IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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! , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 21st October 2017, 04:51 PM   #2161
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The skull photographs in evidence today match the autopsy doctors' recollections of when they were taken. There are just missing close-up shots of the outer and inner surface of the EOP wound in the skull.
Proof?

What are the log numbers for these missing photographs?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 05:02 PM   #2162
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
Edited by kmortis:  Removed response to previously moderated content
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:32 AM.
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 12:27 AM   #2163
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"Fracture" in this case means any break in the skull bone caused by the bullet.
Non responsive reply noted.

How does a subsonic projectile not cause fractures at the the point of penetration of the skull but cause fractures in another area of the skull?

Another opportunity for you to to exhibit your expertise in the science of terminal ballistics. The forum members await your response with breathless anticipation.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 22nd October 2017 at 12:29 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 12:34 AM   #2164
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
Edited by kmortis:  Removed response to previously moderated content
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:33 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 03:27 AM   #2165
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,668
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I thought this had been decided a long time ago, is this just a manner of showmanship?
The way it gets reported in headlines, it's as if Trump has decided to release the material, when in fact I think it's due to be released anyway and the question is whether he chooses to veto it, or some of it.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 04:40 AM   #2166
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Which, again, given what the autopsy actually says, is a good indication the wound was not as low as you claim.
Tomtomkent, what do you mean when you say "what the autopsy claims"? This problem is not based on nit-pickers haggling over an inch or two, you are the one pushing the positive assertion. You have been haggling forever that the autopsy doctors somehow misremembered or lied for some reason by a factor of 4-5 inches higher on the head. Not just the autopsy doctors, but the photographer, as well as five to six other autopsy witnesses, made statements strongly supporting a small wound low near the base of the head. You are asserting that these people all misremembered or lied in a way that perfectly corroborates the autopsy report passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm.".

When you say "What the autopsy claims" as if you're referencing a wound 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance on the top of the head, that is disingenuous. If you think your interpretations of the X-rays and photographs are correct, you must compare that to a matching number of expert testimony on the X-rays which discredits the cowlick entry theory if they even noticed the defect on the X-rays claimed to be an entry wound by the Clark Panel and HSCA. Nobody who was at the autopsy ever viewed the Back-Of-Head photos and agreed that the "red spot" high in the scalp was the small wound (presumably of entry) they claimed to see. The "red spot" on the Back-Of-Head photographs was described by Humes to the HSCA and ARRB a relatively insignificant wound in the scalp related to the large defect, not an entry wound.

Last edited by MicahJava; 22nd October 2017 at 04:45 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 04:47 AM   #2167
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Non responsive reply noted.

How does a subsonic projectile not cause fractures at the the point of penetration of the skull but cause fractures in another area of the skull?

Another opportunity for you to to exhibit your expertise in the science of terminal ballistics. The forum members await your response with breathless anticipation.
Subsonic bullets can and do exit parts of the skull. That is documented in medical journals searchable through Google Scholar (free scientific papers can also be downloaded reliably on libgen.io). A subsonic bullet could have entered near the EOP and exited the base of the skull within the body.
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 04:50 AM   #2168
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
How about you wait until your 20-year high school reunion, and then tell us how good your memory is.
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 07:21 AM   #2169
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Tomtomkent, what do you mean when you say "what the autopsy claims"? This problem is not based on nit-pickers haggling over an inch or two, you are the one pushing the positive assertion. You have been haggling forever that the autopsy doctors somehow misremembered or lied for some reason by a factor of 4-5 inches higher on the head. Not just the autopsy doctors, but the photographer, as well as five to six other autopsy witnesses, made statements strongly supporting a small wound low near the base of the head. You are asserting that these people all misremembered or lied in a way that perfectly corroborates the autopsy report passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm.".

