Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoboTimbo said:
Yes, Robert behaved exactly the same way, calling people names when he was backed into so many corners. CTists all run the same way when they find out that the CT sites that have been telling them what to think have actually been playing them for fools.

So nothing sensible or rational to add, Jango? Still going for suicide-by-mod to avoid facing reality?
Click to expand...

And what CT sites are those that I allegedly use? Don't weasel out and say that you weren't lumping me into what you said. So, what CT sites do I use? Have I linked to any of them here, ever?
 
Jango said:
And what CT sites are those that I allegedly use? Don't weasel out and say that you weren't lumping me into what you said. So, what CT sites do I use? Have I linked to any of them here, ever?
Click to expand...

What is your alternate coherent hypothesis for the Kennedy assassnation? Remember that it must address all of the evidence and stand up to your arbitrary standard of evidence.
 
RoboTimbo said:
What is your alternate coherent hypothesis for the Kennedy assassnation? Remember that it must address all of the evidence and stand up to your arbitrary standard of evidence.
Click to expand...

* LHO fired from the TSBD.

* Someone else fired from a frontal and to the right angle, which is evidenced by President Kennedy's movements as well as his wife's movements to retrieve the ejecta from the back of his head.
 
Jango said:
* LHO fired from the TSBD.

* Someone else fired from a frontal and to the right angle, which is evidenced by President Kennedy's movements as well as his wife's movements to retrieve the ejecta from the back of his head.
Click to expand...

Where specifically from the front?
 
Jango said:
And what is your evidence that she reacted out of fear and was trying to flee danger?
Click to expand...

More burden-of-proof shifting. You said she was going for the bits of her husband's head. When asked how you knew that, you begged the question. Someone put forward another possibility, to show that your begged interpretation is not an automatic foregone conclusion, and you predictably shifted the burden over to him.

If you have any kind of point to make in this thread, it's clearly lost in the noise of your incessant posturing.
 
Jango said:
* LHO fired from the TSBD.

* Someone else fired from a frontal and to the right angle, which is evidenced by President Kennedy's movements as well as his wife's movements to retrieve the ejecta from the back of his head.
Click to expand...

That's a rough outline of an alternative. Who shot Kennedy, from where, why, and what's your evidence?

And by "what's your evidence" I don't mean the inference you drew from your interpretation of Kennedy's movements and your interpretation of what you think landed on the trunk of the car. Learn the difference between evidence and inference. Inference gives you the hypothesis. Now prove it.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
* LHO fired from the TSBD.

* Someone else fired from a frontal and to the right angle, which is evidenced by President Kennedy's movements as well as his wife's movements to retrieve the ejecta from the back of his head.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is based on misinformation and lack of real world knowledge of GSW's and the effect a projectile has on a living target.

Do I need to post the vid from Tet '68 again?

Bodies are not knocked down or react as popular fiction depicts.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So can we discard both Hans's unsupported assertion that she fled out of fear and your equally unsupported assertion that she was picking up a piece of Kennedy's brain, and admit that we simply don't have any way of knowing for certain why she did what she did? Or are you living in a world where only you get a pass?

Dave
Click to expand...

I actually provided information. And there is a God damn video of it! Hans delivered a gut feeling opinion.
 
Jango said:
I actually provided information. And there is a God damn video of it! Hans delivered a gut feeling opinion.
Click to expand...

You provided information that didn't support your assertion, and the video is nowhere near clear enough to identify what was on the back of the car. Hans delivered an opinion based on a known human response. Neither is the least bit certain. So are you claiming that you provided better irrelevant information therefore we have to believe you?

Dave
 
Jango said:
That's *********** ********. Hans claimed she fled out of fear. In what *********** world do you live in where he doesn't have to validate that claim? What, cause he's on your team, he gets a pass from it? The answer to that is, of course, yes.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe it was Hans and I that had that particular discussion, and you yourself commented on one of my posts that included that observation and you rated it as an anecdote - fair enough, but my and others have noted that Jackie's mad scramble was a classic panic reaction.

You might like to put a spin on it to bolster Stone's fairy tale, but Jackie never said she was trying to "retrieve ejecta" and I'd hope you'd understand the difference between an observation of a well documented human response to stress and an assertion used to bolster an alternative record of events.

If you'd like to establish that there is a documented pattern of humans recovering ejecta or other body parts in a high stress incident, be my guest - until you can do that, I'll still go with "flight" as Jackie's reaction.
 
Jango said:
No. Yous are that ideologically devoted to the official narratives, be it 9/11 or JFK.
Click to expand...

No, I'm intellectually predisposed to believe factual information that fits reality.

Want a good lesson in reality over conspiracy theory orthodoxy?

Try planning a surprise party for the wife without one of her friends spilling the beans. Life really is just about that simple.
 
Jango said:
And it is not at all curious that you don't hound him to prove his assertion. Hmm...
Click to expand...

No more curious than your frantic efforts to make Person A prove Person B's claims rather than accept intellectual responsibility for your own behavior.

I asked whether you had a point or whether you were just noise. I think I have my answer.
 
BStrong said:
No, I'm intellectually predisposed to believe factual information that fits reality.

Want a good lesson in reality over conspiracy theory orthodoxy?

Try planning a surprise party for the wife without one of her friends spilling the beans. Life really is just about that simple.
Click to expand...

Been there and done that several times over the last 9 years.
 
JayUtah said:
No more curious than your frantic efforts to make Person A prove Person B's claims rather than accept intellectual responsibility for your own behavior.

I asked whether you had a point or whether you were just noise. I think I have my answer.
Click to expand...

The point is that you don't apply the same rigor to your fellow ideological bedmates yet claim to be objective. Give me a *********** break.

At least I'm giving yous some overtime tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom