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!

Reply
Old 1st March 2018, 08:36 AM   #361
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, he concocted a lie while he was being interviewed on the hospital bed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0

Hilarious.
You link a video where he does not give ANY specific number of seconds other than the perhaps 30 seconds where Nellie made a comment to the President that there were many people in Dallas that were for the President. I never indicated that he LIED, quit putting words in my mouth that. You fail miserably again. But all the adults in the room can see your attempts.
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 1st March 2018, 09:00 AM   #362
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, he concocted a lie while he was being interviewed on the hospital bed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0

Hilarious.
There are a wide range of explanations for common human behavior that don't involve intentional deceit.

Most folks that live in the real world understand that.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 09:08 AM   #363
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, he concocted a lie while he was being interviewed on the hospital bed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0

Hilarious.
That's the logical fallacy of a FALSE DILEMMA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]
A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome.


What you're claiming above is there are only two options, either your interpretation of his words are correct, or Connally lied. You want us to reject the "Connally lied" possibility, thus leaving us with only your interpretation.

That's nonsense. I've cautioned you before to check your posts for logical fallacies before you hit the "Submit Reply" button. It appears you're still not taking the time to do that. You really should try to eliminate logical fallacies from your arguments.

(Of course, if you did that, you wouldn't bother to reply most of the time).

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 1st March 2018 at 09:10 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 1st March 2018, 01:38 PM   #364
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,830
Distance of Oswald's longest shot compared with distance Oswald trained at in Marine Corps.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).

Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3137

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 1st March 2018 at 01:52 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 1st March 2018, 02:20 PM   #365
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Distance of Oswald's longest shot compared with distance Oswald trained at in Marine Corps.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).

Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3137

Hank
Has MJ ever admitted which CT book/web site he gets his information?
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 1st March 2018, 03:20 PM   #366
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,214
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Has MJ ever admitted which CT book/web site he gets his information?
The Cat in the Hat
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 03:22 PM   #367
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Has MJ ever admitted which CT book/web site he gets his information?
You can find links to them in a few places on the last thread. He sited one the first time he tried to discredit the acoustical analysis or Dealey Plaza Bob Baer did on his History Channel show. It was a JFK-CT discussion board with a bunch of old guys smelling their own body gasses, and their brains stuck in 1978.

This is the narrated Secret Service Assassination film from 1964:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeLpnnwEQUY

The film quality is fuzzy, but it also shows that the Secret Service wasn't operating under a massive budget, which really wasn't needed, but underscores the pace of the investigation. The film is great because it was made in the days following the shooting, and you can see the TSBD and Dealey Plaza as it was on that day in good detail. Visually it answers a lot of questions about the 6th floor, and Oswald's scope.

The narration and film are clunky, but effective.

This is the Tom Alyea film shot on the 6th floor immediately after the shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1eD6Ac9l_E&t=8s

It shows DPD detectives scouring the 6th floor, and the discovery of the Carcano hidden near the stairs. The raw film canister was tossed out of the window by Alyea to his waiting partner, and was on TV less than an hour later.

I like the Aylea footage and story because it undermines the CT. A random reporter and cameraman were able to run into the crime scene, and the cops were too busy to tell them to get lost. The DPD are seen searching almost every inch of the floor too.
__________________
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 1st March 2018, 07:49 PM   #368
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
That's the logical fallacy of a FALSE DILEMMA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]
A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome.


What you're claiming above is there are only two options, either your interpretation of his words are correct, or Connally lied. You want us to reject the "Connally lied" possibility, thus leaving us with only your interpretation.

That's nonsense. I've cautioned you before to check your posts for logical fallacies before you hit the "Submit Reply" button. It appears you're still not taking the time to do that. You really should try to eliminate logical fallacies from your arguments.

(Of course, if you did that, you wouldn't bother to reply most of the time).

Hank
You seem to know a lot about logical fallacies. In all seriousness, I want to ask you...

Is there a name for the fallacy of arguing via pretending to have bad reading comprehension? (e.g. you arguing with my point about Connally's testimony by simply quoting his description of the time between the second and third shot, and posting it as if he was describing the first and second shot.

