|
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, 11:17 AM | #1921 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:19 AM | #1922 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
There is a lot to unpack here. It leaves me with some questions.
1) Can you cite accurately that half the witnesses heard the shot coming from the knoll? An exact number? 2) What makes their testimony inherently more accurate or reliable than those placing the shots elsewhere, from a variable number of directions and locations? 3) I would love to know how you deduce intent from the photographs. How you look at people rushing towards the grassy knoll, and tell from the photographs that people are towardsa source of gunfire, and not away from a target? My personal feeling, on looking at films and photographs of the event, is not that people are rushing to find a shooter. I don't think my opinion of photographs is worth a damn (which is entirely the point), but if I were asked, I would suggest that it looked to me, as though people were fleeing the shooting, to a fence onto a rail yard. Rather sensibly, if you got over the fence, you would be out of line of sight, and would be able to seek cover behind a wagon. Unless you have identified each person in the photographs, and have their testimony of why they were moving that way, and if they were intending to investigate the sight of a shooter, it is unwise to suggest a reason can be discerned. Of course some people thought they saw or heard something suspicious, but over the years these claims have been contradictory or unsupported by other evidence. Lots emerge only after the story of the knoll took traction, with muddy boot prints on a bumper that "might have been somebody taking aim" (or as likely, somebody getting comfy to watch the president) evolving to complex stories of workmen dismantling rifles and making a get away (later tracked down and found to be innocent), to the suspiciously detailed and extravagant (yet surprisingly often failing to key in with each other. I like Martin Fido's description of one of the mob-based memoirs, when he wonders how so few people noticed something like the Apalachian Mob Convention sneaking into positions around the Plaza (including the TSBD), firing away like Bilio, then scarpering on their wing tipped toes. IIRC the memoir gleefully included everybody the "Buffs" had identified, but one name vanished between the advanced review copies and first printing to hit the stands, when it was realised the publishers would probably get sued by a "stand-by marksman" identified near the knoll, whose soul basis for suspicion was his moving around the country too often for armchair buffs to track down and interview. The perfectly innocent Pastor, whose job took him all over the USA, had no idea, as it happened, that he was being accused of a connection to murder and the mob, for years before some aging gangsters wanted to make a quick buck. Other stories, such as somebody thinking they could smell cordite as they drove past, may well be an honest recollection, but one better explained by the quirks of how we bolster our memories to make them stick, than the likelihood of gunpowder smells having an unusual potency and reach in this one case alone. |
__________________
@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). |
|
16th October 2017, 11:37 AM | #1923 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity.
Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist? And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway? Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like? And here's part of Wecht's conclusion: 5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only. So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head. You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right? Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
16th October 2017, 11:41 AM | #1924 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:46 AM | #1925 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:48 AM | #1926 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:50 AM | #1927 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:50 AM | #1928 |
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, 11:55 AM | #1929 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:57 AM | #1930 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 11:58 AM | #1931 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 12:01 PM | #1932 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 12:03 PM | #1933 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
One - Oswald. Do you know anything about the JFK assassination that your one CT source hasn't told you?
Quote:
|
16th October 2017, 12:04 PM | #1934 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 12:04 PM | #1935 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Then why doesn't the original pathologists report on it?
The HSCA? Wecht himself says your theories are wrong. See below. And why did you avoid all my points? The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity. Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist? And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway? Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like? And here's part of Wecht's conclusion: 5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only. So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head. You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right? Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
16th October 2017, 12:07 PM | #1936 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
"I can see you make a habit of missing the point" - Officer Rick Grimes to Merle Dixon in season 1, episode 2 of "The Walking Dead".
Try answering the question from the facts provided. 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? |
__________________
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, 12:10 PM | #1937 |
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, 12:19 PM | #1938 |
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
|
Right. A number of people, led by police officers, heard the shots and ran immediately towards the grassy knoll, but didn't see anyone hiding a gun. But someone was definitely shooting from there, because reasons.
People who are intelligent enough to tie their own shoelaces realise that people can be seen doing things out in the open, when they can't necessarily be seen doing the same things when they've ducked down below the window of a building. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, seem to get that one the wrong way round. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
16th October 2017, 12:25 PM | #1939 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Despite your pretense your argument is identical to ours, nothing could be further than the truth.
