|
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. |
10th June 2018, 07:45 PM | #161 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
|
10th June 2018, 07:49 PM | #162 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,834
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
10th June 2018, 07:53 PM | #163 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
|
10th June 2018, 08:08 PM | #164 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.
Hanks ”method” is not going 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. I have explained all this to Hank, but he is not interested in that. He has a different agenda.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I agree that there are a number of claims I’ve made that awaits supporting evidence, but that is still way way fewer than the claims made by you and your congregation. You call it ”the null” and ”concilience” and stuff, don’t you!
Quote:
Explain why a federal regulation states that certain procedures should be followed that should not be followed. I’m curious how you get this working in your mind. Logically.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. Stay on subject and not being bogged down in more subjects. 2. Respond to false sweeping statements with equally sweeping but true statements providing a true counter narrative to that contrived and promulgated by the US National Security State since the minute JFK died in Parkland Memorial. Talk back to power. |
10th June 2018, 08:47 PM | #165 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Well, that sounds scary. Too bad it's not true.
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, nobody makes fun of their acronym: USPIS. That says something. https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/ Grownups can read about them here: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your grasp of US history is creative to say the least |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
10th June 2018, 09:06 PM | #166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
How about you stop playing the stupid game of yours, and just post the evidence at the time you make the claim.
|
__________________
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!! |
|
10th June 2018, 09:18 PM | #167 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
[quote=manifesto;12323043]
Yawn more refusal, more lies and more no evidence. |
10th June 2018, 09:23 PM | #168 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Actually, you started it with a list of nine of Manifesto's claims where you asked simply for 'Evidence?'.
I kept your nine and started adding to it. Here's the full list of one hundred. I stopped at that point: Here's the 100 claims by Manifesto that he was asked to provide evidence for. He has yet to support any of them with legitimate evidence. 1 - Evidence?
Quote:
2 - Evidence?
Quote:
3 - Evidence?
Quote:
4 - Evidence?
Quote:
5 - Evidence?
Quote:
6 - Evidence?
Quote:
7 - Evidence?
Quote:
8 - Evidence?
Quote:
9 - Evidence?
Quote:
#10 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#11 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#12 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#13 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#14 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#15 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#16 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#17 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#18 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#19 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#20 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#21 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#22 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#23 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#24 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#25- Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#26- Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#27 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#28 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#29 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#30 -
Quote:
#31 -
Quote:
#32 -
Quote:
#33 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#34 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#35 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#36 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#37 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#38 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#39 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#40 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#41 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#42 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#43 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#44 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Quote:
#45 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #46 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #47 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #48 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #49 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #50 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #51 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #52 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #53 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #54 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #55 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #56 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #57 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #58 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #59 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #60 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #61 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #62 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #63 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #64 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #65 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #66 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #67 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #68 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #69 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #70 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #71 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #72 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #73 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #74 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #75 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #76 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #77 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #78 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #79- Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #80 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #81 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #82 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #83 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #84 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #85 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #86 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #87 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #88 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #89 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #90 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #91 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #92 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #93 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #94 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #95 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #96 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #97 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #98 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #99 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. #100 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity. |
__________________
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 |
|
10th June 2018, 09:44 PM | #169 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
So you aren't providing the evidence I request because my requests for evidence create the illusion of you not providing evidence?
Do I have that right? Gotta love the logic there. Especially since you originally had no problem with it and thanked me for providing you a list: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12315037
Quote:
PS: Your statement is my new signature. |
__________________
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 |
|
10th June 2018, 09:57 PM | #170 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
So William Waldman's testimony as posted here is completely accurate?
A rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was shipped to PO Box 2915 in Dallas Texas? And was paid for via a money order bearing the name Hidell? == QUOTE == Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is. Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI. Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI? Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963. Mr. BELIN. Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation. Mr. BELIN. You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes. Mr. BELIN. And you can make copies of the microfilm prints? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes. Mr. BELIN. I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22. Mr. WALDMAN. Yes. (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.) Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment? Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes. Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number? Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766. Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that? Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45. Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number? Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number. Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is? Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope. Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963. Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped? Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP." Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here. Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes. Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order. Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer? Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date. Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct? Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct. == UNQUOTE == You affirm Waldman wasn't paid off for that testimony? Is 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 |
|
10th June 2018, 11:35 PM | #171 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
I’m afraid it is.
Quote:
Quote:
https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com...55-3.png?w=765
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Take your pick.
Quote:
NARA couldn’t find them. Maybe you can? http://www.krusch.com/jfk/Shells_National_Archives.zip
Quote:
Quote:
Do you have any?
