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

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


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

Reply
Old 18th October 2017, 10:26 AM   #2001
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Ok so it looks like most of you realize that the anti-EOP stance is a sinking ship, so you guys plug your ears and scream to yourself "the autopsy doctors concluded two shots fired from behind!".
Hilarious. I guess you're in full fringe reset mode at this point.

At a base level, we know that's what they thought. That's exactly what they recorded in the autopsy.

You can read it for yourself.

https://www.archives.gov/files/resea...ppendix-09.pdf

The wounds were inflicted from behind and above. See page six.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Guess what, we don't even know that's what they really thought. There is evidence that the autopsy doctors exhausted a variety of scenarios, including a EOP-throat connection, before arriving to the current official story. It doesn't mean that's what they personally thought.
That's what they reported and that's what they testified to. You're not a mind-reader, but here you are, expecting us to believe you somehow know they weren't telling the truth in their autopsy.

You've come full circle from quoting the autopsy doctors recollections from decades after the fact to try to prove your argument. Now you're suggesting they must have been lying from the get-go, all to keep your fantasy wounds alive. There's a logical contradiction in your varying arguments you now must address and attempt to explain away.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We don't know what they're hiding.
Or even if they are hiding anything, but that's apparently that's the ball you've picked up and you're going to be running with now.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Remember before how I demonstrated that the autopsy doctors probably lied about only discovering the truth about the throat wound until the day after the autopsy?
No, I don't remember that. I remember you trying to argue that point, only to have it smashed back into your court.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th October 2017 at 10:59 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 10:36 AM   #2002
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do we really have to keep going over this?

Here if the official HSCA interpretation of this photograph, which depicts an apparently empty cranium of John F. Kennedy that still somehow has an interpreted entry wound and a beveled exit that are only anatomically five inches apart. The government wants us to believe that the entire brain was somehow removed from a high-inch skull cavity.
No, the autopsy report does say the scalp wound was extended IN THE CORONAL PLANE before the brain was removed.

Those are the only incisions noted to the head in the autopsy report.

Do research to determine what this means, and get back to us when you understand the point made.

Is this the fifth or sixth time the words coronal plane have been pointed out to you?

Autopsy report, page 5: https://www.archives.gov/files/resea...ppendix-09.pdf

Definition of coronal plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_plane


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Is there even evidence that it's possible to delicately remove a human brain without removing some occipital bone?
Yes, the skull was badly fractured by the bullet passing through it, making it relatively easy to remove the brain by cutting the scalp only. Also the fifth or sixth time you're ignoring this information.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't think there's a way to properly sever the tentorium cerebelli by reaching your hands underneath the brain from the frontal end.
You're not an expert. Nobody cares what you think.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You would also have to sever the brainstem. Removing a brain also typically involves being able to fit your fingers under the temporal areas. Any alleged cowlick entry wound could not remain intact in the skull bone while doing all of that.
You and which forensic pathologists say that? Oh, it's just you.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th October 2017 at 10:46 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 10:43 AM   #2003
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Like I said, I can't see, from the evidence he posts, how Micha Java reaches his conclusions. I can't see any document suggesting only a five inch hole was used, and have no idea why he assumes it is the case.
He's assuming it. He has to assume it, and avoid all references and testimony to the contrary, because without that assumption, he has no argument.

He ignores the dotted line above the right ear in the very drawing he shows us, that shows the wound with that piece of fractured skull pulled back is much larger that it is with the piece of skull in place. He ignores the comminuted fractures of the skull, and the fact that only scalp cuts were necessary to remove the brain, exactly as noted in the autopsy report.

It's really that simple. He's closing his eyes, singing "La La La I can't hear you!" as loud as he can every time we mention the contrary evidence.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 10:45 AM   #2004
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
In photographs, the red spot on the scalp exposed by the parted long hairs appears to be at least two inches above the EOP, but not quite high enough to correlate with the defect on the X-ray 4-5 inches above the EOP.
Again, you and what forensic pathologists say this?

Oh, it's just YOU.

Nobody cares what you think. This isn't about opinions. This is about evidence.

Learn the difference.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 10:53 AM   #2005
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh wow what a brilliant argument, they just cut the skull in a silly way to avoid separating the beveled wounds. Except the autopsy doctors found that the area around the large head wound was so badly damaged that they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a large enough skull cavity.
Right, except for the words 'silly', and "except" which I excised for you. You pretend the two sentences conflict, but they don't.

The autopsy report says coronal cuts to the scalp were the only incisions made to the head, and this was done to examine the brain.

You are so close to understanding the point. Looks like it's time for a fringe reset and a change of subject.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th October 2017 at 10:55 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 10:56 AM   #2006
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Asked and answered then?


I always take longer than you to get to the point. I need to work on that.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:02 AM   #2007
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,219
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post


I always take longer than you to get to the point. I need to work on that.

Hank
Yes, because you are more usually right than me, and are in the habit of supporting your points with actual evidence.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:26 AM   #2008
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 405
Indeed the autopsy report contains the following passages Page 4:
Quote:
Received as separate specimens from Dallas, Texas are three fragments of skull bone which in aggregate roughly approximate the dimensions of the large defect described above. At one angle of the largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly circular wound presumably of exit which exhibits beveling of the outer aspect of the bone and is estimated to measure approximately 2.5 to 3.0 cm. in diameter.
Page 6
Quote:
SUMMARY: Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and some-what above the level of the deceased. The observations and available information do not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two wounds. (The other described in the back)
Seems fairly clear that all the doctors who signed the document, had an opportunity to submit an exception based on his examination and none did that. So the verdict still stands and it is up to MJ to discover some evidence to contrary and not some ideas by CTs.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:57 AM   #2009
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Again, you and what forensic pathologists say this?

Oh, it's just YOU.

Nobody cares what you think. This isn't about opinions. This is about evidence.

Learn the difference.

Hank
Um, all you have to do is look at photographs of live Kennedy's hair. His EOP is in the hairline, but more towards where the longer hair starts.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 12:01 PM   #2010
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Yes, because you Hank are more usually right than me, and are in the habit of supporting your points with actual evidence.
I can almost always see links to such evidence.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 12:18 PM   #2011
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Um, all you have to do is look at photographs of live Kennedy's hair. His EOP is in the hairline, but more towards where the longer hair starts.
From the autopsy report page 3-4
Quote:
c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.(Referencing scalp defect tears)

d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally. 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. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone viewed from the inner aspect of the skull.
Your analysis of the image is incorrect as usual, reference the language of the autopsy.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 12:31 PM   #2012
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
In photographs, the red spot on the scalp exposed by the parted long hairs appears to be at least two inches above the EOP, but not quite high enough to correlate with the defect on the X-ray 4-5 inches above the EOP.

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Again, you and what forensic pathologists say this?

Oh, it's just YOU.

Nobody cares what you think. This isn't about opinions. This is about evidence.

Learn the difference.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Um, all you have to do is look at photographs of live Kennedy's hair. His EOP is in the hairline, but more towards where the longer hair starts.
Wow. Never have I found someone so intent on proving me correct. I told you this is about evidence, not your opinion, and advised you to learn the difference.

You still haven't. You once more tell me your opinion.

Already addressed that point: Nobody cares what your opinion is. Cite the evidence.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 12:33 PM   #2013
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Wait, are you trying to say that someone shot JFK besides Oswald?
Two men with rifles couldn't fit in the sniper's nest.

That's me pretending to be a conspiracy theorist and deliberately misinterpreting your point merely to prolong the conversation.

Being a CT is, like, so easy.

Actually studying the evidence and determining the truth, hard.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th October 2017 at 12:41 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 03:51 PM   #2014
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,165
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do we really have to keep going over this?
Until you learn to read.

Quote:
Here if the official HSCA interpretation of this photograph, which depicts an apparently empty cranium of John F. Kennedy that still somehow has an interpreted entry wound and a beveled exit that are only anatomically five inches apart. The government wants us to believe that the entire brain was somehow removed from a high-inch skull cavity.
What's a high-inch skull cavity?

And no, the government doesn't want you to believe the brain was removed through a five inch hole in the skull. This didn't happen. Humes sawed the skull cap off on the left side, and worked around the heavily shattered right side to remove the brain. He has testified to this under oath.

There is no mystery.

Quote:
Is there even evidence that it's possible to delicately remove a human brain without removing some occipital bone? I don't think there's a way to properly sever the tentorium cerebelli by reaching your hands underneath the brain from the frontal end. You would also have to sever the brainstem. Removing a brain also typically involves being able to fit your fingers under the temporal areas.
You're clearly not a doctor.