The difference is "our gun" (Oswald's weapon) was found, and could be tied to not only three shells found at the sniper's nest window, but to a nearly whole bullet found in Parkland, as well as two large fragments found in the Presidential Limousine after the shooting. Not only that, but the autopsy, and all subsequent reviews of the extant autopsy materials, found that the President was shot twice, and both shots came from above and behind the decedent. And when the gun was found, it was photographed in place, and eventually traced to a person who worked in the Depository. And we have witnesses who saw that person with a large package on the morning of the assassination. See, we have actual evidence that there was a gun in question, we can show you photos of it, we can show you evidence it was fired during the assassination, the damage it was responsible for, and we can show you who purchased it, and how they got it into the Depository. Now, as to your weapon, your evidence is an imagined gun, that is imagined to be hidden, imagined to be removed somehow later, and imagined to cause damage that no one could attribute to it, with imagined bullets that caused imagined wounds. Despite your pretense your argument is identical to ours, nothing could be further than the truth. When we talk about a gun hidden away, we have the actual evidence to point to that all the way up and down the line to support our argument. You have nothing but your imagination to support your argument. Now we tie that to your expert's conclusion that no shots came from the knoll from the document you cited. 5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only. So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head. You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right? And what really do we have for evidence of a grassy knoll assassin? Nothing. 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, 12:31 PM | #1940 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I'm more suspicious of the HSCA than Cyril Wecht, but who's to say they didn't just overlook that? A couple of them had already dismissed the purported fragments in the lower neck as X-ray film artifacts. I haven't read the HSCA materials in a while, I don't think it mentions this particle on the upper neck area.
Wecht may not be qualified to analyze the complexities of the existent JFK skull X-rays, but he can spot a fragment. What kind of cockamamie game are you trying to play here? Wecht's job is to perform autopsies and determine the cause of death. He can locate the general area of bullet fragments if he needs to. |
16th October 2017, 12:49 PM | #1941 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
One of the pieces of evidence that collectively and individually proves the small wound near Kennedy's external occipital protuberance:
1. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the brain had already been removed. 2. Finck repeatedly stated that he could examine this wound in the scalp as well as the outer and inner surface of Kennedy's empty cranium. 3. In order to remove a brain, you must first separate the top of the skull. The area endorsed by the HSCA as the location of the entry wound, 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance rather than right next to it, would have to be among the areas of skull separated. 4. Since the purported cowlick defect is right beside the large head wound, and the Doctor's statements indicated that the area around the large defect was so damaged that virtually no sawing of the skull was necessary to remove the top of the skull, any entry in the skull 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance would also separate. 5. Dr. Finck repeatedly denied that the entry wound he examined was a previously-removed fragment of skull bone. He emphasized that the wound he examined was undisturbed by the brain removal procedure. 6. At least a couple of later statements by the autopsy doctors indicate that a special incision was made low in the scalp to expose the outer surface of the small wound low near the base of the head, after the scalp had already been reflected to remove the top of the skull. |
16th October 2017, 12:50 PM | #1942 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
This argument is your baby, and you don't know what supports it or contradicts it? And your best argument is "maybe they looked it?"
Hilarious. You told us it took forensic radiologists, not pathologists, to do this right, remember? You told us forensic pathologists don't count. You claimed only forensic radiologists would be qualified to read the x-rays: But when you can find a pathologist who you can quote out of context and ignore their conclusions, why, then, pathologists can read x-rays just fine. 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, 12:54 PM | #1943 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@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). |
|
16th October 2017, 12:55 PM | #1944 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Yeah, we covered every one of those items in the past. Your conclusions don't mean squat.
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A RECOGNIZED EXPERT IN THE FIELD. Wecht's conclusions do mean squat. And he said no shots from the right front. And only one shot to the head. Right? And I'm still waiting for you to address my points, not ignore them: The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity. Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist? And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway? Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like? And here's part of Wecht's conclusion: 5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only. So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head. You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right? Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
16th October 2017, 12:57 PM | #1945 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
So, Policemen don't help guide people to safety? They don't rush to help individuals? They don't seek cover from which to look for the shooter? They are less likely than others to be fooled by echoes?
Is this what happens in other shootings? Is this the ONLY possibility? |
__________________
@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). |
|
16th October 2017, 01:02 PM | #1946 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@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). |
|
16th October 2017, 03:36 PM | #1947 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
The cowlick entry theory is totally incompatible with the statements of the autopsy pathologists and numerous autopsy witnesses, including Dr. Finck who not only swore the location of the entrance wound in the back of the head was right next to the external occipital protuberance, but also described examining the empty cranium in a way that can not be true unless the wound was where he said it was.
|
16th October 2017, 04:21 PM | #1948 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Discussed ad nauseum. Other than you, who says this is the case?
You appear to believe that bringing up some points, seeing them trashed, then waiting three months to bring up the exact same trashed points again is a valid debate strategy. And why are you avoiding responding to any of my points just to reiterate your own already trashed points? You can start with the ones about Mark Lane. You avoided those points entirely. 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. _______________________ And then there was this exchange: You know that how? How many of Lane's assertions did you INDEPENDENTLY attempt to verify by checking his claims against the actual evidence he cites? 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, 04:27 PM | #1949 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 04:30 PM | #1950 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
16th October 2017, 04:34 PM | #1951 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
16th October 2017, 04:36 PM | #1952 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Wow, you said that like you know what you're talking about. Problem is that the ejection process was explained to you, and you either ignored it or can't understand it.
Chris Mills went on a fishing expedition, his results are his alone seeing as many others have recreated the slight dent in the cartridge.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 04:58 PM | #1953 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
We're not saying he lied, we're saying he's wrong. Out of all the pathologists who reviewed the evidence at the National Archives he was the ONLY ONE to make this claim. Wecht wants a CT to be real, his theory is based on the timing of the shots in the Zapruder Film, which he thinks is too fast. The reason he thinks it's too fast is because he bought into the lie of "the best marksmen couldn't recreate" the shots. Right from the start the good doctor starts from a mistaken concept.
Then Wecht goes onto say that no single bullet could do the all that damage, which is not supported by the mountain of evidence to the contrary. So if the guy can't get the basic facts right why should anyone listen to him? |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 05:03 PM | #1954 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
I answered all this. You avoided a response entirely. Other than your imaginary shooter shooting an imaginary weapon and hiding that imaginary weapon that fired imaginary bullets and did imaginary damage, and picking up and hiding his imaginary shell casings, what evidence do you have for a grassy knoll shooter?
I would help if some of the men you've assured us in the past were experts and couldn't be wrong also agreed with you and the theory you're attempting to advance. Folks like Wecht, Humes, Boswell and Finck. Uh, maybe because two bullets struck JFK and both were accounted for? Just a wild guess, but doesn't this explain why there was no bullet recovered from the limousine: (a) One bullet struck JFK in the back, exited his throat and went on to strike Connally in the back. It then exited his chest, passed through his wrist and struck his thigh. It came to rest in his pants leg, falling out onto his stretcher in Parkland Hospital, where it was discovered by an orderly. It is known as CE399 today. (b) Another bullet struck JFK in the back of the head, exiting the top right side. Two large fragments were discovered in the limousine that comprised most of the copy jacket of the bullet. The lead core was missing, and most likely that went on to hit James Tague after striking the curb. Two bullets struck. Most of those two bullets are according for. Why would you still be looking for yet another bullet that didn't strike anyone? No, it wasn't. Quote them saying that. What about it? Asked and answered. Still waiting three months to bring up old trashed arguments anew, I see. 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, 05:12 PM | #1955 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Neither of those are original to me.
A "Fringe Reset" is a well-known ploy used by conspiracy theorists everywhere to bog the discussion down. For example, here's a reference from 2014 concerning those crazy "man didn't land on the moon" CTs: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=602.60
Quote:
And let's not even get into your begging of the question when you imbed into your assertion the very point you must prove. I'm talking about this "Mimicking Hank won't put you in the big league of players advocating a false perception of history" and your begging the question about exactly who is advocating a false perception of history. Is it the guys who keeps citing the evidence back to you, or the guy insisting on imaginary gunmen firing imaginary bullets from imaginary guns and doing imaginary damage to JFK? Hank PS: We all noticed you didn't address the points, just attacked the poster for his word usage. You must be desperate for rebuttal. |
__________________
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, 05:15 PM | #1956 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Dealey Plaza has a wicked echo. The History Channel's "Tracking Oswald" actually conducted a new sonic test in Dealey Plaza, and found that where you thought the sounds came from depended on where you stood. Their test used only microphones and a computer program, no humans, so the results were not prejudiced.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have discussed the sound issues with the Plaza many times. Ear-witness testimony is unreliable. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 05:25 PM | #1957 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
You base this on what? Your years with SEAL Team 6? Your tour in Fallujah with the 1st Marine Division? How can a guy who has never heard so much as a blank fired in anger qualified to say what the Carcano was capable of doing?
The FBI found it to be uniquely capable, as have almost every honest gun nut on the internet (of which you can find tons of YouTuber videos supporting their conclusions). The magic bullet has been recreated multiple times at this point. The wounds to the President and Governor are exclusive to the 6.5x52mm round.
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 05:33 PM | #1958 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
What part out of six? Nobody went firing real shots in Dealey Plaza. The knoll/Depository split is half-and-half with the witnesses more or less regardless of where they stood. "New sonic test"? What?
Quote:
Quote:
|
16th October 2017, 05:40 PM | #1959 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
And this is the root of your problem: you only listen to people you agree with, and not non-looneys.
Quote:
Okay.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
16th October 2017, 05:45 PM | #1960 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
The "new sonic test" crap was from Tracking Oswald part five.
Arnaldo M. Fernandez of KennedysandKing.com wrote this in a review of that show:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|