Quote:
Bill Harvey was assigned ZRIFLE which was CIA’s assassinations program. He was very close to Rosselli and Morales and was according to his assistant station chief in Rome, involved in the assassination. He hated both JFK and RFK when removed from the Cuba-Project after attacking Soviet ships in the middle of the missile crisis almost causing world war three and nuclear armageddon. David Morales confessed to his best childhood friend and another friend that ”we took care of JFK and the little Kennedy bastard, RFK too. Hunt had no alibi for the assassination decided in court and made a deathbed confession to his son available on the web. Philips was seen talking with Oswald in Dallas by his long time contractor, Antonio Veciana and asked Veciana if he could bribe a relative in the Mexico City Cuban consulate to say that Oswald was there to pick up orders and money for the assassination of JFK. Philips was behind all of the ”leaks” to the US press that Oswald acted on orders from Castro. Also Philips made a deathbed confession that he was in Dallas the day of the assassination. There is much more on all of them.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is P o w e r.
Quote:
Yes I know, it’s ugly. |
11th June 2018, 01:25 AM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
I read it. Its evidence he was an FBI informant. Anyone who is well read on JFK already knows this (nothing new here).
But you claim he was in on the alleged conspiracy... where is the evidence of this? Linking a website when you are asked for evidence of the names of alleged conspirators is not evidence. Give us their actual names... tell us who they are, and cite your evidence that they are conspirators. Show us the evidence of this. Show us evidence that the tags have to be on the shells No, he didn't claim that. There was a question mark at the end of what he said. You do know what that means don't you? It means he was asking YOU if you were claiming RFK was involved in your alleged conspiracy to kill JFK Bwhahahaha! Thats funny 1. Evidence? 2. Evidence? 3. Evidence? 4. Evidence? Evidence?
Quote:
Quote:
Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? Bwhahahaha.. oh, just priceless. Looks like English language is not the only thing you're crap at. Your Geography skills are somewhat lacking as well. Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? |
__________________
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!! |
|
11th June 2018, 05:31 AM | #173 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
11th June 2018, 06:38 AM | #174 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
|
11th June 2018, 06:43 AM | #175 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
Well, Between Robert Prey and manifesto, we are starting to converge on how many witnesses supposedly saw the headwounds that prove JFK was shot from the front (which somehow weren't there when the autopsy was performed) Robert Prey cited "40 plus". manifesto says "almost 50".
For some reason though, neither of them seems to be able to pin down an exact number. Apparently it's somewhere between 41 and 49. Of course, I strongly suspect that most conspiracy theorists have difficulty counting past 20, or 10 if they're wearing shoes. |
11th June 2018, 07:41 AM | #176 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
Oh, I see. You're so clever. You have promised, that if we ask you very nicely, in just the right way, and say "Pretty please with sugar on it", that you will eventually get around to providing evidence. Someday. Maybe even sometime this decade, if not this year. Really. So, in your mind, we can't really say you've refused.
I'm okay with that. You haven't technically refused. However, what you have done is fail to provide that evidence. You have failed to provide it utterly, completely and miserably. In fact fail pretty well describes everything you have done in this thread. You demand that everyone else support any claim with evidence, and not just, we've covered that ground already six times, or it's on page whatever of the Warren Commission report, or a link to it. We need to quote passages and offer an essay on why we think it supports our position. Even when we do that, you fail to acknowledge it, and respond with another page full of bare assertions about LBJ, the CIA, the FBI, etc. for which you fail to provide even the tiniest bit of evidence. |
11th June 2018, 10:41 AM | #178 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 182
|
|
11th June 2018, 11:38 AM | #179 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
OMG! The USPIS shared intelligence with the FBI? Now if we could get the FBI and CIA to talk we'd be going places.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....Id=21&tab=page The memo records a meeting of senior national security officials in the Oval Office on March 16, 1962. Since you're obtuse and refuse to click links here's the juice: The Attorney General then mentioned Mary Hemingway [Ernest Hemingway’s widow], commenting on reports that Castro was drinking heavily in disgruntlement over the way things were going, and the opportunities offered by the “shrine” to Hemingway. I commented that this was a conversation that Ed Murrow [the former news broadcaster then heading the US Information Agency] had had with Mary Hemingway, that we had similar reports from other sources, and that this was worth assessing firmly and pursuing vigorously. If there are grounds for action, CIA had some invaluable assets which might well be committed for such an effort. McCone asked if his operational people were aware of this; I told him that we had discussed this, that they agreed the subject was worth vigorous development, and that we were in agreement that the matter was so delicate and sensitive that it shouldn’t be surfaced to the Special Group [an elite interagency group that reviewed covert actions] until we were ready to go, and then not in detail. I pointed out that this all pertained to fractioning the regime. If it happened, it could develop like a brush-fire, much as in Hungary, and we must be prepared to help it win our goal of Cuba freed of a Communist government. [Emphasis added.] "Fractioning the Regime" was CIA-speak for assassination.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
11th June 2018, 11:47 AM | #180 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
The most disappointing thing about Manifesto is that his claims lack originality. They're either ancient Mark Lane-era obfuscations, Lifton lunacy, or the latest takes on the old allegations some loser on the Education Forums has dreamed up.