Quote:
Any alleged cowlick entry wound could not remain intact in the skull bone while doing all of that.
You're clearly not a doctor.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 03:54 PM   #2015
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,165
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh wow what a brilliant argument, they just cut the skull in a silly way to avoid separating the beveled wounds. Except the autopsy doctors found that the area around the large head wound was so badly damaged that they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a large enough skull cavity.
This is a lie.

It is a lie because we have posted links TWICE to Humes detailing the removal of the brain.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 04:08 PM   #2016
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,165
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Ok so it looks like most of you realize that the anti-EOP stance is a sinking ship, so you guys plug your ears and scream to yourself "the autopsy doctors concluded two shots fired from behind!".
Actually, we're too busy laughing.

Quote:
Guess what, we don't even know that's what they really thought.
We do. We have multiple sworn statements that the shots came from above and behind JFK.


Quote:
There is evidence that the autopsy doctors exhausted a variety of scenarios, including a EOP-throat connection, before arriving to the current official story.
There is no evidence of this. They checked with Parkland and were informed of the tracheotomy. Nobody thought it was an exit wound from the head.

Quote:
It doesn't mean that's what they personally thought.
All that matters is the record, and that is clear.

Quote:
We don't know what they're hiding.
BS. You're a CT nutjob, you assume they're hiding something, and you have no proof. No one does.

Quote:
Remember before how I demonstrated that the autopsy doctors probably lied about only discovering the truth about the throat wound until the day after the autopsy?
See, you haven't demonstrated anything other than limited internet access.

The doctors didn't lie. The fiber evidence from the coat, shirt, and necktie all point to an entry in the upper back and exiting through the throat.

You want a conspiracy, but you're too lazy to find one. You bring CT's in here that are 40 years old and beaten to death, and wonder why we don't take you seriously. You have no original ideas on the subject, you refuse to learn objective facts (like what a 6.5x52mm round can do, and what a subsonic 9mm or .45 cannot do). When cornered you reset back to page one like we haven't already torn your theory to pieces.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 07:06 AM   #2017
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
#as expected.

MicahJava vanishes. He'll be back to argue anew with the same old fringe reset waiting in the wings.

When asked to support his opinion, he just offered more of his opinion.

He made a number of assertions, and when challenged, could not - and did not, despite constant reminders - support any of them with evidence.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 07:08 AM   #2018
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: 25,123
To be fair, he's busier now, because he's got the added responsibility of doing precisely the same thing in the 9/11 forum.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 07:31 AM   #2019
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,084
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Um, all you have to do is look at photographs of live Kennedy's hair. His EOP is in the hairline, but more towards where the longer hair starts.
So what were the autopsy findings? Not your opinion, which is worthless.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 09:59 AM   #2020
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Why do you LNers pretend to not understand that the HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs is physically impossible? That's a whole brain that they said somehow fit through a five-inch skull cavity. The only way that could be the true interpretation of the photographs is if they placed a previously-separated portion of the skull back, but that contradicts all witness statements on the photographing of the skull.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:00 AM   #2021
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
#as expected.

MicahJava vanishes. He'll be back to argue anew with the same old fringe reset waiting in the wings.

When asked to support his opinion, he just offered more of his opinion.

He made a number of assertions, and when challenged, could not - and did not, despite constant reminders - support any of them with evidence.

Hank
It's called going to work.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:08 AM   #2022
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,084
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why do you LNers pretend to not understand that the HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs is physically impossible? That's a whole brain that they said somehow fit through a five-inch skull cavity. The only way that could be the true interpretation of the photographs is if they placed a previously-separated portion of the skull back, but that contradicts all witness statements on the photographing of the skull.
What were the results of the autopsy? Not your interpretation, which is worthless.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:10 AM   #2023
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,084
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's called going to work.
No, it's called "running away". Which, to be fair, could be seen as your full time job.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:15 AM   #2024
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why do you LNers pretend to not understand that the HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs is physically impossible?
Because it's not physically impossible, no pretense is necessary. That's just another example of you Begging the Question. That's where you assume - and imbed in your question - the very point you must prove.

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

LOGICAL FALLACY #1.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That's a whole brain that they said somehow fit through a five-inch skull cavity.
Asked and answered multiple times. I've asked you to quote them saying that, somehow you never get around to doing so. That's just another example of you building a straw man argument that you can argue against. But the straw man is not something they actually said. You invented it merely to knock down. And despite being shown how the argument is false from numerous posters above this, you repeat the same strawman argument once more.

