|
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. |
16th October 2017, 06:24 AM | #1881 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Addendum: To all of you cowlick entry theorists, do you all just believe that possible bullet fragment in the upper neck reported by Cyril Wecht was just an X-ray artifact? Because if some experts were to examine the JFK X-rays at the National Archives and confirm that the X-rays do indeed show a bullet fragment in the upper neck, wouldn't the cowlick entry theory be essentially over?
|
16th October 2017, 06:26 AM | #1882 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 06:28 AM | #1883 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 06:30 AM | #1884 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 06:30 AM | #1885 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
16th October 2017, 06:45 AM | #1886 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Straw man argument. The 2 in 6 is the overall total. Reading comprehension is still a net positive, whether or not you're a conspiracy theorist.
So that logic would apply to Oswald's shooting attempt from the sixth floor of the Depository building as well, right? Congratulations, you just disproved your own prior argument that there is anything suspicious or noteworthy about CE543, the shell with the dented lip recovered from the sixth floor. And there is no "or not". The shell must be empty to get that dent when ejected. It can also be used to solve chronic flatulence. Does it pass the sniff test? Either plug is simply speculation. I remind you that the vast majority of witnesses heard three shots -- not more, not less. THREE. And that's the number of expended shells found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Again, the simplest of logarithmic calculations should establish there is one shell found for each shot heard, and ergo, for each shot fied. And ergo, CE543 contained and fired a bullet during the assassination. Not sure what exactly is your problem with this reconstruction at this point. Which of course you are introducing here as a way to change the subject and extricate yourself from your nonsense argument about CE543 being unable to be fired from Oswald's rifle on the day of the assassination. 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 |
|
16th October 2017, 07:21 AM | #1887 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
See the bolded above. I can give examples.
One is the chapter title of Chapter 5... "Why Oswald Was Wanted". He points out that a eyewitness description of the shooter went out at about 12:45: "A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey Oswald's description, was broadcast by the Dallas police just before 12,45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at President Kennedy." After quoting erroneous statements by various people, Lane asks, but never establishes the central question of that chapter: "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald least 30 minutes before Tippit was shot?" Oswald was never wanted for either murder. NEVER. And certainly not at 12:45. That description that went out at that time did not mention Oswald by name. It was a description provided by a witness outside the building to the shooting, and was most likely provided by Howard Brennan, who was sitting directly across Elm Street from the Depository's front door and had a view of the sixth floor. Separate from that, and about 45 minutes later, a suspicious person was reported to the police entering the Texas Theatre by Julia Postal. She was asked to call the police because Johnny Brewer saw a person duck into the alcove of his shoe store down the block from the theatre shortly after he heard on the radio a police officer had been shot in the vicinity. Brewer asked Postal to call the police after he determined that suspicious person had not bought a movie ticket from Postal, and had ducked into the theatre without paying. Brewer went inside to ascertain whether that suspicious person was still in the theatre, or had left by one of the exit doors. Brewer determined the exit doors had not been utilized, and that the person he saw was still in the theatre. He pointed out that person to the police, and when that person was approached by Officer McDonald... Here, let Brewer's testimony describe it from that point: Mr. BREWER - Well, just before they came. they turned the house lights on, and I looked out from the curtains and saw the man. Mr. BELIN - Where was he when you saw him? Mr. BREWER - He was in the center section about six or seven rows, from the back, toward the back. Mr. BELIN - Toward the back? Are you sure? Mr. Brewer, do you know exactly which row he was in from the back? Mr. BREWER - No; I don't know which row. Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see? Mr. BREWER - He stood up and walked to the aisle to his right and then he turned around and walked back and sat down and at this time there was no place I could see. Mr. BELIN - Did he sit down in the same seat he had been in to begin with? Mr. BREWER - I don't remember if it was the same seat or not. Mr. BELIN - Then what happened? Mr. BREWER - I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was filled with police cars and policemen were on the fire exits and stacked around the alley, and they grabbed me, a couple of them and held and searched me and asked me what I was doing there, and I told them that there was a guy in the theatre that I was suspicious of, and he asked me if he was still there. And I said, yes, I just seen him. And he asked me if I would point him out. And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in from the front of the show, I guess, coming toward that way, and officers going from the back. Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see? Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald? Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name. Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald? Mr. BREWER - Yes. Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man? Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show. Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first? Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat. Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who? Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up. Mr. BELIN - When you say he was---- Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air. Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came? Mr. BREWER - No. Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air? Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun." And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him. Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time? Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back. Mr. BELIN - Then what happened? Mr. BREWER - Well, just in a short time they put the handcuffs on him and they took him out. Oswald wasn't wanted at the time of his arrest. Nobody went to the theatre to arrest a person named Oswald. When Postal called the police, she didn't report a person named Oswald snuck into the theatre. She said this: Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I told Johnny this, don't tell him, because he is an excitable person, and just have him, you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good, so, he came back and said he hadn't seen anything although, he had heard a seat pop up like somebody getting out, but there was nobody around that area, so, I told Johnny about the fact that the President had been assassinated. "I don't know if this is the man they want," I said, "in there, but he is running from them for some reason," and I said "I am going to call the police, and you and Butch go get on each of the exit doors and stay there." So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you,"... The very title of Lane's Chapter 5 is a straw man argument. He is claiming Oswald was wanted, and he never was. Hank PS: If you're going to defend a book, try to get the title correct in the future. There is only one "E" in the title of Mark Lane's first book on the assassination. It's RUSH TO JUDGMENT, not RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. |
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 07:33 AM | #1888 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Already provided it.
It was the HSCA Firearms panel, specifically the testimony of Champagne. I covered it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...A#post12031987 I even bolded it for you in that post. Mr. CHAMPAGNE. We also examined Federal tests. Of two tests that we examined, one of them also had an indented mouth. 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 |
|
16th October 2017, 07:36 AM | #1889 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 07:44 AM | #1890 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 07:45 AM | #1891 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Duplicate post deleted.
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 07:47 AM | #1892 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 07:48 AM | #1893 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 08:06 AM | #1894 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 08:27 AM | #1895 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Why would they note a damaged lip?
You're presuming it is something unusual that should have been noted by the FBI. But if it's a perfectly normal occurrence as others here have pointed out (and you yourself seemed to suggest above*) why would the FBI note it at the time? The HSCA firearms panel noted it because critics raised this bogus issue between the issuing of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence in 1964 and the formation of the HSCA in 1977. The FBI tests came before the issuance of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence. I already pointed all this out to you. Hank ______________________ * Here: |
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 08:28 AM | #1896 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
16th October 2017, 08:35 AM | #1897 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Micah Java:
Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion. Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy. Just the most reasonable. Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true: 1. 90% of the Dealey Plaza witness stated heard exactly three shots, no more, no less. 2. Three shells were recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository about 45 minutes after the shooting. What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here? 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 |
|
16th October 2017, 08:37 AM | #1898 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Why are you answering questions for us by begging the question, and when I ask you to explain, you beg the same question again?
Is it because if you beg the question, you think you're making a valid point? Begging the Question is a logical fallacy, no matter who does it. Or how often they repeat that logical fallacy. 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 |
|
16th October 2017, 08:40 AM | #1899 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 08:44 AM | #1900 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 08:47 AM | #1901 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 09:00 AM | #1902 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
And the source's source's source? And ad infinitum.
Are you questioning Champagne's testimony? One what basis? You haven't shown this dented shell is at all an abnormal occurrence of any kind when ejected from the rifle. You already conceded your conspiracy theorist also reproduced one dented lip on a shell on one of his earliest trials. You admit that the HSCA produced one dented lip on a shell out of four test bullets fired. You admitted it's possible - even likely - that the mechanism produces dented shells. Why would I presume that researching this and determining Champagne's source and providing it to you will end this line of argument by you? We both know it won't. Where do you propose we go from here? 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 |
|
16th October 2017, 09:00 AM | #1903 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Dealey Plaza witnesses were around 50/50 or 40/60 on whether the three gunshots sounded like they came from the Depository or the knoll. The HSCA roped off Dealey Plaza in the 70's and fired gunshots from the sniper's nest and the knoll and had two observers stand around in several places and report their perception of the shots. They were about 90% correct in reporting the direction of the shots. This study have have even somehow been conducted firing real rounds, as they also have a portion where they test a "subsonic pistol".
