Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Dave Rogers]

So Oswald is guilty because he (allegedly) drank a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper?

It's so obvious from even a casual reading of the quote you posted that Posner is saying no such thing, that it looks like you're trying to portray yourself as a liar. Have you honestly deluded yourself so much that you believe the nonsense you're spouting?

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg] Still no convincing reason to think the red spot on the photographs is an entry wound. [qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]

Certainly not to a dyed in the wool CTist who sees this as his religion.

It is to rational people.

 

[MicahJava]

It's so obvious from even a casual reading of the quote you posted that Posner is saying no such thing, that it looks like you're trying to portray yourself as a liar. Have you honestly deluded yourself so much that you believe the nonsense you're spouting?

Dave

We would really have a conspiracy if Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are one in the same, but I'll assume you made an error.

Mod shortened my quote because of copyright. I've posted the link to the Reclaiming History ebook several times, go ahead and search "Dr. Pepper" in his book, he literally uses Oswald drinking a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper as evidence of his guilt. Meanwhile in reality, we can never know for sure how true the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is. Even if the encounter really did happen, the details are so fuzzy that the "Coca-Cola" in Oswald's hands could've really been a Dr. Pepper. "Coke" is, after all, a common noun to describe all soft drinks. And both are a brown liquid in a glass bottle with a red label.

But either way, who cares? Bulio probably just put it in his book to justify some of his wasted time spent on tracking down which soft drink machines were on which floor of the TSBD.

 

[MicahJava]

No.

Again, you have no access to all of the autopsy photographs and x-rays (nobody does), so you have no concrete data to base a conclusion upon, certainly one which runs counter to the facts. After-the-fact testimony is borderline speculation, especially if the testimony comes years or decades later. Cherry-picking testimony of pathologists only digs your hole deeper as it shows your lack of understanding.

Finally, the head wound is almost exclusive to the 6.5x52mm, 160 grain, round fired from a rifle whose barrel has a 1:8 gain-twist. Of all the smoking guns in the history of smoking guns the Oswlad's Carcano should have come with a neon sign he could have hung in the 6th floor window.

Apparently not. Over a dozen experts, including a couple who were there at the autopsy, have examined the full collection of autopsy films and either didn't agree with the cowlick entry theory or just didn't happen to identify any particular entry wound.

 

[MicahJava]

Certainly not to a dyed in the wool CTist who sees this as his religion.

It is to rational people.

You know what else is dyed? The autopsy face sheet, dyed in specks of the President's blood, and dyed in the ink of Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell's illustrations of the President's wounds while his body was laying right beside them, of which was verified by Dr. Finck and the written signature of President's personal physician Dr. Burkley. It shows the small head wound low in the occipital area, don't you know?

 

[Dave Rogers]

We would really have a conspiracy if Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are one in the same, but I'll assume you made an error.

That's correct. My mistake.

I've posted the link to the Reclaiming History ebook several times, go ahead and search "Dr. Pepper" in his book, he literally uses Oswald drinking a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper as evidence of his guilt.

One very small piece of evidence in the consilience of evidence, of course, however much you would like to imply that it was a significant piece of evidence without which the case would be significantly weakened. What makes you think you're fooling anyone any more?

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

You know what else is dyed? The autopsy face sheet, dyed in specks of the President's blood, and dyed in the ink of Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell's illustrations of the President's wounds while his body was laying right beside them, of which was verified by Dr. Finck and the written signature of President's personal physician Dr. Burkley. It shows the small head wound low in the occipital area, don't you know?

So what is your comprehensive theory to explain a consilience of evidence?

 

[BStrong]

We would really have a conspiracy if Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are one in the same, but I'll assume you made an error.

Mod shortened my quote because of copyright. I've posted the link to the Reclaiming History ebook several times, go ahead and search "Dr. Pepper" in his book, he literally uses Oswald drinking a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper as evidence of his guilt Meanwhile in reality, we can never know for sure how true the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is. Even if the encounter really did happen, the details are so fuzzy that the "Coca-Cola" in Oswald's hands could've really been a Dr. Pepper. "Coke" is, after all, a common noun to describe all soft drinks. And both are a brown liquid in a glass bottle with a red label.

But either way, who cares? Bulio probably just put it in his book to justify some of his wasted time spent on tracking down which soft drink machines were on which floor of the TSBD.

And if I understand it correctly, you're asserting that because the soda in question wasn't correctly identified it constitutes exculpatory evidence?

If I remember correctly neither Posner or Bugliosi hung their hats on that single factoid. I seem to remember some stuff in there about the rifle, the paper trail connecting it to LHO and some other behavior related to a murder of a DPD officer and the subsequent arrest of LHO with that murder weapon in hand. Somehow in all of that, the pin-the-soda narrative got lost.

When will you explain how your pin-the-headwound jive means anything in the context of the established evidence. You're inability to answer that question does not bolster your position.

 

[Axxman300]

Apparently not. Over a dozen experts, including a couple who were there at the autopsy, have examined the full collection of autopsy films and either didn't agree with the cowlick entry theory or just didn't happen to identify any particular entry wound.

Not really.

 

[Axxman300]

You know what else is dyed? The autopsy face sheet, dyed in specks of the President's blood, and dyed in the ink of Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell's illustrations of the President's wounds while his body was laying right beside them, of which was verified by Dr. Finck and the written signature of President's personal physician Dr. Burkley. It shows the small head wound low in the occipital area, don't you know?

It's just approximate.

If you've ever seen the sheets from Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman you'd understand how basic they are compared with the actual wounds.

We have the ONE headshot on film, we know what position the President's head was in at the moment of impact. Everything lines up. You're arguing a false point on data you're unqualified to assess based on zero information due to restrictions on viewing autposy materials. Worse, all of your sourcing is from CT sites and not independent, objective work.

 

[MicahJava]

Not really.

Oh?

 

[BStrong]

Oh?

So?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh?

I suppose for a CTist, this is about as coherent as it's going to get.

You really have nothing that addresses a consilience of evidence? Nothing at all?

 

[OKBob]

You really have nothing that addresses a consilience of evidence? Nothing at all?

CT doesn't have much patience with or interest in consilience. CT is committed to anomaly-hunting. By definition, that rules out the much more (to them) mundane activity of acknowledging the great preponderance of evidence converging from different domains. Inherent in much CT is a hero complex, a kind of virtuous vigilantism that finds explanatory power in evidentiary exceptionalism (the one witness who contradicts six others). A priori, CT rejects consensus (agreement of analysts) and consilience (agreement of data) on the ground that the fix was in, investigators and commissioners were tainted, evidence was altered, the media are hard-wired for easy, status-quo-supporting answers. CT poses as the great defense lawyer, ever able to produce the one oddity that will cause the jury to acquit. But their implicit paradigm of a criminal trial is just another begged question, on the level of methodology. And the jury remains unconvinced.

 

[MicahJava]

CT doesn't have much patience with or interest in consilience. CT is committed to anomaly-hunting. By definition, that rules out the much more (to them) mundane activity of acknowledging the great preponderance of evidence converging from different domains. Inherent in much CT is a hero complex, a kind of virtuous vigilantism that finds explanatory power in evidentiary exceptionalism (the one witness who contradicts six others). A priori, CT rejects consensus (agreement of analysts) and consilience (agreement of data) on the ground that the fix was in, investigators and commissioners were tainted, evidence was altered, the media are hard-wired for easy, status-quo-supporting answers. CT poses as the great defense lawyer, ever able to produce the one oddity that will cause the jury to acquit. But their implicit paradigm of a criminal trial is just another begged question, on the level of methodology. And the jury remains unconvinced.

LNers, on the other hand, don't know to recognize a problem where there is one.

 

[RoboTimbo]

LNers, on the other hand, don't know to recognize a problem where there is one.

Have you identified all of the problems with your comprehensive scenario that addresses a consilience of evidence?

 

[BStrong]

LNers, on the other hand, don't know to recognize a problem where there is one.

You are so wrong on that one.

I once had a guy assert that because he had a piece of paper in his hand, he couldn't have committed the criminal act I observed him commit.

That's about a half step away, at best, from citing the soda pop controversy as a discussion point in this thread.

 

[BStrong]

Have you identified all of the problems with your comprehensive scenario that addresses a consilience of evidence?

He's avoided it so far.

No reason to act reckless and address the established evidence - that would only **** up a perfectly good CT talking point.

 

[MicahJava]

Have you identified all of the problems with your comprehensive scenario that addresses a consilience of evidence?

I don't know, maybe you could say what you think about that fragment in the upper neck that Cyril Wecht identified?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don't know

When will you know? You do have a comprehensive theory that incorporates all of your loose ends along with a consilience of evidence, don't you?