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

LOGICAL FALLACY #2.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The only way that could be the true interpretation of the photographs is if they placed a previously-separated portion of the skull back, but that contradicts all witness statements on the photographing of the skull.
This conclusion assumes your preceding arguments are true, but they are not. They are logical fallacies. So your conclusion isn't supported by anything you've posted to date.

Repeating the same discredited arguments in various forms and guises doesn't make them more true. It makes you less credible.

For a change, try addressing what we're saying, and what the forensic panel said. Quote us (and them) and then try showing why that's wrong from the evidence (not from your opinion, which is another sticking point for you).

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:15 AM   #2025
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,219
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why do you LNers pretend to not understand that the HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs is physically impossible? That's a whole brain that they said somehow fit through a five-inch skull cavity. The only way that could be the true interpretation of the photographs is if they placed a previously-separated portion of the skull back, but that contradicts all witness statements on the photographing of the skull.
Sorry, but if you think the highlighted is accurate, then I'm not going to believe you actually read the HSCA material, and certainly am not going to weigh any credence on your opinions.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:17 AM   #2026
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's called going to work.
Great, now that you're off work, address the contradiction exposed in your arguments in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1962

Quoting:
So they [the Dealey Plaza witnesses-Hank] are more reliable when nearly all of them are wrong as opposed to half of them?

Granting for the moment your claim that the witnesses were split relatively evenly for the knoll vs. the Depository as the source of the shots (that's not close to true, but I'll grant it for the time being), your claim that any of these witnesses could be accurate and confirm your theorizing is beyond belief.

First of all, let's point out that only a very few (less than five) witnesses suggested shots came from multiple locations.

Out of all the other witnesses who responded, most named ONE location only (many others said "don't know").

And that one location varied, from "the overpass", "the railroad yards", "the Sexton Building" (the old name for the Depository), "the Depository", etc.

Lumping all non-Depository responses (like "overpass") into grassy knoll responses inflates that count for the knoll, but that's not even my complaint here.

Your arguments conflict with each other. You cannot argue for reliable witnesses AND argue for multiple shooting locations. But that's exactly what you do.

Why do they conflict?

Because the vast majority of witnesses thought the shots came from ONE location, not several. But in your theory all the shots didn't come from one place, the shots came from several different locations.

So all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the knoll must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the Depository and elsewhere, according to your theory.

And all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the Depository must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the knoll and elsewhere, according to your theory.

You cannot reconcile your two arguments, for reliable witnesses AND multiple shooting locations, because nearly all the witnesses who named a source named one location, not multiple locations. So all those witnesses who named only one source got it wrong, and that makes them unreliable.

My theory has only about half (it's actually fewer than that) the witnesses being wrong for thinking all the shots came from the knoll. And the other half (those who thought all the shots came from the Depository) being right.

Only conspiracy-land theorists like yourself would think claiming nearly 100% of the witnesses got the location of some of the shots wrong would establish to a reasonable person's satisfaction that witnesses are reliable. I'm sure you think that's some high-level thinking on your part. Most people would see right through that delusional nonsense.

How reliable can witnesses be when nearly all of them thought shots came from one location, and your theory has multiple shooting locations? They were nearly all wrong about the source of some of your shots, according to your own arguments.

I asked you this before, and you ignored the question.


Which one of the two arguments above are you going to abandon because both your arguments cannot be true?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 19th October 2017 at 10:20 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:35 AM   #2027
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
I already explained how that could happen acoustically. Supersonic ammunition with a noise-suppressed rifle shot can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise. Apparently some hunters use this to their advantage, because it works on animals.

Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction. You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity. An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw. A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw. An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back. The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived. The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat.

Last edited by MicahJava; 19th October 2017 at 10:37 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:39 AM   #2028
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,219
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I already explained how that could happen acoustically. Supersonic ammunition with a noise-suppressed rifle shot can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise. Apparently some hunters use this to their advantage, because it works on animals.

Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction. You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity. An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw. A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw. An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back. The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived. The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat.
If you "explanation" relies on supersonic ammunition and suppressed weapons, then you probably shouldn't be describing it as something that "could" happen.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:42 AM   #2029
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why do you LNers pretend to not understand that the HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs is physically impossible? That's a whole brain that they said somehow fit through a five-inch skull cavity. The only way that could be the true interpretation of the photographs is if they placed a previously-separated portion of the skull back, but that contradicts all witness statements on the photographing of the skull.
It is an illustration, to provide a graphical representation of the event. It is not made to infer that the brain was removed through the hole. You have been linked direct evidence of how the brain was removed. Continual misrepresentation is not going anywhere, nor make it true.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:46 AM   #2030
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
It is an illustration, to provide a graphical representation of the event. It is not made to infer that the brain was removed through the hole. You have been linked direct evidence of how the brain was removed. Continual misrepresentation is not going anywhere, nor make it true.
The HSCA contended that you could see both the alleged beveled entry and the beveled exit on the top of the skull in the same photograph. They say those wounds were 5 inches apart. The HSCA wants you to think that Kennedy's whole brain was removed a five-inch hole.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:47 AM   #2031
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Showing an irrefutable problem with the official JFK story to lone nutters:

MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:50 AM   #2032
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I already explained how that could happen acoustically. Supersonic ammunition with a noise-suppressed rifle shot can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise. Apparently some hunters use this to their advantage, because it works on animals.

Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction. You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity. An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw. A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw. An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back. The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived. The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat.
That's because there wasn't a hole in the forehead, except the large defect caused by the bullet entry from the rear. It is all in the report, and you presume that hole existed, when in fact it doesn't.

I have already asked/told you the doctors who signed the report all had a change to add an exception, which none did therefore all of them agreed to the findings. Attempting to piece together a scenario where one or more of them disagree, with out of context statements, your beliefs, misrepresenting their testimony 15 years after the fact.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:57 AM   #2033
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,219
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The HSCA contended that you could see both the alleged beveled entry and the beveled exit on the top of the skull in the same photograph. They say those wounds were 5 inches apart.
These may be correct, but...

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The HSCA wants you to think that Kennedy's whole brain was removed a five-inch hole.
...this does not follow on from the other statements.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:08 AM   #2034
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,165
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I already explained how that could happen acoustically. Supersonic ammunition with a noise-suppressed rifle shot can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise. Apparently some hunters use this to their advantage, because it works on animals.

Suppressors are handy for night fighting for limiting muzzle flash, and they make it easier to communicate verbally within the fire team without yelling.

Look up Operation Red Wings and you'll see how four SEALs with suppressed weapons didn't exactly melt away into the forest under Taliban fire.

And in 1963, nobody was going to use a silencer for a job like Dealey Plaza.

Quote:
Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction. You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity.
The photo also shows that the scalp had already been peeled back, which means the skull had already been sawed open on the left. You don't know the sequence of when this picture was taken, you haven't seen all of the autopsy photos, so you are in no position to make any claim here.


Quote:
An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw.
There's only one. It's location is documented.

Quote:
A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw.
A non-existent hole that doesn't appear in any of the photographs.

Quote:
An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back.
That's not even true. Parkland made the hole bigger.

Quote:
The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived.
You have yet to site which pictures are gone. You have no proof that any are missing. You do not know what the other photographs detail. You forget about the negatives, which are likely in a safe in Massachusetts.

Quote:
The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat.
Nope.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:10 AM   #2035
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,498
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
To be fair, he's busier now, because he's got the added responsibility of doing precisely the same thing in the 9/11 forum.

Dave
The term "one trick pony" has never been more appropriate.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:10 AM   #2036
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,165
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The HSCA contended that you could see both the alleged beveled entry and the beveled exit on the top of the skull in the same photograph. They say those wounds were 5 inches apart. The HSCA wants you to think that Kennedy's whole brain was removed a five-inch hole.
No they don't. This is your misinterpretation.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:14 AM   #2037
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,498
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Showing an irrefutable problem with the official JFK story to lone nutters:

https://media.giphy.com/media/l1J9Ih...7aec/giphy.gif
Historical origin of the CTist mindset:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


MJ is either the Black Knight or the invisible horses, take your pick
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:37 AM   #2038
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...
A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw. ....

After re-reading your beliefs, I remembered the very first time I view CT material, where the CT wrote/produced a report/video(I'm not sure which) contending that the autopsy doctors missed a massive exit wound somewhere around the hairline at the back of the Presidents head, because Parkland's personnel remembered it.

After doing a little research, it wasn't difficult to find out why no exit wound was discovered during the autopsy. There simply is no exit wound, x-rays showed nothing, images showed nothing.

Calling the autopsy doctors procedures flawed is just one of the misunderstanding image/body conditions that spur interest in the CT's agenda. MJ, your attempts resemble the same failed agenda.

Again it would be a travesty to call yourself a truth seeker a spinner of yarns perhaps.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:49 AM   #2039
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I already explained how that could happen acoustically. Supersonic ammunition with a noise-suppressed rifle shot can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise.
LONG ANSWER:
Still makes no sense for the following reasons:

1. There's no evidence of a noise-suppressed rifle shot.
2. No witnesses saw another rifle other than the one in the sniper's nest.
3. Your argument is that the witnesses wouldn't hear these "noise-suppressed rifle shot(s)", that's why they thought there were only three shots.
4. You're left with the witnesses hearing only the three NON-noise suppressed shots and therefore confusing the source of the three NON-noise suppressed shots.
5. It doesn't explain why almost ALL of the witnesses thought the three non-noise suppressed shots they heard ALL came one source, but generally named two different ones: some witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, some witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Depository. Only less than a handful (less than five) of witnesses thought there were two sources. Your argument relies on the vast majority of witnesses being reliable when you want (when they named the grassy knoll), but yet somehow unreliable when you want at the same time (when they heard only three shots and when they thought all the shots came from only one location).



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Apparently some hunters use this to their advantage, because it works on animals.
"Apparently" is a dead giveaway you still don't understand acoustics, rifles, bullets, or shooting. You're not arguing from personal experience, you're arguing from what you surmise.

The bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, therefore the animal doesn't hear the shot that kills it.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction.
STILL PART OF THE LONG ANSWER:
Your problem is I do understand your point, and can see right through to the other side.

1. Where's the evidence of a noise-suppressed rifle being used in Dealey Plaza?
2. You beg the question of a noise-suppressed rifle shot (or shots) to argue for more than three shots from Oswald's NON-noise suppressed rifle, to explain why about 90% of the witnesses heard only three shots.
3. Having used the argument that the witnesses didn't hear the "noise-suppressed rifle shot(s)", you cannot use these shots to claim they confused the witnesses as to the source of the shots they did hear.
4. You're left with arguing the witnesses confused the source of the THREE NON-noise suppressed rifle shots, all fired from the Depository, and some thought they all came from the Depository, while others claimed they all came from the knoll.
5. You then somehow claim the knoll witnesses are reliable, when you actually just established the exact opposite.


SHORT ANSWER:
You just admitted that rifle shots can confuse witnesses as to the source of the shots: "Supersonic ammunition ... can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise." (You haven't established this is unique to noise-suppressed shots only, so I left that part of your claim out).

We're done here. The witnesses are unreliable as to the source, you just admitted it. Since there's no evidence of shots from the knoll, other than the witness reports, we can discard those witnesses as mistaken (i.e., "confuse[d] ... [as to] the origin of the noise").


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity.
Why are five inch holes in the head a contradiction? How'd you determine that empty skull cavity was five inches?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw.
Except the autopsy report notes two entry wounds, both in JFK, both inflicted from above and behind.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw.
Who is 'everybody'? Every conspiracy website you consulted?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back.
And this is a problem why? This never happens? Ever?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived.
Wait, what? How do you know the most revealing autopsy photos are missing, if you never SAW them, and therefore can't speak authoritatively about what's contained in them? Your arguments never make any sense, but they usually take a little more unravelling than this.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat.
It's called faulty recall, and trying, 35 years after the fact, to reconcile facts you're being told are true, but that you have no way of verify but accept on faith. You remember one thing, but are being told that can't be right. So you then admit you must be wrong, and change your story.

This has never happened to you?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 19th October 2017 at 12:30 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:53 AM   #2040
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The HSCA contended that you could see both the alleged beveled entry and the beveled exit on the top of the skull in the same photograph. They say those wounds were 5 inches apart.
Five inches apart when the wound was first examined. Not when the brain was removed.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The HSCA wants you to think that Kennedy's whole brain was removed a five-inch hole.
No, you want us to think the HSCA wants us to think that. I asked you to cite for that claim multiple times in the past. You never have.

There's a reason. They never said it. You're guilty of making stuff up.

Look, another strawman!

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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