When you say "What the autopsy claims" as if you're referencing a wound 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance on the top of the head, that is disingenuous. If you think your interpretations of the X-rays and photographs are correct, you must compare that to a matching number of expert testimony on the X-rays which discredits the cowlick entry theory if they even noticed the defect on the X-rays claimed to be an entry wound by the Clark Panel and HSCA. Nobody who was at the autopsy ever viewed the Back-Of-Head photos and agreed that the "red spot" high in the scalp was the small wound (presumably of entry) they claimed to see. The "red spot" on the Back-Of-Head photographs was described by Humes to the HSCA and ARRB a relatively insignificant wound in the scalp related to the large defect, not an entry wound.
In short I am referencing that “red mark”, that you consider to be too high.
I ignore you personal analysis, because I read the whole autopsy, and I read the testimony to the WC, that make it clear exactly where the wound is.

I mean the wound that is verified by the X-ray and photographs, that matches the conclusions of experts you ignore.

I mean the location that fits the “impossible” brain damage.

I mean the wound location that you totally fail to discredit.

I mean the one that makes sense, and best fits the totality of evidence.

It may not be a perfect fit, but it remains the best fit, and the only viable explanation, by any common sense measure.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 07:23 AM   #2170
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Subsonic bullets can and do exit parts of the skull. That is documented in medical journals searchable through Google Scholar (free scientific papers can also be downloaded reliably on libgen.io). A subsonic bullet could have entered near the EOP and exited the base of the skull within the body.
Not based on the evidence of the skull in question. Not without leaving a trace. You can stop making stuff up wholecloth, you aren’t convincing anybody.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 07:33 AM   #2171
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
While the autopsy is probably an important life event, however you still don't understand the memory recall degradation with time. You have been presented more than once this fact of life, yet you ignore it, why? Because it fits your CT belief. Take the original statements with much more accuracy.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Tomtomkent, what do you mean when you say "what the autopsy claims"? This problem is not based on nit-pickers haggling over an inch or two, you are the one pushing the positive assertion. You have been haggling forever that the autopsy doctors somehow misremembered or lied for some reason by a factor of 4-5 inches higher on the head. Not just the autopsy doctors, but the photographer, as well as five to six other autopsy witnesses, made statements strongly supporting a small wound low near the base of the head. You are asserting that these people all misremembered or lied in a way that perfectly corroborates the autopsy report passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm.".
But nit-picking where the entry hole is exactly what you have done for the few months I have been posting to this forum. As if the exact location between 15 years and several investigations really matters. Bottom line all investigations have noted one GSW to the head, causing all the damage, and fired behind and above the victim.

You have no evidence of lying or misremembering(especially after a number of years has dulled the memory).

Whether the individuals "strongly support" a small wound low near the base of the scalp, the autopsy report indicated ONE GSW. And I repeat all the doctors had the chance to report an exception to findings, and none did so.
The autopsy report indicated one entry hole was noted, after the brain was removed(with what ever procedure), you can't escape that fact. In addition one of the skull pieces shipped from Dallas had an exit wound characteristic.
Quote:

When you say "What the autopsy claims" as if you're referencing a wound 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance on the top of the head, that is disingenuous. If you think your interpretations of the X-rays and photographs are correct, you must compare that to a matching number of expert testimony on the X-rays which discredits the cowlick entry theory if they even noticed the defect on the X-rays claimed to be an entry wound by the Clark Panel and HSCA. Nobody who was at the autopsy ever viewed the Back-Of-Head photos and agreed that the "red spot" high in the scalp was the small wound (presumably of entry) they claimed to see. The "red spot" on the Back-Of-Head photographs was described by Humes to the HSCA and ARRB a relatively insignificant wound in the scalp related to the large defect, not an entry wound.
Again you continue to post pin the hole in the head disinformation and misinformation, typical of your comment taken out of context with the real world.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 09:48 AM   #2172
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
I have a question.

If Micha Java has a point, and his "EOP" wound is valid, why has he not posted a single definitive location.

Think about the "evidence" he has posted, from the photographs, the x-rays, the bullet fragments, and such forth, and even the model marked by doctors based on their memories... If that added up to what Micha Java thinks, he should have been able to provide a definitive location. He should be able to identify it on the photographs of the back of JFK's head, on the x-rays, and to tell us which of the doctors remembered right.

But when I look back through this thread, I see that when I asked him to show us the actual wound, he drew several circles on the back of JFKs head photo, identifying potential locations.

Now, I don't want to suggest I have unreasonable expectations of other's ability to read x-rays, or what have you, but if the x-ray evidence did indeed suggest a lower entry wound, and if Micha could say for certain that it discredited the received wound, would it not follow that one could use the x-ray to definitively mark the actual wound?

If I'm missing a post where Micha achieves exactly this, I am sorry, but I can't see one, where Micha can point to a place on the photograph of the back of the head, and show us a more convincing wound than the "splotch".
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 10:03 AM   #2173
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Now tell us what parts confirm your views. Everything above matches mine.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Just give the brain room to breath [sic] and you're in EOP country.
So you can't point to anything that establishes your view is correct.

Just as I thought.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 10:17 AM   #2174
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
And what in my post did you take issue with?
Nothing, that's why he resorted to ad hominem.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 10:24 AM   #2175
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...Subsonic bullets often do not cause extensive fractures when entering the head. Also, there is evidence for fractures on the floor of the skull, where the EOP bullet could have encountered after entering.
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
How does a subsonic projectile not cause fractures at the the point of penetration of the skull but cause fractures in another area of the skull?
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Subsonic bullets can and do exit parts of the skull...
Straw man argument. That wasn't the question asked. Try actually answering the question asked this time.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A subsonic bullet could have entered near the EOP and exited the base of the skull within the body.
Show us where the autopsy doctors noted that exit wound in the base of the skull.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd October 2017 at 10:27 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 10:29 AM   #2176
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
Studies have shown that memory doesn't improve based on the deemed importance of the event.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 10:35 AM   #2177
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
Let's remind you of something. Remember this?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. Here is a model skull shown in the the HSCA forensic pathology panel report showing the approximate location of the small head wound marked by the three lead autopsy physicians (Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck) compared to the much higher wound location endorsed by the HSCA:

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0062b.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.jpg

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Okay, let's test how reliable this is as evidence:

Why did they initial two different circles?

Don't they remember the wounds being in the same place?

Is their interpretation of autopsy records here, the same as back in the WC?

I'm guessing Michajava won't make any real effort to address that, or understand why it makes a difference to people. But I hope to be proven wrong.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That is what you could call a reasonable, expected discrepancy between the recollections of the doctors who handled the President's body for several hours. Not the simultaneous mistake of four inches.
So, by your own admission, no matter how important it was, they placed the hole in different places.

You may not like the entry wound being a few inches higher than your pre-conclusions require it to be, but... human memory is just flawed. Those memories you rely on more than contemporary records, are just as flawed as any other human memory would be, years, or decades, later.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:18 AM   #2178
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Not just the autopsy doctors, but the photographer, as well as five to six other autopsy witnesses, made statements strongly supporting a small wound low near the base of the head.
The only voices that matter are Humes and Finck. They laid hands on the man.

The other witnesses do not count once you factor in the human element. The photographer? He's looking at a dead POTUS, he's trying to keep it together. He was focused on his job with the camera and was not a pathologist - doesn't matter what he thinks he saw, only what is in his pictures.

Your cherry-picking blindness is your failure.


Quote:
When you say "What the autopsy claims" as if you're referencing a wound 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance on the top of the head, that is disingenuous.
That is exactly where the bullet entered the skull as per real-time measurement during the autopsy. It is the only measurement that matters as it was RECORDED AT THE TIME BOTH MEN WERE WORKING ON JFK- NOT FIFTEEN YEARS LATER.

That's called science, that's why you record data on the spot instead of trying to remember it later. This is true for every science discipline.

Only in CT World is decades old recollecting held equal to real-time, hands-on data. It is why nobody takes you seriously.

Quote:
If you think your interpretations of the X-rays and photographs are correct,
Did he say he's interpreted them? I don't think so. But then I can read.

Quote:
you must compare that to a matching number of expert testimony on the X-rays which discredits the cowlick entry theory if they even noticed the defect on the X-rays claimed to be an entry wound by the Clark Panel and HSCA.
Why? The x-rays and autopsy are just part of the picture that are combined with the evidence from Dallas.

Everything points to Oswald and his 6.5x52mm Carcano.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:20 AM   #2179
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:35 AM.
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:25 AM   #2180
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Subsonic bullets can and do exit parts of the skull. That is documented in medical journals searchable through Google Scholar (free scientific papers can also be downloaded reliably on libgen.io). A subsonic bullet could have entered near the EOP and exited the base of the skull within the body.
Okay Skippy, what calibers are we talking about here?

What was the range the bullet was fired from that passed through the skull?

What angle?

How many of these bullets entered the back of the head?

What was the minimum range from your fantasy silenced rifle to the car?

What kind of subsonic round would have the capability at that range to enter and exit a skull at any angle?

If you cannot answer all of these questions you need to shut up about subsonic rounds.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 12:04 AM   #2181
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,961
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You'll all be delighted to hear that Trump is planning to authorise the release of a batch of classified files on the Kennedy assassination towards the end of October.

BBC
Saw this article in Politico. Apparently some people are worried about this:

The JFK Document Dump Could Be a Fiasco

Quote:
Later this month, the National Archives is set to release thousands of documents about John F. Kennedy’s assassination. It’s likely to fuel conspiracy theorists for years.
If it fuels conspiracy theorists, so what? (Not releasing them would also fuel them: obviously they are trying to hide something BIG!!!!11!!)

Quote:
The federal government’s long campaign to try to choke off rampant conspiracy theories about the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy is threatening to end this month in massive confusion, if not chaos.

Within the next two weeks, the National Archives is legally obligated to release the last of thousands of secret documents from government files about the assassination, most of them from the CIA, FBI and the Justice Department.
. . .
Trump, no stranger to conspiracy theories, including totally unsubstantiated theories about a link between Ted Cruz’s father and JFK’s death, has not yet revealed his plans for the documents. His friend and political adviser Roger Stone, the Republican consultant who is the author of a book claiming that President Lyndon Johnson was the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination, said last week that he has been informed authoritatively that the CIA is urging Trump to delay the release of some of the JFK documents for another 25 years. “They must reflect badly on the CIA even though virtually everyone involved is long dead,” Stone said in a statement on his website.
One of the concerns is that a mad rush to download the documents would overwhelm the servers.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 01:13 AM   #2182
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
If it fuels conspiracy theorists, so what? (Not releasing them would also fuel them: obviously they are trying to hide something BIG!!!!11!!)
I think there's a misapprehension somewhere that releasing evidence that JFK's assassination was not the result of a conspiracy will lead people who currently believe in the conspiracy to change their beliefs. Conspiracist belief systems don't work like that, as this thread demonstrates; contrary evidence is ignored, handwaved away, spuriously discredited or distorted so as to support the belief system. Anything any particular conspiracy theorist doesn't like in this document release will immediately be proven fake by assertion ('what, you mean the CIA couldn't generate fake documents given 50 years and Photoshop? Wake up, sheeple!'), anything even vaguely ambiguous will be assigned the most nefarious possible meaning, and the whole merry-go-round will keep turning.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 07:01 AM   #2183
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think there's a misapprehension somewhere that releasing evidence that JFK's assassination was not the result of a conspiracy will lead people who currently believe in the conspiracy to change their beliefs. Conspiracist belief systems don't work like that, as this thread demonstrates; contrary evidence is ignored, handwaved away, spuriously discredited or distorted so as to support the belief system. Anything any particular conspiracy theorist doesn't like in this document release will immediately be proven fake by assertion ('what, you mean the CIA couldn't generate fake documents given 50 years and Photoshop? Wake up, sheeple!'), anything even vaguely ambiguous will be assigned the most nefarious possible meaning, and the whole merry-go-round will keep turning.