This experiment should be replicated factoring in everything we know about the conditions at the time of the assassination (crowd noises, motorcycle backfire, firing real rounds into gel, more observers). But for now, what does the evidence show us? If we abandon the idea that a Carcano shooting from the sixth floor could cause half of 100+ witnesses to report shots coming from the knoll, then there are a few options: 1. There were shots from the knoll. 2. There was a diversion like a firecracker on the knoll. 3. Shots were fired from behind using a supersonic ammunition in conjunction with a noise-suppressor, which can create the auditory illusion that the gunfire originates from the opposite direction. #3 sounds the most likely, but there are another couple of innocent explanations I've heard before: The sound of the round colliding with Kennedy's skull created a noise almost as loud as an actual gunshot. And also, Lillian Rogers' allegations of a seeing a woman's small child near the "black dog man" location throwing a glass coke bottle against the stockade fence. |
16th October 2017, 09:01 AM | #1904 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 09:08 AM | #1905 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 09:12 AM | #1906 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
You are implying that I said Wecht was lying, no such evidence in my statement, as Hank points out just begging the question again and again and again. Stating it over and over in this thread will never make it true. No other competent forensic pathologist has noticed a fragment in the neck. And that would be because there was never a fragment, just CT's imagination.
I would be careful implying anyone in this discussion is a child, for it is you who continually posts nonsense when those post have been destroyed. Look into the mirror. |
16th October 2017, 09:25 AM | #1907 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Now you just need evidence for any shots having come from anywhere other than the TSBD, fired from any weapon other than Oswald's rifle and the three shots he fired. When will you be starting on that?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
16th October 2017, 09:29 AM | #1908 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
One might think that the options to choose are ones that could cause the other half of 100+ witnesses to report shots coming from the book depository. The idea of an alternative theory is that is has greater explanatory power than the conventional one, not that it fails to explain a different subset of the results.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
16th October 2017, 09:34 AM | #1909 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=127
Here's a direct link to the issue of Forensic Science, read for free: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0094327490020X |
16th October 2017, 09:38 AM | #1910 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 09:39 AM | #1911 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
16th October 2017, 09:43 AM | #1912 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Apparently RoboTimbo can't grasp the concept of a shooter hiding his weapon and picking up his shell casings.
And why didn't we hear about any possible bullets recovered from the limousine? Why not start with the fact that the limousine was a notoriously botched forensic investigation. Two FBI guys only went so far as to tell the Warren Commission that they cleaned up the guys and tried to see if anything felt like a bullet. What about John Connally's Mexican peso cuffing? And a Secret Service memo from days later mentioned that the limousine still had brain and skull fragments. |
16th October 2017, 09:48 AM | #1913 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 09:54 AM | #1914 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
16th October 2017, 10:14 AM | #1915 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
16th October 2017, 10:56 AM | #1916 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
You didn't answer my question whatsoever.
From the two facts presented, and only those two facts, what is the most reasonable conclusion? Try to answer without avoiding the question and introducing a bunch of spurious side issues. Here's the post in question again. I bolded the question you're supposed to be answering. 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 |
|
16th October 2017, 10:58 AM | #1917 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:05 AM | #1918 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Hilarious. You've been schooled on every issue you've brought up from CT land. You apparently can't grasp the concept of evidence for your CT WAGS. Are you at all upset that you haven't gotten one thing right?
Why were you afraid to quote the actual post I wrote where you were asked for evidence? |
16th October 2017, 11:06 AM | #1919 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th October 2017, 11:11 AM | #1920 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Nobody is ignoring that half. We can discuss the validity of the side issues you're attempting to introduce into the discussion separately (and in fact, we have already discussed most or all of those issues already, and shown why they aren't worthy of consideration).
You were asked to provide the most reasonable conclusion from two facts, and two facts only. Instead, you brought in some other very debatable issues that aren't facts, and then derived your conclusion from those very debatable claims. Again: Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion. Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy. Just the most reasonable. Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true: 1. 90% of the Dealey Plaza witness stated heard exactly three shots, no more, no less. 2. Three shells were recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository about 45 minutes after the shooting. What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here? 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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|