Is there a name for the fallacy of questioning somebody's source when the actual source was either self-evident (e.g. nobody trusts stuff from INFOWARS, but obviously things like Trump's last interview on INFOWARS is genuine and shows the real Donald Trump) or contained within the material you provided? (e.g. like when I link to a conspiracy-oriented book or website that itself provides painstakingly documented legitimate sources for the purpose of discussion).

Is there a name for the fallacy of dismissing somebody as a "conspiracy theorist" simply for providing legitimate information on conspiracy research (e.g. "who cares about what neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser says about the X-rays showing a hole in the forehead? Providing evidence for conspiracy makes him a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists can't be trusted)? I would say circular logic, but can that phrase apply to this kind of psychological blockade of cockamamie attempts to discredit an author source?

Is there a name for the fallacy of shoehorning an argument referring to the law or the constitution in a discussion about moral principals? (e.g. "You think Youtube aught to have freedom of speech? Well in the constitution it says corporations can do whatever the xxxx they want!"

That last one does not relate to this discussion, but I have had frequent encounters with it since I often argue subjects like freedom of speech, the role of Police in the USA, the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 election results, etc. Idiots will use the phrase "Democratically elected President" to describe Trump even though Hillary actually won the popular vote. Like, do you care more about your stupid semantics games than loyalty to time-tested principals such as Democracy? /rant

Last edited by MicahJava; 1st March 2018 at 07:50 PM.
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 1st March 2018, 07:53 PM   #369
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Distance of Oswald's longest shot compared with distance Oswald trained at in Marine Corps.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).

Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3137

Hank
Umm... That's with a stationary target, level with the shooting position, right?
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 1st March 2018, 07:58 PM   #370
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,698
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Umm... That's with a stationary target, level with the shooting position, right?
Was it impossible for everyone? Or just Oswald?
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 1st March 2018, 07:59 PM   #371
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Is there a name for someone that when confronted with an actual cycle of failure, rushes to backtrack into that previously failed cycle and attempts to reset their failure meter to zero?

That's the problem we have in your posts. You went right back to your March 2017 conspiracy jive talking points and I have no doubt I'll have previous posts addressing any recycled CT jive you'll post in the future. Thanks!
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:02 PM   #372
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,745
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Distance of Oswald's longest shot compared with distance Oswald trained at in Marine Corps.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).

Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3137

Hank
MicahJava was talking about iron "sights"? Really? If MicahJava claims to know all about the JFK assassination, how come he didn't know something as basic as the fact that Oswald's Carcano was fitted with an Ordinance Optics "Hollywood" x4 power telescopic sight?

A quick lesson for MicahJava, and perhaps others who do not know much about firearms.

Magnification is the ratio of the size of the image to the size of the object. Looking at an object 100 yards away under 2x magnification will make that object appear to be 50 yards away. Looking at it under x4 magnification makes it appear 25 yards away



Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope) is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm. I could teach a complete novice to make that shot three out of four times with less than an hour's instruction (Oswald only made it one out of three). Remember that they do not have hit the actual spot Oswald hit. Almost any head shot at 88 yards with a high power rifle firing a high velocity bullet is a kill shot.

* For reference, its about the same distance that the batter is from the pitcher (or for those of us living in civilized parts of the world, the same distance that the batsman is from the bowler).
__________________
► 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
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
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 1st March 2018, 08:08 PM   #373
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,698
MicahJava, you do know that your running away from answering questions means that you lose, don't you?

You lose.
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 1st March 2018, 08:21 PM   #374
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Umm... That's with a stationary target, level with the shooting position, right?
Thanks! I didn't think you'd fulfill my prediction this quickly, but you're a prolific recycler May, 2017:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post

His head would've been the size of an ant through the iron sights, BStrong.

Tell it to Billy Dixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Dixon

"Dixon led the founders of Adobe Walls to the Texas Plains, where he knew buffalo were in abundance. The group of 28 men and one woman occupied the outpost of five buildings 15 miles northeast of Stinnett.

The outpost was attacked on June 27, 1874, by a band of 700-1200 Indians, and that is when Dixon went into the history books for firing "The Shot of the Century" which effectively ended the siege. Although Dixon states in his biography that it was a "scratch shot", he is still honored to this day with competitions in England and the US that attempt to match his skill.

The stand-off continued into a third day, when a group of Indians were noticed about a mile east of Adobe Walls. It is said that Dixon took aim with a quickly borrowed .50-90 Sharps (as, according to his biography, he only had a .45-90 Sharps and felt it could not reach) buffalo rifle and fired, knocking an Indian near Chief Quanah Parker off his horse almost a mile away on his third shot and killing him. Unnerved, the Indians then withdrew and left the settlement alone. Commemorative "Billy Dixon" model reproduction Sharps rifles that supposedly recreate the specifications of Dixon's famous gun are still available.
"

The distance was later surveyed to be 1538 yards, 7/8's of a mile, iron sights.

Historically not every shooting that involves hits involves actual precision on the part of the shooter. Plenty of individuals barely able to hold "minute-of-man" have scored hits, including headshots.

For my part, had I ever encountered a target that needed shooting in similar or identical circumstances where collateral damage wasn't a concern, a good 1911 pistol would be enough to get the job done - might take more rounds, but 1911's shoot pretty well out to 100 yds.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3938

But wait, there's more! July 2017:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=870

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post


A whole friggin group of Indians coming towards you?

They were in flight when Dixon made his shot. He used a single shot rifle requiring the manipulation of the cocking lever to open the action, eject the empty and insert another cartridge by hand into the chamber. - he did not have the advantage that LHO possessed by having a magazine fed action.

I've advised you several times to avoid firearms and marksmanship as subjects in this discussion.

Too bad you are unable to heed good advice.

XXXXX

He wasn't done, even though the fork was in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=875

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post

Both parties were at ground level, correct?

Incorrect:

The attack commenced on June 26 and raged for three days, with an estimated 700 warriors slain and 70 wounded. Frustrated, the Indians gathered on a distant bluff to reconsider their strategy. Seeing one of the warriors silhouetted, Dixon, who had lost his “Big 50″ Sharps in a skirmish, grabbed a friend’s .50-90 Sharps and fired. The warrior toppled from his horse. Their confidence shattered, the Indians grabbed the body and hastily rode away.

Read more: http://www.rifleshootermag.com/rifle...#ixzz4mZLwMu00

Recreating the shot at the actual location:

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


At some point most people realize that continuing to argue about subjects they know nothing about is detrimental to their cause.

I see you haven't reached that point.

XXXXXXXX

It makes it so much easier when an advocate for a particular opinion has to rely on misinformation and personal inexperience with the subject matter to establish their case.

When someone cites established facts, it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the subject matter. In the case of the Billy Dixon shot, had you read the material it would have saved yourself from making ignorant comments as above.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:22 PM   #375
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Is there a name for the fallacy of arguing via pretending to have bad reading comprehension? (e.g. you arguing with my point about Connally's testimony by simply quoting his description of the time between the second and third shot, and posting it as if he was describing the first and second shot.
I think it's the same Latin phrase describing someone who missuses parenthesis.


Quote:
Is there a name for the fallacy of questioning somebody's source when the actual source was either self-evident (e.g. nobody trusts stuff from INFOWARS, but obviously things like Trump's last interview on INFOWARS is genuine and shows the real Donald Trump) or contained within the material you provided?
It's the same word to describe going off topic because it's impossible to defend your remarks with facts.

Quote:
(e.g. like when I link to a conspiracy-oriented book or website that itself provides painstakingly documented legitimate sources for the purpose of discussion).
No. This is where you're wrong.

You assume the details have been "painstakingly documented", and yet in most every case the details fall apart under scrutiny. This was the same mistake I made back when I was a JFK-CT idiot. The fact is the average JFK-CTist in my day was a Vietnam Era burnout who wanted to create a mythical world where the war never happens if JFK isn't killed. All things JFK CT stem from Vietnam, and sea of BS the war generated on all sides.

Quote:
Is there a name for the fallacy of dismissing somebody as a "conspiracy theorist" simply for providing legitimate information on conspiracy research (e.g. "who cares about what neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser says about the X-rays showing a hole in the forehead? Providing evidence for conspiracy makes him a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists can't be trusted)?
In the doctor's case the word is "Quack".

Here you have an avowed JFK-CT believer making a medical judgement based on less than 10% of the autopsy x-rays, and making an evaluation on a patient he has never seen, and never touched. It's equal to medical doctors who show up on cable news making prognosis on people they have not examined directly.

Specifically, the x-ray does not show a bullet wound to the forehead.


Quote:
I would say circular logic, but can that phrase apply to this kind of psychological blockade of cockamamie attempts to discredit an author source?
You posted photos from the autopsy that clearly show that the skull was sawed open per standard procedure, and in those photos the forehead bone is just visible enough to show no damage from a GSW of any kind.

Plus, the Zapruder Film shows no bullet striking JFK from the front.

You wasted our time with more CT-fluff, so someone of us are annoyed by that.

Quote:
Is there a name for the fallacy of shoehorning an argument referring to the law or the constitution in a discussion about moral principals? (e.g. "You think Youtube aught to have freedom of speech? Well in the constitution it says corporations can do whatever the xxxx they want!"
I don't know, you're the guy who just brought up Trump.

Quote:
That last one does not relate to this discussion, but I have had frequent encounters with it since I often argue subjects like freedom of speech, the role of Police in the USA, the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 election results, etc.
Off topic is off topic. Does not establish credibility.

Quote:
Idiots will use the phrase "Democratically elected President" to describe Trump even though Hillary actually won the popular vote. Like, do you care more about your stupid semantics games than loyalty to time-tested principals such as Democracy? /rant
And this relates to the JFK Assassination how?
__________________
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 1st March 2018, 08:22 PM   #376
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
MicahJava was talking about iron "sights"? Really? If MicahJava claims to know all about the JFK assassination, how come he didn't know something as basic as the fact that Oswald's Carcano was fitted with an Ordinance Optics "Hollywood" x4 power telescopic sight?

A quick lesson for MicahJava, and perhaps others who do not know much about firearms.

Magnification is the ratio of the size of the image to the size of the object. Looking at an object 100 yards away under 2x magnification will make that object appear to be 50 yards away. Looking at it under x4 magnification makes it appear 25 yards away

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y4vcoe3gzv...x225.jpg?raw=1

Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope) is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm. I could teach a complete novice to make that shot three out of four times with less than an hour's instruction (Oswald only made it one out of three). Remember that they do not have hit the actual spot Oswald hit. Almost any head shot at 88 yards with a high power rifle firing a high velocity bullet is a kill shot.

* For reference, its about the same distance that the batter is from the pitcher (or for those of us living in civilized parts of the world, the same distance that the batsman is from the bowler).
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to the reader to falsley infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.

Last edited by MicahJava; 1st March 2018 at 08:32 PM.
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 1st March 2018, 08:24 PM   #377
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to falsely implicate to ta reader skimming this post would infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.
It was easy enough that LHO did it.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:33 PM   #378
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to falsely implicate to ta reader skimming this post would infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.
And yet that's not what he said.

He said:

Quote:
Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope) is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm.
So how's that reading comprehension thing coming along?
__________________
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 1st March 2018, 08:35 PM   #379
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
MicahJava, you do know that your running away from answering questions means that you lose, don't you?

You lose.
What questions? Please be specific. In fact, I'd rather you rephrase them yourself instead of linking to posts written by others? If you can comprehend this material, you should be able to argue the evidence yourself without relying on others. If an argument is legitimately compelling, it can be rephrased in a million ways.
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 1st March 2018, 08:35 PM   #380
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And yet that's not what he said.

He said:



So how's that reading comprehension thing coming along?
I think the flying squirrel is not having the best of weeks.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:36 PM   #381
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And yet that's not what he said.

He said:



So how's that reading comprehension thing coming along?
The same distance as a batter from a pitcher? That's how far away you think JFK and the sniper's nest at z313 was?

Last edited by MicahJava; 1st March 2018 at 08:41 PM.
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 1st March 2018, 08:36 PM   #382
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What questions? Please be specific. In fact, I'd rather you rephrase them yourself instead of linking to posts written by others? If you can comprehend this material, you should be able to argue the evidence yourself without relying on others. If an argument is legitimately compelling, it can be rephrased in a million ways.
If the argument is based on fiction, rephrasing it is even easier.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:58 PM   #383
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The same distance as a batter from a pitcher? That's how far away you think JFK and the sniper's nest at z313 was?
Again, not what he said.

What he said was:

Quote:
Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope) is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm.
Let's break it down:

Quote:
Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope)
Meaning that someone 22 yards away would look the same as someone 88 yards away looking through a scope, and therefore:

Quote:
is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm.
Meaning that someone with significant range time with a scope is going to be equally effective at 88 yards as someone using iron sights would be at 22 yards.

He even used a diagram to illustrate what a target looks like at 100 yards through iron sights. His mistake was that visual aids work well with children and teaching gorillas sign language, but are useless on CTists of any stripe.

Should point out that the distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate is 60 feet, 6 inches, and not 33 feet or 22 yards.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 1st March 2018 at 08:59 PM.
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 1st March 2018, 09:02 PM   #384
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,590
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What questions? Please be specific. In fact, I'd rather you rephrase them yourself instead of linking to posts written by others? If you can comprehend this material, you should be able to argue the evidence yourself without relying on others. If an argument is legitimately compelling, it can be rephrased in a million ways.
You mean like how "Consistent with physical principals" was rephrased into something more cogent to the entire body of NIST's work? That kind of rephrasing?
__________________
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 1st March 2018, 09:03 PM   #385
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Okay, but I said the iron sights alone, not with a scope. The scope in evidence is a piece of crap even factoring in the possibility of it falling on the floor in the snipers nest. So lone nutters like Bugliosi are coming around to the idea that a single shooter used the iron sights, not the scope.
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 1st March 2018, 09:18 PM   #386
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,698
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What questions? Please be specific. In fact, I'd rather you rephrase them yourself instead of linking to posts written by others? If you can comprehend this material, you should be able to argue the evidence yourself without relying on others. If an argument is legitimately compelling, it can be rephrased in a million ways.
You've already lost. Are you ok with that legacy?
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 1st March 2018, 09:31 PM   #387
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What questions? Please be specific. In fact, I'd rather you rephrase them yourself instead of linking to posts written by others? If you can comprehend this material, you should be able to argue the evidence yourself without relying on others. If an argument is legitimately compelling, it can be rephrased in a million ways.
Go to ANY page and look for someone else's post read the question, and answer it(them). Its not like it would take much time to find them, just might take longer for you to answer and admit you've been wrong all along.
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 1st March 2018, 11:09 PM   #388
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Go to ANY page and look for someone else's post read the question, and answer it(them). Its not like it would take much time to find them, just might take longer for you to answer and admit you've been wrong all along.
What are you talking about? In your own words, not a link to somebody else's comment. Remember, a good well-thought-out argument can be rephrased a million ways.
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 1st March 2018, 11:17 PM   #389
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Yearly reminder: Gerald Posner literally lied through his teeth about the EOP/cowlick controversy to make a name for himself in the research community.

Dr. Gary Aguilar's sworn statement:

Under Item Number 7, there were some recent revelations, and for this I have brought copies to give to you. I have three copies for you, and I could make more if they are needed, but three copies I will pass to you. As I mentioned, JFK's pathologist James Humes, J. Thornton Boswell described the entrance to the President's skull wound as being to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance in the original autopsy report. They repeated that assertion in an interview published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on May 27th, 1992.

On November 17th, 1993, author Gerald Posner, the author of the book Case Closed reported to the Congress Committee that he had interviewed both Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell at apparently the same time they were interviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992. Mr. Posner reported that Drs. Humes and Boswell told him that JFK's skull wound was not low and near the rear, near the external occipital protuberance, but rather it was high in the President's skull.

Mr. Posner indicated during his testimony to the Representative of Congress that he would ask Dr. Humes and Boswell for permission to release information on his interviews with them, but he has not done so to my knowledge.

On March 30th of this year, I, myself, called both Drs. Humes and Boswell to inquire about Mr. Posner's report of their surprising turnabout on this important question. Dr. Humes indicated to me that he stood firmly by his statements in JAMA. Dr. Boswell also told me that he had never changed his mind about the low location of JFK's skull wound and, moreover, Dr. Boswell told me that had never spoken with Mr. Posner. I have a recording of this and I would be happy to leave it with you, if you would like. As I spoke with both pathologists four-and-a-half months after Mr. Posner's claim, I am baffled at this discrepancy.


https://web.archive.org/web/20180302...rb/index74.htm

Wow. How desperate can you get?

Last edited by MicahJava; 1st March 2018 at 11:19 PM.
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 2nd March 2018, 01:27 AM   #390
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,745
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to the reader to falsley infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.
Its not a trick, ITS A FACT.

A target 88 yards away, through a x4 scope PRESENTS EXACTLY THE SAME TARGET SIZE to the shooter as the same target 22 yards away over iron sights.

Your problem, is that your demonstrated ignorance regarding firearms gets in the way of your ability to understand what you are reading.... i.e, you have no *********** idea what you are talking about
__________________
► 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
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
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 2nd March 2018, 01:44 AM   #391
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,745
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, but I said the iron sights alone, not with a scope. The scope in evidence is a piece of crap even factoring in the possibility of it falling on the floor in the snipers nest. So lone nutters like Bugliosi are coming around to the idea that a single shooter used the iron sights, not the scope.
Another completely fact free post in which you are just flat out lying and making stuff up as you go.

Tom Alyea found Oswald's rifle WITH THE SCOPE STILL ATTACHED

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
__________________
► 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
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
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 2nd March 2018, 01:46 AM   #392
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,411
I have to ask...
Were the US marines only trained to fight in perfectly level fields of combat, from ground based positions, where they can lay prone.

Because I am struggling to imagine what, about the snipers nest would make the shot difficult.

He was in an elevated position, where he could brace his rifle, and was shooting on a target with minimal sideward motion. It was moving away from him, but not moving within his field of fire.

Isn’t that what snipers do?
__________________
@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 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 2nd March 2018, 05:12 AM   #393
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, he concocted a lie while he was being interviewed on the hospital bed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0

Hilarious.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
That's the logical fallacy of a FALSE DILEMMA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]
A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome.


What you're claiming above is there are only two options, either your interpretation of his words are correct, or Connally lied. You want us to reject the "Connally lied" possibility, thus leaving us with only your interpretation.

That's nonsense. I've cautioned you before to check your posts for logical fallacies before you hit the "Submit Reply" button. It appears you're still not taking the time to do that. You really should try to eliminate logical fallacies from your arguments.

(Of course, if you did that, you wouldn't bother to reply most of the time).
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You seem to know a lot about logical fallacies. In all seriousness, I want to ask you...

Is there a name for the fallacy of arguing via pretending to have bad reading comprehension? (e.g. you arguing with my point about Connally's testimony by simply quoting his description of the time between the second and third shot, and posting it as if he was describing the first and second shot.
Yes, it's called a straw man argument. That's where you pretend I'm advancing one point, and attack that, while ignoring the point I actually made.

I quoted Connally's total time estimate from his Warren Commission testimony (10 to 12 seconds), and divided by two to get the time between individual shots (five to six seconds). Note that Connally didn't specify the time between the first and second shot was longer or shorter than the time between shots two and three. I also quoted his HSCA testimony 15 years later, where his time estimate came down to six to ten seconds, but where he also specifically denied a short time span between any two shots. Ergo, he thought the time span between the first two shots was roughly equivalent to the time span between the last two shots.

You are pretending I quoted "his description of the time between the second and third shot, and posting it as if he was describing the first and second shot." I didn't do that whatsoever.

You're making that up. Go back and read it again, this time for comprehension. I quoted his time estimate for the entire shooting, and divided by two. I also approached this a different way, and pointed out the actual elapsed time as seen in the Zapruder film for the second to third shots (the two hits the Governor spoke of) is about five seconds. The two hits occurred at approximately Zapruder frames 223 and 313 (90 frames divided by 18.3 fps equals 4.9 seconds) and the Governor estimated a low of ten seconds, so that would leave another approximately five seconds for the elapsed time between the first and second shot (ten seconds minus five seconds equals five seconds). Of course, if the Governor's high estimate is allowed of 12 seconds for the entire shooting, then that leaves as much as seven seconds between the first and second shots.

If you have any questions how I derived these numbers, ask.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Is there a name for the fallacy of questioning somebody's source when the actual source was either self-evident (e.g. nobody trusts stuff from INFOWARS, but obviously things like Trump's last interview on INFOWARS is genuine and shows the real Donald Trump) or contained within the material you provided? (e.g. like when I link to a conspiracy-oriented book or website that itself provides painstakingly documented legitimate sources for the purpose of discussion).
The sources are not the problem. For the most part, everyone is familiar with the evidence you utilize, or your conspiracy sources utilize. The problem is the *interpretation* of the evidence. So when some CT source writes an article and *claims* that the CE399 bullet isn't the one found in Parkland, or some CT source writes a book that *claims* Oswald was a CIA asset, or whatever, that doesn't make it so. And your citing that article or that book (and claiming, hilariously, that it must be true because it has citations)1 doesn't make your claim true either.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Is there a name for the fallacy of dismissing somebody as a "conspiracy theorist" simply for providing legitimate information on conspiracy research (e.g. "who cares about what neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser says about the X-rays showing a hole in the forehead? Providing evidence for conspiracy makes him a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists can't be trusted)?
Nobody claimed that. That's the straw man argument again. The point is their arguments rely on the same evidence everyone is familiar with, and just because someone comes up with a different *interpretation* of that evidence doesn't make them correct.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I would say circular logic, but can that phrase apply to this kind of psychological blockade of cockamamie attempts to discredit an author source?
Is there a name for the fallacy of citing an authority who says something that on the surface appears to support your argument, but when examined, actually contradicts your argument? I'm guessing it's a reading comprehension problem or a willful ignorance of the argument advanced.

I'm remembering you advanced one pathologist's claim that a bullet hit in the EOP area to support your argument that a bullet hit there, but that same pathologist also said the bullet exited the top of the head, so you wound up citing a pathologist who claimed that which you specifically argue against, as you have claimed it's not possible for the bullet to strike the EOP and exit the top of the head.

Your own cited source says the outcome is what you claim is impossible. Thanks again for destroying your own argument.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Is there a name for the fallacy of shoehorning an argument referring to the law or the constitution in a discussion about moral principals? (e.g. "You think Youtube aught to have freedom of speech? Well in the constitution it says corporations can do whatever the xxxx they want!"
Nobody here advanced that. If this is an analogy about the JFK argument advanced, why not use the actual argument to illustrate the point?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That last one does not relate to this discussion, but I have had frequent encounters with it since I often argue subjects like freedom of speech, the role of Police in the USA, the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 election results, etc. Idiots will use the phrase "Democratically elected President" to describe Trump even though Hillary actually won the popular vote. Like, do you care more about your stupid semantics games than loyalty to time-tested principals such as Democracy? /rant
Nobody here is playing the semantics game except you. I'm reminded of Lifton building his entire case for body alteration by conspirators around his reading comprehension problem, and insisting that the FBI memo that mentioned 'surgery of the head area' had to apply only to some pre-autopsy medical procedure, rather than simply a bullet taking off the top of the President's head. You constantly take one phrase or claim out of context and pretend your interpretation of the phrase or the claim should be accepted, and you ignore all arguments that point out your interpretation is contrary to a lot of the other evidence you're ignoring.

All the best.

Hank

PS: You didn't respond to the actual points I made whatsoever. You simply pretended I advanced a series of logical fallacies, and then asked me to name the logical fallacy for your pretense. Now try rebutting the points I actually made. You do use this avoidance technique constantly. You never rebut the point made, but use logical fallacies and rhetoric to appear to have a rebuttal argument. And everyone here sees it.

__________________________

1 You argued that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=280
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 2nd March 2018 at 06:57 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 2nd March 2018, 05:35 AM   #394
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Another completely fact free post in which you are just flat out lying and making stuff up as you go.

Tom Alyea found Oswald's rifle WITH THE SCOPE STILL ATTACHED

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
The scope of off to the left side. You can look down the iron sights without using the scope. You should know this by now.
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 2nd March 2018, 05:55 AM   #395
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Umm... That's with a stationary target, level with the shooting position, right?
Your pretense that the 60-foot elevation of the shooter shooting at a slow-moving target moving downhill and almost directly away from the shooter makes a significant difference is just that, pretense.

Your original argument was that Oswald couldn't hit JFK in the head at 88 yards with the iron sights because "the people look like ants" from the sixth floor was destroyed because Oswald practiced by shooting at targets 500 yards distant in the Marines.

So like a dutiful little CT, you employ the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts. With your original complaint demolished, you now pivot and bring up a different complaint about the shooting that you haven't establish has any more legitimacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/..._the_Goalposts

Moving the Goalposts
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied.


Please quote the expert testimony that elevation matters and is somehow a hindrance to accurate shooting. Please quote the expert testimony that hitting a target moving almost directly away from 88 yards is substantially more difficult that hitting a stationary one at more than five times the distance (500 yards).

We'll await your attempt to establish your complaint here is a legitimate one. You never will. You simply read it in a conspiracy book / website somewhere and assumed it was true. So you repeat it here as if it were meaningful. It has no more meaning than your "the people look like ants" complaint.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:09 AM   #396
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I could teach a complete novice to make that shot three out of four times with less than an hour's instruction (Oswald only made it one out of three). Remember that they do not have [to] hit the actual spot Oswald hit. Almost any head shot at 88 yards with a high power rifle firing a high velocity bullet is a kill shot.

* For reference, its about the same distance that the batter is from the pitcher (or for those of us living in civilized parts of the world, the same distance that the batsman is from the bowler).
I can confirm your contention. On July 5th, 2015, using a 1917 Carcano obtained by my nephew (ex-U.S. Military), having never fired a firearm in my life, and with about two minutes of instruction from my nephew, I made one of three shots on a life-sized upper body target in my first attempt, and three of three on my second attempt (four of six overall). The target was 100 yards away, and we used the iron sights.

Oswald's rifle was 23 years old (manufactured 1940) when he used it in 1963. Ours was 98 years old when we used it - more than four times as old.

Summary: Using a 98-year-old weapon at 100 yards, with two minutes of instruction, I averaged hitting two of three shots on a life-sized upper body target.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 2nd March 2018 at 06:11 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 2nd March 2018, 06:16 AM   #397
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The scope of off to the left side. You can look down the iron sights without using the scope. You should know this by now.
Not the point. Oswald trained at 500 yards using iron sights. The longest shot during the assassination was only 88 yards. He was fully capable of hitting JFK using that weapon using the iron sights, despite your complaint that the people would look like ants from the sixth floor.

The scope was a four-power scope, and if accurately aligned, would make the target appear four times closer - or just 22 yards away. That's 66 feet, or roughly equivalent to the distance between the batter and the pitcher in a baseball game (that distance is 60 feet, six inches).

Surely you can throw a ball accurately that distance. An aimed rifle would be far more accurate than your throw.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:30 AM   #398
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to the reader to falsley infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.
Speaking of a reading comprehension issue, I am sure the other readers didn't have the issue understanding the points made as you just displayed.

I'm also certain that the other readers understand that you're pretending an 88-yard shot at an elevation at a target moving slowly almost directly away from the shooter is difficult for an ex-marine who trained by shooting at 10-inch targets at 500 yards.

You have yet to establish that. Go ahead, we'll wait. Cite the expert testimony that claims that. You can't, because there is none. You simply drank the CT Kool-Aid, believing claims on websites because they have citations1.

Hank

_______________

1 Like this one.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:35 AM   #399
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,698
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
[b][u][color="Red"][/color][/u][/b]

[color="Blue"][/color]


[b][u][color="Red"]Wow. How desperate can you get?[/color][/u][/b]
Are you so desperate to run away from answering questions? You've already lost.
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 2nd March 2018, 06:37 AM   #400
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,698
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The scope of off to the left side. You can look down the iron sights without using the scope. You should know this by now.
Here are some questions you keep scampering away from answering: Was it an impossible shot for anyone? Or just Oswald?

If it was an impossible shot, why do you sometimes seem to argue for more than one shot to the head?

Which side of your mouth can you answer 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
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 11:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.