It's all on par with Flat Earth and Apollo Hoaxer stuff. I just want to see a plausible JFK conspiracy just once. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
11th June 2018, 11:58 AM | #181 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 472
|
|
11th June 2018, 12:22 PM | #182 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
11th June 2018, 12:46 PM | #183 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,834
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
11th June 2018, 01:15 PM | #184 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
11th June 2018, 01:31 PM | #185 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
And poor old manifesto really doesn't understand this. He clearly thinks all informants are the same... Well, they are not.
https://www.koffellaw.com/columbus-c...of-informants/ Where manifesto is getting confused is between an "informant", a.k.a. an "identified citizen informant" (ICI) and a "confidential criminal formant" (CI). An ICI is anyone who reports crime to law enforcement. If I tell the local cops that someone is selling drugs from his key cutting kiosk in a shopping mall (and I actually did that once) that makes me an ICI and when I go to court to testify to it, that makes me a "witness". In the case of the USPO, informants are those members staff who spot possible contraband in the package stream, and lets the cops know. They are ICIs who work for the USPS. There was a whole list of ICIs in the page manifesto posted, not just Harry Holmes. However, a CI is different. They are usually (but not always) a petty criminal whose minor activities are overlooked because they take a considerable personal risk to give the police valuable information. A CI's job is to point the police in the right direction, and for this reason, they are rarely used as witnesses as this would expose them to the rest of the criminal fraternity, rendering them useless to law enforcement. Absolutely. The JFK assassination could have been avoided, as could have 9/11. |
__________________
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!! |
|
11th June 2018, 02:47 PM | #186 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
Try this, although I don't remember if you can get in without signing up:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/fo...es-in-history/ |
11th June 2018, 03:53 PM | #187 |
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 |
|
11th June 2018, 04:42 PM | #188 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
”Legitimate”? Who’s the chief arbiter, here?
Your mentor Mr. McA ... ?
Quote:
The actual in investigation, not the politically contrived conclusions made by Robert Blakey. 1. The investigation shows that it was five, not four, impulse patterns that had a significant match with 0.6 or more binary correlation. 2. That the shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot and did not miss. 3. That the probability for the knoll-shot being random noise or static was 1/100 000, not ca 1/20. I have argued for this in the following posts (among others): http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1338 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1367 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1412 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1482 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1536 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1541 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1587 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1594 Let me know if this is not enough and tell me what additional information you need to see, if any. But, be specific. Cite. Explain.
