Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[manifesto]

Don't toy with me. You know full well that only a fringe group of ingnorants claim that Oswald was a "patsy" and so on. I'm asking you if you think believing that the laymen's opinion is more accurate than the experts' is rational.

No. You belong to the "fringe group", Bez... Does this mean that you're wrong? Not necessary.

 

[manifesto]

Since you won't state your conclusion I guess I just have to take your word for it.

So far I have put forward two cases of 'evidence' that isn't the 'evidence' it's supposed to be. There is more, but I have to begin somewhere.

Are you referring to a case other than the assassination of JFK by LHO?

No?

The burden of proof is on you.

What proof of tampering are you missing in my two cases so far?

The WC came to the conclusion that LHO committed the act. I have looked at the same evidence that's available to you and I agree with that conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Have you also looked att the preponderance of evidence of tampering with the evidence?

You want to use the completion backwards principle as an investigative technique have at it, but don't be surprised if you present your version of events to a professional and they reject your process and conclusion.

Name one piece of evidence that you find particularly strong in the case against Oswald.

Any reason not to address the link I posted to Dr. Fackler's paper?

My question was directed to Bez...

You asked for an expert and I provided same.

No I asked Bez... to present "one of all the thousands of experts from all over the world" who agrees with what particular conclusion from the Warren Commission.

I do believe that you actually understand why I ask of that.

 

[manifesto]

Evidence:

His gun(s).

Not according to the official evidence, no.

Shots came from his place of employment.

Yes. Does this make him the shooter? No.

He was in the building at the time.

Says who?

Fled the scene.

Left the scene, yes. So did lots of people. Fled? Says who?

Killed a DPD officer who stopped him, ...

The so called technical evidence is a joke. The witness line ups are really funny to. "Hm ... who can it be ... maybe the guy with the black eye and trashed dirty T-shirt ... hm ... ?"

... tried to kill a second one when they confronted him in the theater.

There are three different versions of this little incident. Which one do you find particularly convincing?

That list right there is enough to have got LHO the chair. But wait, there's more...

I can't wait ...

Oswald took off his wedding band the morning of the assassination and left it on his dresser.

Says who? And if so, could there be another explanation for this?

He was run out of a parking garage late one night before the assassination. The garage overlooked the parade route. LHO had no car, and therefore no reason to be in a parking garage other than scouting locations to shoot from.

This one was new to me. Why was he scouting locations when he allegedly had a perfect shot from his working place?

On the day of the assassination, LHO once he left his boarding house, was headed in the direction of the bus depot.

Was he? According to his land lady he was standing at the bus stop waiting for a bus heading at the opposite direction of that of the Tippit shooting?

Was he planning a trip somewhere? He'd taken the bus to Mexico at least once prior.

Yes, his 12 dollars would take him far far away ...

You have nothing concrete to counter any of this.

This is crap. Is this all you've got?

 

[abaddon]

So, if the CE-399 really is evidence in the case against Oswald is not "very interesting, relevant or meaningful"?

No. Particularly when markings are present on the shells and it takes a 180 rotation to purloin Q47 into LHO if you invest in pareidolia. Your original claim was that there were no markings, now it has munged into there are markings but they must be wrong and can be interpreted anyhow you like.

Still, quibbling over markings does not let you off the hook. You are desperately avoiding presenting an alternate scenario, let alone evidence for whatever scenario you may present, preferring to ascribe to some other scenario which you remain unable or unwilling to identify. Not good enough. It is no more than an appeal to the invisible dragon in my garage and equally as credible a claim.

 

[manifesto]

Well, there's your problem right there. Why are you reading any of the "litteratur [sic] for and against this conclusion" instead of reading the actual testimony of the eyewitnesses, the earwitnesses, and the expert testimony of those who actually are qualified by background, education, and training to render opinions?

Where did I state that I have not read "the actual testimony of the eyewitnesses, the earwitnesses, and the expert testimony ... "? Are you just making stuff up as you go?

You've shown none of that. You've quoted a few non-expert authors and repeated some allegations. None of which are evidence of anything. I showed you how the video you cited used the same image twice as both sides of the same shell and you simply deflected it.

And I gave you the link to all the HD photographs taken by the staff at NARA. Did you find any evidence in these photographs that indicate that Krusch is deceptive in his video?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10709843#post10709843

To get around the issue, you simply claimed J.C.Day is a liar because of something the author said (which you didn't quote nor defend), and that you believe the author wouldn't lie, because he could be easily exposed. That is still a double-standard.

What? If lt Day is telling the truth his initials should be on the three shells archived as evidence in NARA. According to the staff in NARA his initials are not there (no pointer).

Are the staff at NARA lying to us?

 

[abaddon]

I asked Bez... and no, I'm not the one "working backwards".

No. You belong to the "fringe group", Bez... Does this mean that you're wrong? Not necessary.

My question was directed to Bez...



No I asked Bez... to present "one of all the thousands of experts from all over the world" who agrees with what particular conclusion from the Warren Commission.

Kindly cease borking another member's name. It can only be intentional at this point. It is a violation of the MA you signed up to. Stop doing it.

 

[manifesto]

No.

What?

Particularly when markings are present on the shells and it takes a 180 rotation to purloin Q47 into LHO if you invest in pareidolia. Your original claim was that there were no markings, now it has munged into there are markings but they must be wrong and can be interpreted anyhow you like.

Why are you talking about the shells when CE-399 is clearly a bullet?

Still, quibbling over markings does not let you off the hook. You are desperately avoiding presenting an alternate scenario, let alone evidence for whatever scenario you may present, preferring to ascribe to some other scenario which you remain unable or unwilling to identify. Not good enough. It is no more than an appeal to the invisible dragon in my garage and equally as credible a claim.

This is pure crap and you know it. If the evidence is not evidence then you need other evidence to support your case. Very simple.

 

[abaddon]

Where did I state that I have not read "the actual testimony of the eyewitnesses, the earwitnesses, and the expert testimony ... "? Are you just making stuff up as you go?

Nor did you affirmatively claim that you had. You only affirmatively claimed to have read the usual crank sites. Nuff said.

And I gave you the link to all the HD photographs taken by the staff at NARA. Did you find any evidence in these photographs that indicate that Krusch is deceptive in his video?

Yes.

What? If lt Day is telling the truth his initials should be on the three shells archived as evidence in NARA. According to the staff in NARA his initials are not there (no pointer).

Once again, you are applying your very own special standards to procedures whose details you seem unable to substantiate.

Are the staff at NARA lying to us?

Or are you making crap up?

 

[manifesto]

Kindly cease borking another member's name. It can only be intentional at this point. It is a violation of the MA you signed up to. Stop doing it.

I'm not "borking" his name. I'm referring to it.

Are you calling yourself a sceptic, abaddon?

 

[BStrong]

Gentlemen,

I predict that the next dead end from our new contributor will be along the lines of 40 medical witnesses and another round of pin the head wound on the drawing.

 

[BStrong]

I'm not "borking" his name. I'm referring to it.

Are you calling yourself a sceptic, abaddon?

No, abaddon is simply pointing out that you are avoiding the information and questions posted by individuals other then Belz.

What do have against Dr. Fackler as an expert in GSW's and terminal ballistics?

 

[manifesto]

Nor did you affirmatively claim that you had. You only affirmatively claimed to have read the usual crank sites. Nuff said.

Nor did I affirmatively claim that I've read, hm ... lets see ... the "Lopez report". Do you want me to affirmatively state that too?

Yes.

How?

Once again, you are applying your very own special standards to procedures whose details you seem unable to substantiate.

No I'm presenting the evidence here, in this forum, for all to see. If there is any problem with it, be specific.

Or are you making crap up?

No. You are!


Are you considering you self a sceptic, abaddon?

 

[manifesto]

Gentlemen,

I predict that the next dead end from our new contributor will be along the lines of 40 medical witnesses and another round of pin the head wound on the drawing.

Why are there no initials on the three shells in spite of the sworn testimony from lt Day?

 

[abaddon]

I'm not "borking" his name. I'm referring to it.

Are you calling yourself a sceptic, abaddon?

Nope. You persist in calling him "Bez". That is not his name, yet you persist in using that term. That can only be intentional.

 

[JayUtah]

1. It suggest that the three empty shells isn't the evidence it is supposed to be.

Or conversely it suggests that your understanding of the evidence and its context is flawed.

2. Since the signed documents and sworn testimonies says it is the authentic shells, the shells have to be planted. There is no other conceivable explanation.

Your inability to conceive of another explanation does not make it so. You are pitting the evidence against your naive expectations for what it should look like. You refuse to consider that the "inconsistency" may be entirely of your own devising.

"The shells have to be planted" is a specific affirmative claim. It does not stand as the default simply because you cannot think of anything else.

3. What are the possible implications of this fact? This is another discussion of which I would love to take part.

Why not now? You admit you have an alternate theory. But despite attestations such as the one above, you patently refuse to discuss it. I interpret that to mean you want the discussion of your theory to proceed solely on your contrived terms, which first require the conventional narrative to be categorically set aside so that it provides no competition.

Why would we not rightly suspect that your hidden alternate theory is really what's driving your questions?

Any ideas?

I've given you lots of ideas which you have assiduously ignored. Asking for input makes you look silly when you ignore the input that's given.

 

[abaddon]

Nor did I affirmatively claim that I've read, hm ... lets see ... the "Lopez report". Do you want me to affirmatively state that too?

No. Can you affirmatively claim anything?

How?

That is your problem. So far, no, you have no valid claim.

No I'm presenting the evidence here, in this forum, for all to see. If there is any problem with it, be specific.

What evidence have you presented? So far none at all.

No. You are!

I made no claims. You made claims. The burden of proof rest with you.

Are you considering you self a sceptic, abaddon?

Correct. I am skeptical unless and until you provide evidence of your claims.

 

[manifesto]

Nope. You persist in calling him "Bez". That is not his name, yet you persist in using that term. That can only be intentional.

Ah, sorry, did not see that "l". I got confused by the dots... I apologize. I will spell it Belz... from now on.

 

[abaddon]

Ah, sorry, did not see that "l". I got confused by the dots... I apologize. I will spell it Belz... from now on.

Dots confuse you, yet somehow you can figure out the JFK issue. Sure.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Gentlemen,

I predict that the next dead end from our new contributor will be along the lines of 40 medical witnesses and another round of pin the head wound on the drawing.

All CTists have run true to form. This one is dishonestly ignoring all questions just like the others. When will we get an honest one who has courage to state their case? This current one is certainly disappointing.

 

[HSienzant]

Where did I state that I have not read "the actual testimony of the eyewitnesses, the earwitnesses, and the expert testimony ... "? Are you just making stuff up as you go?

You implied as much by referencing, not the actual testimony, but stuff you read elsewhere ("litteratur [sic] for and against this conclusion"). Will you now affirm you've read all 26 volumes of evidence as published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence (including the 15 volumes of testimony), and all the HSCA volumes on the Kennedy assassination? Including all the expert opinions of those people qualified to render judgments on the various issues?

And I gave you the link to all the HD photographs taken by the staff at NARA. Did you find any evidence in these photographs that indicate that Krusch is deceptive in his video?

Already pointed out that the video was deceptive because it only showed three quarters of the first shell. You ignored it.

The photos also show plenty of markings that appear to my eye to not be random. No arguments from you or Krusch about why those markings should be ignored. Or how it was determined they were random markings.

What? If lt Day is telling the truth his initials should be on the three shells archived as evidence in NARA. According to the staff in NARA his initials are not there (no pointer). Are the staff at NARA lying to us?

Where did the staff at NARA say anything like this? They didn't. You are simply repeating claims from Krusch, whom you apparently believe implicitly, no matter what his claims.

I already pointed out the three shells show plenty of markings, none of which were pointed out in any photos, other than possibly one "Q6" indicator (and it's actually unclear whether the pointer is indicating that marking or the apparent "JDY" marking).

You haven't shown (and Krusch hasn't shown) that J.C.Day's markings are NOT on the shells. You've simply alleged it, as Krusch has alleged it. But there's no methodology advanced by you or Krusch explaining how Krusch eliminated any of the markings as someone's initials, to arrive at the supposed conclusion that Day's initials or name is not there.

I even pointed out that Day didn't say he marked it on the external part of the shells, but could have initialed the interior of the shells, just inside the cavity where the projectile will go. True to form, you just ignored the point entirely, asking only if I was serious. You never did confront the point or try to explain why Day's initials couldn't or wouldn't be found there.

We're still waiting for you to prove what you and Krusch are alleging -- that Day's initials or name are not on any of the three shells.

You keep repeating the allegation as if it's true, but you still haven't tried to prove it. Your arguments about what the missing markings imply are meaningless without that proof.

Ball is still in your court.

Hank