigate matters relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and to (2) recognized experts in the field of pathology or related areas of science and technology whose applications are approved by the Kennedy family representatives, Nicole Seligman and Kevin Baine .



Source: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs#xray

(BTW, this meant that the Pathologists did not have access to the materials meaning that they had to rely on their notes, and this lead to the minor discrepancies they've made over time.)

Shortly after the materials were turned over the original radiologist and photographer were allowed to view their work and unanimously agreed the material was original. Ten years later the HSCA would review the materials again, this time with experts looking for evidence that the pictures were faked. Speculation at the time was that the photos were not of JFK, but a double. Again, they found zero evidence of tampering, or fakes.

To sum up: The chain of evidence is short= Autopsy room>Kennedy Family>National Archives.

The materials have been reviewed at least twice by the men who produced them and have been confirmed authentic.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:47 PM   #1419
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,420
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The chain of custody for the x-rays and autopsy photos is straight forward. The Kennedy family took all materials from the autopsy, and only deeded them to the National Archives on October 29, 1966. There are strict conditions for which these materials may be viewed:




Source: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs#xray

(BTW, this meant that the Pathologists did not have access to the materials meaning that they had to rely on their notes, and this lead to the minor discrepancies they've made over time.)

Shortly after the materials were turned over the original radiologist and photographer were allowed to view their work and unanimously agreed the material was original. Ten years later the HSCA would review the materials again, this time with experts looking for evidence that the pictures were faked. Speculation at the time was that the photos were not of JFK, but a double. Again, they found zero evidence of tampering, or fakes.

To sum up: The chain of evidence is short= Autopsy room>Kennedy Family>National Archives.

The materials have been reviewed at least twice by the men who produced them and have been confirmed authentic.
Yes of course but I've seen CT claims that Jackie 'was in on it'.

Question: did it go to Jackie or other members of the family?
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 Yesterday, 05:01 PM   #1420
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Yes of course but I've seen CT claims that Jackie 'was in on it'.

Question: did it go to Jackie or other members of the family?
I don't know for sure, but a safe guess would be her lawyer.

Jackie is another large part of the events that day that CTists ignore. The body was moved out of Dallas on her orders/wishes. She was one one who chose Bethesda for the autopsy. She was the one who demanded the autopsy materials be kept out of public view until the next century. The brain was removed from the National Archive and reinterred with the body per her request.

Personally I would love to see a second challenge to the legality of the gag-order on the Autopsy materials made in court. Most of this CT nonsense would have been put to rest decades ago.
__________________
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
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 06:43 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.