Quote:
Mr. Smith. The testimony of deputy Sheriff to Seymour Weitzman: [i]Mr. Ball. DPD’s officer Smith again, interviewed by author, Anthony Summers: “He [the Secret Service agent]looked like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic's hands. And afterwards it didn't ring true for the Secret Service. At the time we were so pressed for time, and we were searching. And he had produced correct identification, and we just overlooked the thing. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn't snap on it.” Testimony from DPD Sergeant, David V. Harkness: Mr. Belin Testimony from Dallas deputy Sheriff, Roger Craig: ”I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office at 505 Main Street, Dallas, Texas, watching President Kennedy pass in the motorcade. I was watching the rest of the motorcade a few seconds after President Kennedy passed where I was standing when I heard a rifle shot and a few seconds later a second and then a third shot. At the retort [sic] of the first shot, I started running around the corner and Officer Buddy Walthers and I ran across Houston Street and on up the terrace on Elm Street and into the railroad yards. We made a [unintelligible -- search?] through the railroad yards and I returned to Elm Street by the Turnpike sign at which time Officer Walthers told me that a bullet had struck the curb on the south side of Elm Street. I crossed to Elm with Deputy C. L. Lummie Lewis [sic] to search for a spot where a shell might have hit. About this time I heard a shrill whistle and I turned around and saw a white male running down the hill from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building and I saw what I think was a light colored Rambler Station [sic] wagon with [a] luggage rack on top pull over to the curb and the subject who had come running down the hill got into the car. The man driving this station wagon was a dark complected white male. I tried to get across the street to stop the car and talk with subjects, but the traffic was so heavy, I could not make it. I reported this incident at once to a secret service [sic] officer whose name I do not know, then I left this area and went at once to the building and assisted in the search of the building.”Four Dallas police officers independently reporting Secret Service men seconds or minutes after the shooting, at critical positions in connection to where most of the witnesses heard shots fired from. Behind the picket fence and behind the TSBD. The first real Secret Service agent arriving at Dealey Plaza after the shooting was Dallas SAIC Forrest Sorrels, who was on scene earliest at 20-25 minutes after the event. Testimony from DPD detective, Marwin A Buhk: “We next heard the call regarding the suspect being in the branch Library on Jefferson. We converged on that location and there were Secret Service men and other patrol and CID officers present when all the people were ordered out of the building. One of the Secret Service men stated the person who came out of the basement with the others was not the suspect and that he had already talked to him a few minutes previously.”This was in connection to the Tippit Shooting but here too are false Secret Service agents on scene minutes after the shooting. There were no real Secret Service agents present on and around the Tippit shooting, ever. Testimony from Dallas deputy, Sheriff W.W Mabra (report to Sheriff Decker): (Who encontered what he thought was a ”City Officer” who had told him)No DPD officer was stationed in the yards. Conclusion. 6 Dallas police officers independently report encounters with false Secret Service men and unknown officers in civilian clothes in emediate proximity to the shootings that day. To this day, no one has stepped forward and identified himself as being one of the ’agents’. To this day no one knows who these men were. This is clear evidence of the cover-up being in full swing the seconds/minutes after the last shot was fired at Dealey Plaza. There is more, but I stop here for now. |
11th June 2018, 04:51 PM | #189 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
11th June 2018, 05:06 PM | #190 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I posted the file on Lopez, a FPCC member, Cuban immigrant, who left Tampa, FL, and was in Texas in the day of the assassination, and crossed into Mexico on 11/23/63 to later return to Cuba. He was the only guy on the plane.
Screams conspiracy to me. What did he know? Why did the FBI confuse his picture as being Oswald? Who's car was he driving when he crossed the border? Memo specifically states there in no clear link to Oswald, isn't that convenient? Obviously I have revealed the truth, that a Cuban Oswald-lookalike killed JFK and flew first class back to Cuba. Forget the total lack of evidence that Mr. Lopez was even in Dallas, by CTist standards it is clear that Mr. Lopez posed as Oswald to gain entry to the TSBD where he shot JFK. Obviously Mr. Lopez is in the backyard photographs, and likely is J. Heidel. Obviously Oswald, being the crack CIA agent he was, tailed Lopez from the TSBD to the bus, and then the taxi ("Follow that car!"). It is Lopez who shoots Tippit, and drops the gun at the scene of the crime only to have crack CIA agent Oswald retrieve, and reload the gun, and then took off on a foot-chase across town. That's why Oswald didn't buy a ticket, Lopez had entered unseen, and Oswald followed him inside the theater. Oswald was just about to shoot Lopez when the DPD barged in and arrested the wrong guy. Where's my Pulitzer? |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
11th June 2018, 05:07 PM | #191 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,838
|
Fringe reset! The HSCA acoustic evidence has been thoroughly and completely debunked. Multiple times. That you don't accept it is your problem.
|
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov |
|
11th June 2018, 07:16 PM | #192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
#1. "Legitimate" as in not copied from a CT Looney source #2. "Legitimate" as in not just a link to a website #3. "Legitimate" as in not ages old CT fantasy crap that he been repeatedly debunked #4. "Legitimate" as in relevant to the claim it supports #5. "Legitimate" as in actually supporting the claim, not refuting it See item #3. above It will never be enough, because it (the HSCA Acoustic eviddence) has already been thoroughly and utterly debunked (especially by the CBA) to the point that even those who came to the original conclusions and presented them to the HSCA, now agree with the CBA that their own original conclusions were all wrong. Ask any LEO and they will tell you that if you have 10 people watching the same event, you could get ten different witness accounts, many of which will conflict with each other (he was wearing a blue jacket; a red jacket; a black jacket; a brown jacket). If you want to really understand just how bad eye-witness testimony can be watch this. Of course, of you would prefer to remain ignorant, then don't watch it... I don't care https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWO2UQ4MW7U Just because a witness says something happened doesn't necessarily make it so. When a minority of witnesses give evidence which is conflicting, and which conflicts with many other witness, then that conflicting evidence has to be placed in context and given less weight. For mine, taken in context with the many other witnesses on or near the GK who pointed straight to the TSBD as the source of the shots, the only thing your witness testimony is evidence of is the unreliability of witnesses. |
__________________
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!! |
|
11th June 2018, 07:28 PM | #193 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
The false Secret Service agent was a Treasury Department agent.
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
11th June 2018, 08:19 PM | #194 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 182
|
My question:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post12289141 Your response: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2896 All you had to do was say what books or anything you've read to show exactly where you get your information to show how you had read the controversy. You refused to do so. |
11th June 2018, 09:20 PM | #195 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
|
__________________
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!! |
|
11th June 2018, 09:55 PM | #196 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
So, why dispute it?
Quote:
One step at a time.
Quote:
The FBI.
Quote:
- The Parkland doctors and nurses - The agents from FBI and Secret Service - The medical personel at Bethesda http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
Quote:
Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 545," I will ask you to state if you know what this is.(1 DAY) Mr. BELIN. I believe you said that you examined the three shells today?(1 GD) Mr. BELIN. Now, handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 544, I will ask you to state if you know what this is.(1 DAY) That is: 2 shells with DAY engraved and 1 with, GD. But, Lt. Day changes his mind again, in spite of having carefully studied the three shells in evidence. In a correction to his testimony he writes this in a sworn affidavit to WC: Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543.That makes it: all 3 shells with DAY engraved and 2 shells also with GD on them. So, where are these 3 + 2 = initials on the three shells in evidence? NARA couldn’t find them. Can you? http://www.krusch.com/jfk/Shells_National_Archives.zip
Quote:
Well, they didn’t. They used the same people involved in the plans and efforts to assassinate Castro & co.Axxman300 replied: RFK was in on it?Axxman300 implies that RFK was involved in the efforts to assassinate Castro. He has stated this multiple times before, but still not a shred of evidence. It’s kind of sad, isn’t it.
Quote:
That’s how it goes, I guess. Sad.
Quote:
Program to recruit foreign criminal assets for various illegal activities including burglary, wire taps, strong arm work and thefts in support of ZR code breaking work. Later used by William Harvey as a cover for an Executive Action assassinations program.
Quote:
In November 1961 William Harvey was ordered to activate an assassination plot against Fidel Castro. This became part of what became known as the ZR/RIFLE project. Harvey decided to transfer David Sanchez Morales from Mexico City to the JM WAVE station. Johnny Roselli was also recruited into the project.
Quote:
According to Wyatts children he allways talked about Harvey in connection with the JFK assassination. Hours after the news of JFK’s death, Harvey had blurted out offensive remarks in front of Wyatt showing he had to have had foreknowledge of the assassination. Wyatts fixation and anguish over what he knew of the Harvey connection prompted his children to try to persuade him to testify to the HSCA, but he couldn’t betray the CIA who he was still loyal to and believed in. When in 1998 interviewed by the French investigative journalist, Fabrizio Calvi, about the CIA’s connections to Operation Gladio, Wyatt suddenly said out of the blue: ”You know, I always wondered what Bill Harvey was doing in Dallas in November 1963,”After this shocker Wyatt told him how he had bumped in to Harvey on a plane to Dallas sometime before the assassination and asked him why he was going there. Harvey had answered vaugely: “I’m here to see what’s happening.”(Talbot, David: The Devils Chessboard) David Talbot has since tried to FOIA Bill Haveys travel vouchers from that period in time from the CIA, but so far no show. Also HSCA investigator Dan Hardway tried to get hold of Harveys travel vouchers and security files 1978, but got stone walled by the CIA in spite of his Congressional mandate to investigate the assassination of JFK. Harvey was one of the prime suspects in the assassination according to Hardway.
Quote:
”They were really scum”: https://youtu.be/iabXbtn5mUE
Quote:
|
11th June 2018, 10:00 PM | #197 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
11th June 2018, 10:08 PM | #198 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
Yes, I have read lots about the controversy. In books but mostly on the net since it is there most of it can be found. But since it was a while back, I do not have the details fresh in my mind and therefore a bit of a project to put together all the scattered information to a comprehensive listing.
It have to wait. |
11th June 2018, 10:45 PM | #199 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
|
__________________
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!! |
|
11th June 2018, 10:56 PM | #200 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|