Dave
Shorter version - it will create more gaps where they can insert their idiocy.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 09:26 AM   #2184
heymatto70
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Saw this article in Politico. Apparently some people are worried about this:

The JFK Document Dump Could Be a Fiasco



If it fuels conspiracy theorists, so what? (Not releasing them would also fuel them: obviously they are trying to hide something BIG!!!!11!!)



One of the concerns is that a mad rush to download the documents would overwhelm the servers.
One must not let fear of having knowledge being misused prevent an attempt to educate.
heymatto70 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 09:47 AM   #2185
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Seven pages ago I asked MicahJava a simple question.

Despite my reposting it an additional three times, he avoided responding to the point, changing the subject, answering different questions, and attempting to deflect the conversation each time. Each time he employs these tactics, he shows he cannot answer simple questions asking him to reach reasonable conclusions.

Here's now the fifth time I am asking MicahJava the same simple question. Remember, MicahJava, I am only looking for your most reasonable conclusion here. Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime.

Can you answer the question?

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 witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 minutes after the shooting.

What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here?


Hank

PS: For the curious, the same point (in a slightly different form) was made in these four posts below:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1897
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1916
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1920
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1936
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 24th October 2017 at 09:53 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 10:13 AM   #2186
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza, contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.

2. You don't need any shells to know that.

What do you have to say about the autopsy report, three autopsy doctors, and 6+ autopsy witnesses who all gave statements indicating that Kennedy had a small wound near the external occipital protuberance? Do you think the people who examined every corner of Kennedy's body don't know the difference between the base of the head and the top of the head?

With the occipital-blowout theory, at least you could say maybe the witnesses saw Kennedy's head at an odd angle which created a sort of optical illusion. The EOP wound concerns people who examined the body, peeled back the scalp, messed with the skull and the brain, etc.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 10:24 AM   #2187
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza, contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.

2. You don't need any shells to know that.

What do you have to say about the autopsy report, three autopsy doctors, and 6+ autopsy witnesses who all gave statements indicating that Kennedy had a small wound near the external occipital protuberance? Do you think the people who examined every corner of Kennedy's body don't know the difference between the base of the head and the top of the head?

With the occipital-blowout theory, at least you could say maybe the witnesses saw Kennedy's head at an odd angle which created a sort of optical illusion. The EOP wound concerns people who examined the body, peeled back the scalp, messed with the skull and the brain, etc.

What part of "Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime" did you not understand?

Try again.

Here for the SIXTH time:

Here's now the fifth sixth time I am asking MicahJava the same simple question. Remember, MicahJava, I am only looking for your most reasonable conclusion here. Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime.

Can you answer the question?

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 witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 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

Last edited by HSienzant; 24th October 2017 at 10:27 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 10:32 AM   #2188
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza [sic], contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.
We can deal with your arguments this way:

Have it your way, "loud noises" vs "heard three shots". I don't see the difference, except you are changing the witness testimony. It was they, not I, that characterized the three loud noises they heard as shots. If they called it "shots", shouldn't we call it "shots"? You are back to ignoring the testimony and arguing with the witnesses perceptions, after telling us the witnesses who picked the grassy knoll as the source of ALL the shots were reliable in picking the grassy knoll as the source of SOME of the shots. Are they reliable or not? Can we trust their perceptions or not? Why are your ignoring what they said when it suits your purposes? How come you contradict your own arguments so frequently?

PREDICTION: You will ignore all the above.

The "contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired" is false. No pathologist who examined the extant autopsy evidence ever concluded there were more than three shots. This is simply an assertion by you backed by nothing except your own opinion.

You won't be able to cite any medical evidence that indicates four or more shots. NONE. You just made up that claim.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
2. You don't need any shells to know that.
What part of "Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true" did you not understand?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What do you have to say about the autopsy report, three autopsy doctors, and 6+ autopsy witnesses who all gave statements indicating that Kennedy had a small wound near the external occipital protuberance? Do you think the people who examined every corner of Kennedy's body don't know the difference between the base of the head and the top of the head?

With the occipital-blowout theory, at least you could say maybe the witnesses saw Kennedy's head at an odd angle which created a sort of optical illusion. The EOP wound concerns people who examined the body, peeled back the scalp, messed with the skull and the brain, etc.
What part of "Despite my reposting it an additional three times, he avoided responding to the point, changing the subject, answering different questions, and attempting to deflect the conversation each time. Each time he employs these tactics, he shows he cannot answer simple questions asking him to reach reasonable conclusions" did you not understand?

You're avoiding responding to the point, deflecting, answering different questions not asked, and changing the subject once more.

In the autopsy report, and all the subsequent testimony and medical reviews, I not once came across the language that the autopsists "messed with the skull and the brain". Is this an official conclusion, or just you exposing your lack of medical expertise, and giving us yet another reason to question the conclusions you've reached?

Now, try again. For the seventh time:

Here's now the fifth sixth seventh time I am asking MicahJava the same simple question. Remember, MicahJava, I am only looking for your most reasonable conclusion here. Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime.

Can you answer the question?

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 witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 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

Last edited by HSienzant; 24th October 2017 at 11:33 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:10 AM   #2189
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Psst, MicahJava:

It's a test. To see if you know what it means to reach a reasonable conclusion.

It's not a test to see how well you can deflect, or answer other questions not asked, or change the subject, or avoid the point entirely.

If it was a test of those qualities, you'd be getting an A+.

But you're failing badly, because it's a test to see if you know how to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Seven times and counting, and you can't do it?

It's open book, and you've tried five times and failed five times.

How many more hints do you need?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 24th October 2017 at 11:12 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:54 AM   #2190
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
What "logical conclusion" do you want if the shooting must have involved more than three gunshots?
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 Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 12:04 PM   #2191
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What "logical conclusion" do you want if the shooting must have involved more than three gunshots?
Sorry, you seem not to be getting the "don't even think of this as the assassination" bit.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 12:17 PM   #2192
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Seven pages ago I asked MicahJava a simple question.

Despite my reposting it an additional three times, he avoided responding to the point, changing the subject, answering different questions, and attempting to deflect the conversation each time. Each time he employs these tactics, he shows he cannot answer simple questions asking him to reach reasonable conclusions.

Here's now the fifth time I am asking MicahJava the same simple question. Remember, MicahJava, I am only looking for your most reasonable conclusion here. Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime.

Can you answer the question?

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 witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 minutes after the shooting.

What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here?


Hank

PS: For the curious, the same point (in a slightly different form) was made in these four posts below:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1897
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1916
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1920
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1936
Time passes fast when you're enjoying yourself.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 12:20 PM   #2193
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza, contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.

2. You don't need any shells to know that.

What do you have to say about the autopsy report, three autopsy doctors, and 6+ autopsy witnesses who all gave statements indicating that Kennedy had a small wound near the external occipital protuberance? Do you think the people who examined every corner of Kennedy's body don't know the difference between the base of the head and the top of the head?

With the occipital-blowout theory, at least you could say maybe the witnesses saw Kennedy's head at an odd angle which created a sort of optical illusion. The EOP wound concerns people who examined the body, peeled back the scalp, messed with the skull and the brain, etc.
That's no big mystery as three empty shell casings were found on the floor of the 6th floor TSBD. One miss two hits, that's what all of us have been attempting to pound into your head.

You continue to evade answering the questions by asking more questions attempting to move the goal posts.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 12:22 PM   #2194
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What "logical conclusion" do you want if the shooting must have involved more than three gunshots?
Nope no evidence of MORE than three shots, just three.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 01:12 PM   #2195
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza, contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.
Not the actual evidence, just your gross, willing misinterpretation of medical data that points to a single GSW to the head, and one to the back exiting the throat.

How long before you bring Bigfoot into this?


Quote:
2. You don't need any shells to know that.
At the very least you need a bullet, and you don't have one.


Quote:
What do you have to say about the autopsy report, three autopsy doctors, and 6+ autopsy witnesses who all gave statements indicating that Kennedy had a small wound near the external occipital protuberance?
Nothing to say. This is false information based on cherry-picking and failure to understand the data, and using only CT websites for information.

Quote:
Do you think the people who examined every corner of Kennedy's body don't know the difference between the base of the head and the top of the head?
They do, we're not sure about your ability.

Quote:
With the occipital-blowout theory, at least you could say maybe the witnesses saw Kennedy's head at an odd angle which created a sort of optical illusion.
The Occipital Protuberance wasn't blown out. You're clearly back-peddling.

Quote:
The EOP wound concerns people who examined the body, peeled back the scalp, messed with the skull and the brain, etc.
The EOP is your fantasy. The autopsy says you're wrong.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 01:13 PM   #2196
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What "logical conclusion" do you want if the shooting must have involved more than three gunshots?
There were only three shots fired. All came from Lee Oswald.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 01:24 PM   #2197
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think there's a misapprehension somewhere that releasing evidence that JFK's assassination was not the result of a conspiracy will lead people who currently believe in the conspiracy to change their beliefs. Conspiracist belief systems don't work like that, as this thread demonstrates; contrary evidence is ignored, handwaved away, spuriously discredited or distorted so as to support the belief system. Anything any particular conspiracy theorist doesn't like in this document release will immediately be proven fake by assertion ('what, you mean the CIA couldn't generate fake documents given 50 years and Photoshop? Wake up, sheeple!'), anything even vaguely ambiguous will be assigned the most nefarious possible meaning, and the whole merry-go-round will keep turning.

Dave
The file release will come and go. Scholars will pour through them and write books. The JFK-CT crowd was mostly silent on the advance document-dump from this summer containing the deposition of a KGB agent, and the internal CIA memos speculating if Oswald had been working with someone after his Mexico City adventure, or if their ongoing assassination attempts on Castro became a motive to kill JFK.

We're hoping for the CIA's Mexico City files, and the rest of the FBI's post assassination files which might include an internal investigation.

CTers are immune to facts of any kind, and millions of people have been raised to believe all kinds of nonsense about the assassination based on hearsay, and bad TV. There are dozens of authors who have made a career out of the event, happily spreading the latest lies. Every November there are at least two new additions to the JFK CT-loony library.

In two days the wait will be over.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 01:45 PM   #2198
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What "logical conclusion" do you want if the shooting must have involved more than three gunshots?

As Tomtomkent pointed out above (and I before that), you're ignoring the central premise. What part of "Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment" did you not understand?

This is a test of your reasoning ability, which you are failing miserably. It's not a test of how many logical fallacies you can introduce (like begging the question above). I'm not asking for new, inventive ways you can avoid responding to the point, change the subject, answer different questions not asked, or attempt to deflect the conversation. Just for the most reasonable conclusion, assuming for the sake of discussion two facts are true.

Remember: Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime.

This is now the EIGHTH time I am posting this.

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 witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 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

Last edited by HSienzant; 24th October 2017 at 02:15 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 Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 02:09 PM   #2199
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
MicahJava,

If you can't pass a simple reasoning test, why should anyone listen to your arguments about how you interpret the evidence?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 02:14 PM   #2200
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What "logical conclusion" do you want if the shooting must have involved more than three gunshots?
There were only 3 shots. The recovered bullets and fragments support that conclusion. The recovered shells in the depository support that conclusion. The wounds on both men support that conclusion. The earwitnesses support that conclusion. The autopsy report and medical records support that conclusion. The Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films support that conclusion.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

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 09:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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