|
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. |
9th July 2018, 11:30 AM | #601 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Then you missed this part of MOCKINGBIRD:
Quote:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr.../family-jewels |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
10th July 2018, 01:05 PM | #602 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,302
|
|
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
24th September 2018, 11:03 AM | #603 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Lisa Pease said on twitter she has evidence that Walter Tew himself dug a bullet out of a wall in the Ambassador Hotel and initialed it. Dan Moldea had previously made the argument that Walter Tew was just an unqualified cop who could have circled random holes in the wall. More to come soon on November 11 when her new RFK book comes out.
|
24th September 2018, 11:14 AM | #604 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
24th September 2018, 11:18 AM | #605 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Conspiracy Theorist writes book about Conspiracy Theory.
Shocking. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th September 2018, 01:17 PM | #606 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Lots of people say stuff on Twitter. Not all of it is true. You do understand that, right?
After 50 years, what possible *evidence* could Lisa Pease have discovered? A statement from Tew from this past June saying he recalls such a bullet? Where's the bullet? His recollection does not move the needle whatsoever. You need hard evidence at this late date. Memories don't cut it. You do understand that, right? Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
25th September 2018, 04:54 AM | #607 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
19th October 2018, 06:47 PM | #608 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Dan Moldea's argument for Thane Eugene Cesare's guilt is non-existent. Moldea claims to think the mob killed JFK, so murder confessions must strike a cord with him more than forensic evidence etc. So, his mission is to get Cesare to confess to the murder. But he already knew from Cesare's short interview in *Second Gun* that this guy has hated the Kennedys and joked about how right wing he was. And Cesare had no problem discussing this with Moldea in person, and again joked about being a Kennedy-hating conservative. Was he expecting Cesare to break down crying? To get nervous? If Moldea was knowingly guilty, then he would probably be of the opinion that he did nothing wrong, if not caused good. How do we know that Moldea isn't just displaying a type of arrogance displayed by many criminals?
|
19th October 2018, 07:16 PM | #609 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
19th October 2018, 07:19 PM | #610 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
19th October 2018, 07:58 PM | #611 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
19th October 2018, 10:39 PM | #612 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I'm not saying riots should break out over this little tidbit, but an check out 15:50 of this RFK Tapes podcast episode.
http://rfktapes.com/bonus-follow-the-lies/ http://rfktapes.com/bonus-ep-4-transcript/ BILL: The standard argument against Cesar being the guy who shot Kennedy was that Cesar was supposedly carrying a .38 caliber pistol, while the bullets in Kennedy’s back were from a .22. But Cesar did own a .22. And although he was interviewed the night of the murder, there is no record of anyone inspecting his gun to see what caliber it was, or if it had been fired. But maybe someone did. DANIEL JENSEN: And the next night at roll call, now remember this is just a bunch of cops sitting around talking, that’s when the discussion came up of the second gun. BILL: In Zac’s interview with officer Daniel Jensen, Jensen said that he heard other cops talking about extra bullets and about a security guard who had carried a .22. JENSEN: I don’t remember exactly they found one or two many bullet holes. The guy had a .22, it was a 7 shot or a 9 shot, but there were too many bullet holes. ZAC: Sirhan’s gun held 8 shots. JENSEN: So that means if he had 8, they found 10 the way I recall. There were two, too many bullet holes. But remember, I’m hearing all this stuff, locker room talk, and one of the officers was saying that the security guard had a .22 which is an unusual gun to carry and the cops started speculating. You know what, I bet he capped off some rounds. BILL: This is an extraordinary conversation. Of course, it’s not proof of anything, it’s just, as Jensen says, “locker room talk.” But if this is true, it greatly strengthens the case against Cesar. And if Cesar did it, I can’t tell you why he sounds innocent. Some people are just wired that way. Or maybe someone messed with his mind. The evidence of a second gun is not limited to extra bullets in the door frames, or the suspicions around Gene Cesar. There are wounds in Robert Kennedy that are seriously inconsistent with his position relative to Sirhan. According to the autopsy, the four bullets that struck Kennedy were all fired an inch or two away. Three of them were fired at a steep upward angle. Most reliable witnesses put Sirhan’s gun in front of Kennedy and a foot and a half to three feet away when the shooting started. It is possible that Kennedy turned at the last moment, and it is possible that Sirhan lunged, closing the distance to create a contact shot. But given the existing evidence, I believe it’s near impossible for Sirhan to get four shots into Kennedy’s back at contact range and at a steep upward angle. Maitre d’ Karl Uecker has said repeatedly that he grabbed Sirhan’s wrist after the first two shots, then wrestled him down to the steam table, where Sirhan began to fire again. Nine other witnesses said they pretty much heard the same thing: two shots, a pause, and then a volley of shots. If all that’s true, where in that sequence can Sirhan fire four shots into the back of Kennedy at a steep upward angle? This one goes right by the police, so I want to credit Dan Moldea for recognizing this problem and trying to deal with it. I just don’t agree with how he solves it. We already know that Cesare lied about selling the .38 before the assassination, and how easily that was proven wrong. It would just be another lie about carrying a .22 instead of a .38 that night. |
19th October 2018, 10:52 PM | #613 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Has Dan Moldea only dealt with interrogating financial criminals before dealing with Thane Cesare and Sirhan? I don't think he sees how people with strong political convictions do not care about the lives of their enemies. And plus, any Lone-Assassin Theorist in both Kennedy assassinations would also have to question Moldea's judgement of the JFK case, which he said he believed was a mob hit. He is probably referring to past accounts of murder confessions without scientific evidence. Moldea has gotten criminals to confess before, so he had this weird Moby Dick thing about getting no confession from Cesare. So the fact that Moldea was personally convinced of Cesare's innocence is not evidence of his innocence either. Just like Cesare's demeanor is not evidence of innocence, because he openly dehumanizes not just the Kennedys, but minorities too. Moldea writes for a living, and he openly admits it was just a gut feeling to him after that point.
|
19th October 2018, 11:00 PM | #614 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
update: I now believe Scott Enyard has been lying for attention about being in the pantry. Evidence on this case is very scattered so it wasn't until the RFK tapes that Scott Enyard was partially debunked. The FBI Guy just didn't mention in that program that we probably know the exact guy who is in that photograph, who happened to look a little like Enyard's High School Portrait. There were actual photographs that existed and went missing, but Enayrd lied about the photos showing the pantry at the time of the shooting.
|
20th October 2018, 01:05 AM | #615 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
|
|
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
20th October 2018, 07:49 AM | #616 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
Firstly exactly how is a steep angle defined in this context? I've been in kitchens and the table are about waist high, so it should be that much of a stretch to believe that shots to the back are at an upward angle.
This is all idle speculation without much thought processes by those around the scene. This proves nothing. |
20th October 2018, 08:15 AM | #617 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
I think he got hit with his brother's bullet. just as good a conspiracy and just as absurd
|
20th October 2018, 04:31 PM | #618 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
So your position is that people are guilty until proven innocent, or does that rule only apply when the people under the microscope are NOT named Sirhan or Oswald?
You are once more relying on a logical fallacy to make your point. In this case, your logical fallacy is SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I remind you that Sirhan was seized in the pantry with his gun in his hand, still firing the weapon. I remind you that Sirhan was tried and convicted by a jury of twelve. The burden is therefore on you to establish Sirhan's innocence and Cesar's guilt. No one need present evidence of Cesar's innocence. The burden is entirely yours, and your attempt to rely on the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof is evident. You frequently resort to logical fallacies, so much so that I wonder if you can post a reasoned argument without utilizing logical fallacies. 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 |
|
20th October 2018, 04:39 PM | #619 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Doesn't that apply to most everyone? I really don't care about what happens in your life, and I doubt highly you lose any sleep about what's happening in mine. Your point is meaningless.
When he comes here to argue that point, I'll argue that point with him. Until then, I don't lose any sleep over it. You're at this point not attacking Moldea's points, but Moldea himself. That's a logical fallacy by you. According to whom? Nobody has suggested it was. You're just introducing another logical fallacy -- this one is called a STRAWMAN. That's where you introduce an argument just to rebut it. Do you have a point to make? Nobody cares about Moldea's feelings in this case. What's pertinent here is 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 |
|
20th October 2018, 04:41 PM | #620 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
And?
Please explain how a guy with experience interrogating smart people is somehow disqualified to question murderers.
Quote:
Quote:
If Moldea believed this now then there's a problem because we know who murdered both JFK and RFK.
Quote:
How many interrogations have you personally taken part in in your career as a law enforcement officer? What do you base this statement on other than you disagree with it?
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2018, 04:42 PM | #621 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
20th October 2018, 04:56 PM | #622 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Hold on, so a guy who was photographed in the pantry is not believable, even though in Enyard's case it might ACTUALLY SUGGEST CONSPIRACY, but because he disagrees with your theory he is automatically discounted?
Okay. Here's the LA Times story on his lawsuit, and some real-world fishy stuff going on: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-...1_kennedy-fall Whatever... |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
20th October 2018, 11:38 PM | #623 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
This RFK Tapes episode says it all. A Must-listen for those who have heard of Scott Enyard: http://rfktapes.com/bonus-the-trial-of-scott-enyart/
|
21st October 2018, 05:34 AM | #624 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
And does this provide concrete evidence to overturn the conviction of Sirhan?
No then why are you clinging to discussion that have been available to decades? I hasn't changed the course of events nor changed the outcome, you are just wrong. JFK, RFK and 9/11 you choose poorly when discussing history. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|