Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jango said:
It is more comforting to believe she was reacting that way instead of doing what she did: trying to retrieve ejecta from her husband's head.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence of her doing that?

Did she ever say anything of the sort?
Can you point to any ejecta on the back of the limo?
Are you a mind-reader?

Can you answer in the affirmative for any of those three simple questions?

Hank
 
Jango said:
Great. The (obvious) problem being is that she was going after the ejecta from her husband's head. Address the evidence, not your anecdotal life experiences.
Click to expand...

What evidence? So far all you've presented is that claim -- repeatedly.

Where is the evidence that "she was going after the ejecta from her husband's head" as you've claimed?

Please list it for us.

Hint: It's not simply repeating the claim once more.
It's not saying "Watch the Zapruder film" either.

I've been asking for your evidence for several pages at a minimum, going back a week, at a minimum. Will you get around to it this week, year, decade, century? Give me a clue so I know when to check back.

I'm not the only one asking for your "evidence".

I asked here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10684063#post10684063

RoboTimbo asked here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10685086#post10685086

Carlitos asked here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10685126#post10685126

When do you intend to introduce this ejecta into evidence?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
No, you do not need my theory, you actually need your own.
Click to expand...

No, you need to subject your own hidden theory to your own arbitrary standard of evidence.

Why?
Click to expand...
So that you aren't being hypocritical, of course.

Because you've already admitted that you did not know that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve ejecta from her husband's head. You have also admitted to shying away from the available evidence in this case.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence for your claim that she was trying to retrieve ejecta and that it was from JFK's injury?

The implications are clear:
Click to expand...
Indeed they are. You run away from answering questions.

you need to evaluate the evidence.
Click to expand...
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that we haven't. You also seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that you have.

Until you do so, knowing anyone's theory of the event is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
What is your coherent theory for JFK's assassination? Note that it must address all of the evidence with no anomalous outliers.
 
Jango said:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jackie.txt
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/findings.html -- Search the page for "I have his".
Click to expand...

I presume you're talking about this from the first link:

== quote ==
"His last expression was so neat," Mrs. Kennedy told
journalist Theodore H. White in comments released for the first
time Friday. "He had his hand out, I could see a piece of his
skull coming off ... and I can see this perfectly clean piece
detaching itself from his head.
"Then he slumped in my lap," she said. "His blood and brains
were in my lap.
"I kept saying: `Jack, Jack, Jack' and someone was yelling:
`He's dead, he's dead.' All the ride to the hospital I kept bending
over him saying: `Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you Jack.' I
kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains
in," she said on Nov. 29, 1963...
== unquote ==

Where does she say she retrieved anything from the trunk, or went onto the trunk to retrieve anything? Can you point to that? Or are you just assuming what you need to prove?

Jackie saw a piece of his head detach from his head.. and such a piece can be seen falling to the floor of the limo in the Zapruder film. No such piece can be seen going onto the trunk.

In fact, it appears she doesn't remember going onto the trunk at all, exactly as I said. She talks about the piece of skull detaching, then she talks about him falling into her lap. NOTHING in there suggests she went onto the trunk, nor that she went onto the trunk to retrieve anything. Did you happen to miss that?

Ditto with the second quote, which reads:

== quote ==
Mrs. Connally initially thought the Governor was dead as he fell into her lap. She did not look back after her husband was hit, but heard Mrs. Kennedy say. "They have shot my husband." After one shot, Mrs. Connally recalled. the President's wife said, "They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand."
== unquote ==

Nothing *at all* in there about Jackie going to the trunk to retrieve anything. If Jackie had his brains in her hands with his head in her lap, she had plenty right there; she certainly didn't need to go onto the trunk to find any.

So where exactly is this evidence of Jackie going onto the trunk to retrieve ejecta? It appears you're assuming what you need to prove.

So do try again, for the quotes offered don't say anything of the sort, nor do they establish your claim in any fashion.

Please note I am not disputing that she went onto the trunk. I am disputing she went onto the trunk for the reason you suggest -- to retrieve ejecta from the President's head.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Also note where Mrs. Kennedy placed the head wound: "I kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains in..."

A wound on the TOP of the head. Nothing about a back-of-the-head wound. Her statement conforms exactly to what we see in the Zapruder film, what we read in the autopsy report, what we see in the autopsy X-rays and autopsy photos, and the illustrations prepared for the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

Thanks so much for offering that quote.

Hank
 
Jango said:
Watch the Zapruder film.
Click to expand...

Jango I would remind you that you are running away from questions again.

I would suggest that you don't actually try that it hasn't worked in the past has it? Remember we can see you doing it?

lol
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, an instinctive flight reaction to enormous fear, terror, and panic is entirely plausible.
Click to expand...

