Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
BStrong said:
No, I accept that Clint Hill made that statement - we have no statement from Mrs. Kennedy supporting your version, but Hill notes, "Her eyes were filled with terror.. kind of establishes the context there which happens to support panic rather than deliberate action.
Click to expand...

As JU and others have continuously attacked me about: you're not going to get 100% completeness about this. Sorry.
 
Jango said:
Again, you guys fail to amaze me.

When I go for accountability with, say, 9/11, the world is coming to an end given all the bitching and moaning. But if someone questions the official narrative y'all are paid to rigorously defend on a daily basis, I MUST COME UP WITH A 100% AIRTIGHT COUNTER-THEORY OR IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!!!!

Lol.
Click to expand...

Nah, just evidence that supports your claim that was the reason she did what she did.

You have failed to provide it - haven't you?

However, instead of stating it was only your un-evidenced opinion you still keep trying to act like it is some sorta fact.

It still aint...
 
HSienzant said:
Hilarious. You don't get to make stuff up, re-interpret the evidence and the testimony to your liking, and then try to tell us what to believe.

Or more accurately, you can try that, but don't be surprised if many people don't fall for it.

Nowhere did Jackie say anything about going onto the trunk to retrieve anything on the trunk - and I'm surprised you even thought those quotes were even close. You are just trying to shove your square conspiracy peg into a round hole.

Hank
Click to expand...

That was my *********** point. To yous, UNLESS SHE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT, it never happened.
 
Hans said:
Nah, just evidence that supports your claim that was the reason she did what she did.

You have failed to provide it - haven't you?

However, instead of stating it was only your un-evidenced opinion you still keep trying to act like it is some sorta fact.

It still aint...
Click to expand...

I've provided mine, admittedly, with help along the way. You provided a gut feeling.
 
Jango said:
Because your side in this "debate" has been losing since the ejecta conversation has been brought up.
Click to expand...

According to whom? Do you realize how many times this issue has been brought up in this thread? Of course not, because you haven't read the thread. The "ejecta" argument is only one of dozens of stale arguments trotted out for decades by conspiracy theorists who can't get it to do any more than spin the hamster wheel one more time.

I can only say something so many times before frustration sets in.
Click to expand...

Then try a method besides repeating your beliefs over and over again. As to frustration, if you're frustrated then step away from your computer. Don't make it your critics' fault that you can't keep a civil tongue in your head.

And I'm getting tired of so-called grown ass men whining about being talked down to. If yous find what I say to be so offensive and hurtful, perhaps a reevaluation of balls & spine is in order.
Click to expand...

Continually insulting the virility (where gender-appropriate) of your critics is childish. There is little if anything in the MA about having testicles and vertebrae. There is, however, a fair amount about maintaining civility in the discussion. If you find that what you say is offensive, then say it differently or say it elsewhere.
 
Jango said:
As JU and others have continuously attacked me about: you're not going to get 100% completeness about this. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Nor do I need to, because 1) the actions of Jackie doesn't "prove" anything related to a frontal impact on JFK and 2) the forensic evidence on the trunk doesn't prove your assertion of a frontal impact on JFK.
 
BStrong said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, I offered an opinion based on known human reactions not a piece of evidence supported fact. The only source for the reason JK did what she did would be from her - what did she say about the incident? You would think Jango would immediately go to that - but.....
 
Jango said:
She didn't need an ulterior motive to retrieve her husband's blown out bits.
Click to expand...

Again, this appears to be merely an assumption of yours - that she went onto the car trunk to do that.

But when asked for the evidence, it turns out you haven't any.

You haven't shown any ejecta on the car trunk.
And you haven't shown that Jackie ever said that was her purpose.
In fact, as I originally stated, and your quote appears to show, she never did recall going on the trunk at all.

So I guess we're down to option three -- you're a mind-reader. There is no other option I can think of, unless you just admit you're assuming what you need to prove.

Hank
 
JayUtah said:
According to whom? Do you realize how many times this issue has been brought up in this thread? Of course not, because you haven't read the thread. The "ejecta" argument is only one of dozens of stale arguments trotted out for decades by conspiracy theorists who can't get it to do any more than spin the hamster wheel one more time.



Then try a method besides repeating your beliefs over and over again. As to frustration, if you're frustrated then step away from your computer. Don't make it your critics' fault that you can't keep a civil tongue in your head.



Continually insulting the virility (where gender-appropriate) of your critics is childish. There is little if anything in the MA about having testicles and vertebrae. There is, however, a fair amount about maintaining civility in the discussion. If you find that what you say is offensive, then say it differently or say it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Roll call... the *********** video...what Mrs. Kennedy said...what the Secret Service agent said. What, are you treating this like you do 9/11? Straight up 100% pure Sgt. Schultzism.
 
Jango said:
And it is not at all curious that you don't hound him to prove his assertion. Hmm...
Click to expand...
...because real smart people knew it was an opinion only deep thinkers like yourself seem to be struggling with the concept....lol
 
Jango said:
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.
Click to expand...

They have, they knew my opinion was an opinion your claim was a statement of fact. So you were asked to provide the evidence for such fact, however you could not.

You have spent a great deal of time trying to avoid not admitting you have no such evidence.
 
Jango said:
That was my *********** point. To yous, UNLESS SHE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT, it never happened.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you want evidence of someone's reasons for having done something, that evidence can only come from that person. Jackie Kennedy nowhere said her reason for going up onto the trunk was to retrieve a piece of her husband's skull. She said, in fact, that she had no recollection of having done it at all, much less why she did it.

Your affirmative claim is that she did so for the explicitly defined purpose of retrieving a skull fragment. But you have no evidence that this was the reason. You simply say "it's in the film." That is, you seem to think the reasons are implicit from her actions. If Hans suggests a perfectly reasonable alternative, then that frankly undermines the implication in your argument. The presence of a reasonable alternative requires you to supply affirmative proof, not insinuation. Instead you shift the burden of proof on the alternative, so that you can continue to hold the skull-fragment explanation as a default.
 
Jango said:
Except I've added evidence to this. You've added a 'gut feeling'. Again, what proof do you have? Sorry to break it to you, you're not above questioning, there is no reversing of the burden of proof. You said she fled out of fear. Back it up already.
Click to expand...

What evidence of Jackie going onto the trunk to retrieve some ejecta from the President's head did you add, precisely?

The two quotes you offered said nothing about that, and as I noted, her holding his brains in while his head was on her lap offered her ample opportunity to do that with the available material, she didn't need to get anything off the trunk to do what she said she did.

And do you care to tackle her TOP of head quote that YOU provided?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
As JU and others have continuously attacked me about: you're not going to get 100% completeness about this. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Yep we only have what evidence we have - if you make stuff up about it and have nothing to back it up guess what?

Yep you're wrong.
 
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...

Hilarious. You should try this as a comedy act.

But seriously, what's the evidence of that?

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Again, this appears to be merely an assumption of yours - that she went onto the car trunk to do that.

But when asked for the evidence, it turns out you haven't any.

You haven't shown any ejecta on the car trunk.
And you haven't shown that Jackie ever said that was her purpose.
In fact, as I originally stated, and your quote appears to show, she never did recall going on the trunk at all.

So I guess we're down to option three -- you're a mind-reader. There is no other option I can think of, unless you just admit you're assuming what you need to prove.

Hank
Click to expand...

1. Lol. More Sgt. Schultzism. Read the Huffington Post article Axx posted.

2. No *********** ****. Is English not your primary language? Tell me what is and I'll say what I've already specifically said to you 2-3 times now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom