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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 16th April 2018, 01:27 AM   #1241
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Should we give you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed this if failed sophism, or are you still trying to pretend that your claimed motive applies to Greer but not to JFK, even when JFK was the one you quoted?

Should we, in short, assume anybody we assume to be suitably Anglican Protestant to hold the same motive to harm JFK?

Are you, at any point, going to support your suspicions of Greer with credible evidence?
You avoided to cite the whole content of my post:

Nonsense. I do not argue from motive, I argue from suspisious behavior and adds plausible motive as a plausible explanation for said behaviour.

So, what behaviour of JFK makes you suspect him of trying to kill Greer?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:35 AM   #1242
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Neither are we. To date you've cited for little, and what you did attempt to cite for, those cites are links to conspiracy sites arguing for a conspiracy.

But you also reject links to anywhere, including to your own conspiracy sites.

You wrote:


Can you cite for any of your claims without links to the evidence for those claims?

Hank
There were no citing given, only the ”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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:37 AM   #1243
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Nonsense. I do not argue from motive, I argue from suspisious behavior and adds plausible motive as a plausible explanation for said behaviour.
You argue from behaviour you *claim* to be suspicious, but offer no reason *why* it is such: You have not shown it is outside the spectrum of responses one might reasonably expect from somebody in the same situation. You have not shown it is outside the behaviour we would expect in general, or in his personal case.

Onto this you apply a "plausible motive" that you then argue should not be applied to JFK, despite your posting JFK's own opinion as you *evidence*.

Are you going to continue to argue we should find any of this plausible, or are you going to heed the critique and frame your accusations of Greer again, with evidence that will be more convincing?
__________________
@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).
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:40 AM   #1244
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
Already did.

Rifling on bullets and fragments matches the Mannlicher Carcano recovered on the 6th floor of the depository.
According to whom?

Quote:
Fingerprints and palm prints on the weapon match Oswald.
If so, how did they get on the rifle?

Quote:
An order form provided by the vendor shows the rifle was shipped to Oswald's PO box. Oswald was photographed posing with the same rifle.
A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.

Where is the original microfilm?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:40 AM   #1245
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
There were no citing given, only the ”link”.
Is the word you were looking for "Citations".

It has been shown in this thread, that even when the post includes a description, or a description is later given, you choose not to post links.

I still await that given this, why anybody should feel obliged to engage with you?

Perhaps if you clicked the links, knowing they are supporting evidence or pertinent articles from the context of the post, you might not have to complain so often that nobody is answering your questions.
__________________
@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).
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:50 AM   #1246
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.

Good. It's a photograph. That means you can tell us if there is any evidence of tampering in it, any photoartefacts indicating editing or alteration.
Are there any?
If you believe the copies do not include accurate information, or are inaccurate copies, you can show us evidence of these inaccuracies. You can supply testimony to the WC, or alternate documentations that show it was not as described?
Given the entire trail of custody has been previously shown in posts in this thread, reposted by Hank since you rejoined the conversation, you can of course highlight where exactly the switch or alteration was made, or some flaw in the process that can only be explained by these documents being fundamentally flawed?

I'm guessing not.

What reasonable expectation do you have of the original microfilms to be available now, given they are the fifty year old records of a private business?

If they were produced, having been stored in private hands without a trail of custody protocol, would that make them more, less, or as reliable as the copies contained in the archive?
__________________
@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).
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:51 AM   #1247
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
You argue from behaviour you *claim* to be suspicious, but offer no reason *why* it is such: You have not shown it is outside the spectrum of responses one might reasonably expect from somebody in the same situation. You have not shown it is outside the behaviour we would expect in general, or in his personal case.
I have listed the reasons for my suspicion. It is you who have to give a plausible alternative axplanation to the listed reasons.

Quote:
Onto this you apply a "plausible motive" that you then argue should not be applied to JFK, despite your posting JFK's own opinion as you *evidence*.
Despite? How come?

Quote:
Are you going to continue to argue we should find any of this plausible, or are you going to heed the critique and frame your accusations of Greer again, with evidence that will be more convincing?
I have not argued that any of my resons for suspicion are proof of his quilt, my argument is still that Greers behaviour was very suspicious and in case of guilt, a plausible motive in case he was guilty of taking part in the conspiracy.

As i said, much of the security arrangements around JFK’s visit to Dallas was destroyed after the ARRB repetedly requested the documents according to JFK Records Act.

That is a felony, and knowledge of guilt.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:52 AM   #1248
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Good. It's a photograph. That means you can tell us if there is any evidence of tampering in it, any photoartefacts indicating editing or alteration.
Are there any?
If you believe the copies do not include accurate information, or are inaccurate copies, you can show us evidence of these inaccuracies. You can supply testimony to the WC, or alternate documentations that show it was not as described?
Given the entire trail of custody has been previously shown in posts in this thread, reposted by Hank since you rejoined the conversation, you can of course highlight where exactly the switch or alteration was made, or some flaw in the process that can only be explained by these documents being fundamentally flawed?

I'm guessing not.

What reasonable expectation do you have of the original microfilms to be available now, given they are the fifty year old records of a private business?

If they were produced, having been stored in private hands without a trail of custody protocol, would that make them more, less, or as reliable as the copies contained in the archive?
So, why a photograph of the evidence? Why not the evidence?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 01:55 AM   #1249
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Is the word you were looking for "Citations".

It has been shown in this thread, that even when the post includes a description, or a description is later given, you choose not to post links.

I still await that given this, why anybody should feel obliged to engage with you?

Perhaps if you clicked the links, knowing they are supporting evidence or pertinent articles from the context of the post, you might not have to complain so often that nobody is answering your questions.
It has been shown in this thread that ”the thread” is regarded a sufficient reference to a specific claim.

To that, you will add ”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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 02:01 AM   #1250
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You make your claim on the assumption that he was screened by the Secret Service to insure his abilities under stress. Every year hundreds of "trained professionals" fail to do their job in a moment of crisis.

This is not suspicious, it's human.
That has to be investigated in every case. In the case of Greer, he lied to the investigators.

But I’ll take it that ”lying” is also ”human”?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 02:03 AM   #1251
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If so, how did they get on the rifle?
The prints lifted were latent prints.
They were revealed by a powder medium, and lifted from the surface, along with locating marks of the rifle.
Latent prints are formed from oils excreted by skin contact. They were invisible until lifted, and can only be lifted from the rifle, because of the locating marks.

The obvious answer is because Oswald, who owned the rifle, held it with his naked hand while capable of perspiring.

Would you like to posit another method by which his prints could have gotten there?

Would you like to show evidence for such tampering?

If not, your question, and conspiracy innuendo, is moot.
__________________
@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).
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 02:06 AM   #1252
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
That has to be investigated in every case. In the case of Greer, he lied to the investigators.

But I’ll take it that ”lying” is also ”human”?
Would you care to prove this post with actual evidence?
Can you show a deliberate lie was told?

All you have shown is that Greer was as prone to confusion and inaccuracy in his memories as any other human, within a high stress situation. To show he lied would require you to show he made a deliberate choice deceive.

How exactly does one do that?

Is Greer no innocent unless you prove him guilty?
__________________
@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).
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 02:24 AM   #1253
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
It has been shown in this thread that ”the thread” is regarded a sufficient reference to a specific claim.

To that, you will add ”a link”?
Oh, sorry, if you didn't know how to use the search facility, you could have just asked:

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, Axxman300, how do you know that Oswald killed JFK?
And Hank answered thus:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Wrong question. The evidence accumulated in multiple investigations points to Oswald and no one else.

That's the default explanation of the evidence at this point.

For a variety of reasons, not least because of Occam's razor.

So the proper question is what new evidence do you bring to the table to overturn the default explanation?
To which you replied:
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, you are wrong. The default is, innocent until proven guilty.

Give me your best ”accumulated” evidence for Oswalds guilt.
As has been explained, history does not default to innocent until proven guilty, that is a legal, not a historical, standing. History defaults to a null hypothesis based on the accumulated evidence.

As has been pointed out before that accumulated evidence can simply be summed up as "the Warren Commission evidence", but as you refuse to simply go and read that, we can only assume that you mean the *discussion* rather than the evidence, or when the evidence was presented in the discussion.

You will note this is not a specific request. I am not going to link to every relevant post in which new evidence was presented, nor will I hunt for posts on your behalf when you bring matters back to the top of the discussion.

The discussion starts here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=222556
__________________
@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).
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:26 AM   #1254
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 915
Slight hijack
This discourse reminds me of a of an individual arguing the manned landings on the Moon were a hoax because no "evidence" existed that they did. Everything claimed by NASA could have be accomplished with robots or on Earth. Thus completely disregarding any/all evidence in favor of his belief.
manifesto reminds me of this guy.
Hijack complete.

Last edited by bknight; 16th April 2018 at 05:49 AM. Reason: Added or on Earth
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:34 AM   #1255
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, Hank, where is the original of the microfilm today?
My presumption is the microfilm was returned to Klein's Sporting Goods when the Warren Commission investigation was complete. It was part of their business records, after all, and there was other customers' records and other documentation on that microfilm spool than just Oswald's order.

Why do you ask?

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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:43 AM   #1256
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Nonsense. I do not argue from motive, I argue from suspisious behavior and adds plausible motive as a plausible explanation for said behaviour.
But the suspicious behavior isn't that suspicious when we examine it. Yellow lines 'recently painted' on the curb? When is 'recent'? Document this?



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, what behaviour of JFK makes you suspect him of trying to kill Greer?
Those yellow lines painted on the curb mark where Greer was to be shot.

JFK's normal driver died under mysterious circumstances to put Greer in the driver's seat during the shooting.

All your arguments work with JFK trying to kill Greer as well as in the reverse.

Your arguments are nonsense.

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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:48 AM   #1257
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,267
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
According to whom?
So you know nothing of the assassination?

Quote:
If so, how did they get on the rifle?
Are you saying it wasn't on the rifle?

Quote:
A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.

Where is the original microfilm?
Are you claiming there is no original microfilm?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:50 AM   #1258
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Duplicate posting deleted.

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; 16th April 2018 at 05:52 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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:51 AM   #1259
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 948
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Yellow lines 'recently painted' on the curb? When is 'recent'? Document this?
does it matter when one doesn't know what yellow curbs indicate to begin with? I'll even throw him a bone and agree they may have been 're'-painted the day/days before the parade. so what? That's just what towns do before a parade.......spruce things up.

my town has a street sweeper come through my street a day or two before the Memorial Day parade every year. Has someone been assassinated on my street every year and I just not know it?

Last edited by Whip; 16th April 2018 at 05:52 AM.
Whip 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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:51 AM   #1260
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The microfilm was detained by FBI as evidence, so I wonder where it is today. I asume FBI gave it to the Commission along with all the other evidence.
Yes. That is documented in the questioning of Waldman. The FBI took the microfilm -- marked by Waldman on 11/22/63 and identified by Waldman during his testimony as the one the FBI took -- and the Warren Commission counsel David Belin had it in his possession when he took Waldman's testimony.

Printed paper copies were made of the original microfilm records and those copies became Warren Commission exhibits. Those paper copies are reproduced in the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence. You can see them yourself if you so desire:
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol21_0358b.htm


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Or?
There is no "OR". The above is what happened.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Did the FBI indicate at what time, what period that they felt you might have received this rifle originally?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.
Mr. BELIN. Are these microfilm records part of your customary recording of transactions of your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; they are.
Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation.
Mr. BELIN. You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And you can make copies of the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22.

== UNQUOTE ==

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; 16th April 2018 at 06:39 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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:52 AM   #1261
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,267
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I have listed the reasons for my suspicion. It is you who have to give a plausible alternative axplanation to the listed reasons.
And I think you agree that they are specious.

Quote:
Despite? How come?

I have not argued that any of my resons for suspicion are proof of his quilt,
So you AREN'T claiming Greer is guilty of anything?

Quote:
my argument is still that Greers behaviour was very suspicious and in case of guilt, a plausible motive in case he was guilty of taking part in the conspiracy.
So you ARE claiming Greer is guilty of something?

Quote:
As i said, much of the security arrangements around JFK’s visit to Dallas was destroyed after the ARRB repetedly requested the documents according to JFK Records Act.

That is a felony, and knowledge of guilt.
Citation required.

You really aren't very good at this, are you. You should stick to a subject that you know something about.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 05:53 AM   #1262
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
There were no citing given, only the ”link”.
You ignored the content of my post entirely. Try answering the questions I asked.

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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 06:01 AM   #1263
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I have listed the reasons for my suspicion. It is you who have to give a plausible alternative axplanation to the listed reasons.
No, shifting the burden of proof. Suspicions are not evidence. You need to provide evidence of guilt, not evidence of suspicions.

Another approach would be to question your reasons for your suspicions, and point out the issues with those. We have. You made assertions you could not establish (recently painted curb, mysterious heart attack, no autopsy) and argue from those non-existent 'facts' to find your suspicions.

And as we've seen, even granting the stuff you find suspicious (the curb, the death of the other driver, the religions of each), the 'evidence' you provided works with JFK as the plotter as well as JFK as the victim.

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; 16th April 2018 at 06:35 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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 06:09 AM   #1264
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, why a photograph of the evidence? Why not the evidence?
What are you babbling about?

The microfilm itself is a photograph of the original documents. That's how Klein's retained the large volume of orders and shipments and receipts that would otherwise fill up multiple filing cabinets.

Do you understand what microfilm is? It takes an entire page of a newspaper and shrinks it down to a picture about two inches by one inch. The original is then discarded, and the copies on microfilm are the business records. THEY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE.

I answered that question two and a half years ago for all time in my point one here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=503

Why are the normal Kleins business records - (which were stored on microfilm and the originals discarded in the normal course of business and which suffice for everyday disputes) - not sufficient for YOU?

Because they point to Oswald?

Do you still get your original checks returned to you by your bank? Or do you get copies, which are sufficient to establish what you wrote and who you wrote it to? If you go to your bank and argue you didn't write that check and they can't prove it because there's no original, do you think you'd get very far? But that's the silly argument you're advancing here. Only microfilm copies of the orders were retained by Kleins. Those microfilm copies were their business records. They are perfectly acceptable - unless the accused name is Oswald, for some reason.


How many different ways and how many times are you going to ask the same questions, as if they are meaningful? How many different ways do we have to explain it before you stop asking the same meaningless questions?

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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 06:13 AM   #1265
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,367
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I know a lot of a lot of efforts do ”debunk” HSCA’s acoustical investigations. I know of none that has actually succeded in doing that.
.
Where was the open mic?

The conclusion that there was a second shooter REQUIRES that the mic be in a specific location.

What mic was in that location?

HINT: there was no motorcycle cop in the required location, nor one with a stuck mic anywhere in Dealey plaza. The stuck mic was sitting at the Trade Mart.
__________________
"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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 06:33 AM   #1266
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Full Fringe Reset to December of 2015.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 07:29 AM   #1267
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
My presumption is the microfilm was returned to Klein's Sporting Goods when the Warren Commission investigation was complete. It was part of their business records, after all, and there was other customers' records and other documentation on that microfilm spool than just Oswald's order.

Why do you ask?

Hank
I ask beacause the microfilm is the evidence allegedly proving Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon and therefore per inference, that Oswald killed JFK.

Why not let Klein have a copy of the original and keep the evidence in the Commission collections? Why settle for a photograph of the evidence?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 07:31 AM   #1268
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,267
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I ask beacause the microfilm is the evidence allegedly proving Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon and therefore per inference, that Oswald killed JFK.

Why not let Klein have a copy of the original and keep the evidence in the Commission collections? Why settle for a photograph of the evidence?
You really don't understand?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 07:33 AM   #1269
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Where was the open mic?

The conclusion that there was a second shooter REQUIRES that the mic be in a specific location.

What mic was in that location?

HINT: there was no motorcycle cop in the required location,
HINT: how do you know this? The ”drummer” from Ohio?

Quote:
nor one with a stuck mic anywhere in Dealey plaza.
How do you know this?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 07:34 AM   #1270
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,267
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
HINT: how do you know this? The ”drummer” from Ohio?

How do you know this?
Where was the open mic? Answer the question.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 07:43 AM   #1271
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I ask beacause the microfilm is the evidence allegedly proving Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon and therefore per inference, that Oswald killed JFK.
No, the Klein's business records is the evidence proving Oswald purchased the weapon bearing the serial number C2766 that was found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

And the Commission has copies of those records directly from the microfilm.

The original paper records were discarded after the microfilm was created, and the microfilm became the Klein's permanent business records.

Readable copies of Oswald's transaction with Klein's was printed at the microfilm reader / printer during Waldman's testimony, entered into evidence, and those became the Warren Commission's records of the transaction.

Why was it necessary to retain the microfilm in the Commission records? What's the problem with those paper copies now in existence now in the Archives?

When you go to your public library and ask for copies of the New York Times from the weekend of the assassination, do you get the original paper copies, or do you get microfilm or electronic copies?

If you wish a paper copy of some article to retain for your records, do you take the microfilm home with you, or do you make a separate printed copy of the article from the microfilm and return the microfilm to the rightful owner?

Is your paper photocopy of the original article from the microfilm of the original printed NY Times newspaper somehow less valid because you printed it from the microfilm?


Really, your argument here is meaningless. Beyond meaningless.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Why not let Klein have a copy of the original and keep the evidence in the Commission collections? Why settle for a photograph of the evidence?
Because the microfilm contained more than just Oswald's transactions. The Warren Commission didn't need to retain the microfilm once they had photocopies of Oswald's transactions. You can view those photocopies starting here: https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol21_0358b.htm

Those photocopies of Oswald's business transactions from the microfilm of Klein's business records are suitable as evidence.

Really, you're just looking for something to quibble over.

ALL THIS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU BACK IN GREAT DETAIL IN DECEMBER OF 2015.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=503
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=580
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=587
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=593
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=595

Why are you bringing it up again, now, anew?

Why can't you review the thread and read up on it?
Why must it be reposted for your benefit again?

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; 16th April 2018 at 08:01 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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 07:52 AM   #1272
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
According to whom?
Ballistics experts for the FBI.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If so, how did they get on the rifle?
The way prints typically get on surfaces. From Oswald handling the rifle.

This isn't exactly a stretch. We have a first generation photograph of him holding that exact weapon (and a signed copy too).

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.

Where is the original microfilm?
I don't know. Either it's in the archives or it was returned to Klein's. The FBI got the relevant information from it.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 07:54 AM   #1273
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,511
The next frame of the microfilm had Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. They had to return it to the "Klein's" location so that the truth wouldn't come out.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 08:03 AM   #1274
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Full Fringe Reset to December of 2015.
But of course and with a new tactic perhaps, just continue to ask questions without answering 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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 08:05 AM   #1275
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
Ballistics experts for the FBI.
Can you source it so I know what you are vaguely alluding to?

Quote:
The way prints typically get on surfaces. From Oswald handling the rifle.
How do you know this? How do you know they wasn’t put there from print taken of Oswald before and/or after his execution in the DPD’s basement?

Quote:
This isn't exactly a stretch. We have a first generation photograph of him holding that exact weapon
So, you are using one photo of evidence in order to support another photo of evidence and vice versa in a self reinforcing loop?

Quote:
(and a signed copy too).
Signed by Oswald? According to whom?

Quote:
I don't know. Either it's in the archives or it was returned to Klein's. The FBI got the relevant information from it.
The films box is still in FBI’s care, but the film, the actual evidence, isn’t there and no one knows where it is.

Why save a photograph of the evidence and not the evidence it self?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 08:05 AM   #1276
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
A photograph from an alleged original microfilm is exactly that, a photograph.
It's a photocopy... commonly called a Xerox copy, after the company that invented the photocopier. Today those machines are ubiquitous. It's not a photograph, as in 'taken with a camera'.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Where is the original microfilm?
Asked and answered. Back in December of 2015.

Use the search function.

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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 08:06 AM   #1277
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,367
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
HINT: how do you know this? The ”drummer” from Ohio?
Because there is no identifiable motorcycle cop near that spot when the shots occurred, and certainly none with their mic stuck.

(HINT: Can't be McLain, because when he was told to go the hospital, he hit his siren on. It's not on the recording. Well, maybe not. The siren heard on the recording could be his, but it is from a stationery bike (that's why it has the doppler effect) as the sirens go by it. If the open mic were on McLain's bike, it would be constant pitch and volume. Of course, McLain also says he wasn't in the right spot)
__________________
"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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 08:06 AM   #1278
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
But of course and with a new tactic perhaps, just continue to ask questions without answering any.
What questions do you want me to answer?

You are many. I am one.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 08:08 AM   #1279
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,267
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Can you source it so I know what you are vaguely alluding to?
Are you unable to find it?

Quote:
How do you know this? How do you know they wasn’t put there from print taken of Oswald before and/or after his execution in the DPD’s basement?
Are you claiming the print came to be there in another way?

Quote:
So, you are using one photo of evidence in order to support another photo of evidence and vice versa in a self reinforcing loop?
What are you using?

Quote:
Signed by Oswald? According to whom?
Are you claiming it wasn't Oswald's signature?

Quote:
The films box is still in FBI’s care, but the film, the actual evidence, isn’t there and no one knows where it is.

Why save a photograph of the evidence and not the evidence it self?
What is your explanation?
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2018, 08:09 AM   #1280
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,572
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Can you source it so I know what you are vaguely alluding to?
I thought you were well-read on the subject? Why aren't you pointing out the problems with the known evidence instead of asking us to walk you through everything a step at a time?

Here's the Warren Report.
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ontents_wr.htm

Read it and tell us what issues you have problems with and why. Be specific. Tell us what evidence supports your conclusions. Get back to us when you're actually familiar with this evidence. Or when you decide to drop the "I don't know where the evidence is, I can't find any" game you're playing.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, you are using one photo of evidence in order to support another photo of evidence and vice versa in a self reinforcing loop?
Copies of business records are admissible in criminal court trials. I even quoted the Federal Rules of Evidence on this.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The films box is still in FBI’s care, but the film, the actual evidence, isn’t there and no one knows where it is.
According to whom?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Why save a photograph of the evidence and not the evidence it self?
Asked and answered.

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; 16th April 2018 at 08:13 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 06:35 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.