Yep. Just remember that conspiracy theorists don't have a lot of evidence on their side, so beggars can't be choosers. So he's stuck with less than optimal assertions, and less than optimal evidence for those assertions.

And, of course, a whole lot of evidence pointing to Oswald that conspiracy theorists must avoid somehow. Most do so by arguing, again on less than optimal evidence, all that has been forged, planted, swapped or is somehow illegitimate.

He - like conspiracy theorists everywhere - is stuck between a rock and a hard place, because when you ask for evidence, they really only have assumptions, conjecture, speculation, innuendo, quotes out of context, hearsay, and logical fallacies to respond with. Very little of the good stuff called evidence.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, an instinctive flight reaction to enormous fear, terror, and panic is entirely plausible.
Click to expand...
Yes. It seems perfectly plausible to me also, having witnessed extreme traumatic situations IRL.

Jango seems to disagree, but is coy about stating why he disagrees. I have no idea why he disagrees because he simply won't tell anyone.

I am moved to paraphrase JU, "the goal is not to reach any resolution, but to prolong the discussion" to which I will add that the goal is to acquire a veneer of credibility against all evidence to the contrary.
 
abaddon said:
Yes. It seems perfectly plausible to me also, having witnessed extreme traumatic situations IRL.

Jango seems to disagree, but is coy about stating why he disagrees. I have no idea why he disagrees because he simply won't tell anyone.

I am moved to paraphrase JU, "the goal is not to reach any resolution, but to prolong the discussion" to which I will add that the goal is to acquire a veneer of credibility against all evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Jango cannot argue the point so he tries to vex those that have bested him (in his mind he is actually running afoul of the evidence, the evidence has not only bested him but given him a kiss too) by refusing to concede or comment intelligently.

That is why he ran from Hanks in-depth comments on the 'fragment'.

Hank I would suggest you ask him to refute it or concede the point - he has already conceded it by running - but it might be amusing to see him run again.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
It is more comforting to believe she was reacting that way instead of doing what she did: trying to retrieve ejecta from her husband's head.
Click to expand...

No. It is more respectful to not assume she is part of an unevidenced fairy tale.
 
Jango said:
Because you've already admitted that you did not know that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve ejecta from her husband's head.
Click to expand...

There is a good reason many people did not "know" this. If you want to pretend this is the truth, you may need some evidence that passes scrutiny.
 
HSienzant said:
I presume you're talking about this from the first link:

== quote ==
"His last expression was so neat," Mrs. Kennedy told
journalist Theodore H. White in comments released for the first
time Friday. "He had his hand out, I could see a piece of his
skull coming off ... and I can see this perfectly clean piece
detaching itself from his head.
"Then he slumped in my lap," she said. "His blood and brains
were in my lap.
"I kept saying: `Jack, Jack, Jack' and someone was yelling:
`He's dead, he's dead.' All the ride to the hospital I kept bending
over him saying: `Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you Jack.' I
kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains
in," she said on Nov. 29, 1963...
== unquote ==

Where does she say she retrieved anything from the trunk, or went onto the trunk to retrieve anything? Can you point to that? Or are you just assuming what you need to prove?

Jackie saw a piece of his head detach from his head.. and such a piece can be seen falling to the floor of the limo in the Zapruder film. No such piece can be seen going onto the trunk.

In fact, it appears she doesn't remember going onto the trunk at all, exactly as I said. She talks about the piece of skull detaching, then she talks about him falling into her lap. NOTHING in there suggests she went onto the trunk, nor that she went onto the trunk to retrieve anything. Did you happen to miss that?

Ditto with the second quote, which reads:

== quote ==
Mrs. Connally initially thought the Governor was dead as he fell into her lap. She did not look back after her husband was hit, but heard Mrs. Kennedy say. "They have shot my husband." After one shot, Mrs. Connally recalled. the President's wife said, "They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand."
== unquote ==

Nothing *at all* in there about Jackie going to the trunk to retrieve anything. If Jackie had his brains in her hands with his head in her lap, she had plenty right there; she certainly didn't need to go onto the trunk to find any.

So where exactly is this evidence of Jackie going onto the trunk to retrieve ejecta? It appears you're assuming what you need to prove.

So do try again, for the quotes offered don't say anything of the sort, nor do they establish your claim in any fashion.

Please note I am not disputing that she went onto the trunk. I am disputing she went onto the trunk for the reason you suggest -- to retrieve ejecta from the President's head.

Hank
Click to expand...

Lol. You people never cease to amaze me. So unless she specifically said: "I went onto the trunk to retrieve parts of my husband's head" it never happened, eh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom