Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

Here is Speer's chapter on the SBT animations...

<snipped scurrying away nonsense>

Was JFK not shot in the head since it was impossible for "snipers" to make the shot?

Did someone with a silenced rifle make the impossible shot after all but it wasn't impossible for them?

You really need to answer these questions, MicahJava. At least be honest with yourself.

 

[MicahJava]

Was JFK not shot in the head since it was impossible for "snipers" to make the shot?

Did someone with a silenced rifle make the impossible shot after all but it wasn't impossible for them?

You really need to answer these questions, MicahJava. At least be honest with yourself.

I already corrected your misconception on like the first page of this thread. Please do not bother me any more about it.

 

[BStrong]

I already corrected your misconception on like the first page of this thread. Please do not bother me any more about it.

Didn't Kathy Griffin just say that?

Get crackin' on that .22 long rifle evidence, I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

[BStrong]

Correction to post 282.

Good link for the Frankford Suppressor evaluation testing:

https://archive.org/stream/milmanua...-_principles_and_evaluations#page/n0/mode/2up

 

[MicahJava]

Didn't Kathy Griffin just say that?

Get crackin' on that .22 long rifle evidence, I'm looking forward to reading it.

We have- or I have been talking about strong evidence against the official shooting for more than one thread now. I noticed an explosion of crap when the subject slightly deviates from the brain removal problem, how it relates to Finck's statements, etc.

I've explained that issue more than enough, everybody watching should state their overall opinion on it rather than continue asking questions that often don't make any sense.

 

[OKBob]

everybody watching should state their overall opinion on it rather than continue asking questions that often don't make any sense.

You still don't get what ISF is about, and that makes you like several other CTs who have been resident here. Many of us here are not interested in assuming the burden of proof for any "overall opinion." Instead, we like to test the assertions of others--including CTs--in order to explore what they know or think they know, along with the assumptions--often irrational and illogical--that lead them to think the way they do. You keep trying to make this thread into a CT thread, but it's only superficially that, and for a larger purpose. As you know, there are JFK CT threads where you can duke it out all day about particular claims. Here, you are expected to think carefully about your claims, your thought process, your assumptions, your qualifications, and the limits of your knowledge.

 

[BStrong]

We have- or I have been talking about strong evidence against the official shooting for more than one thread now. I noticed an explosion of crap when the subject slightly deviates from the brain removal problem, how it relates to Finck's statements, etc.

I've explained that issue more than enough, everybody watching should state their overall opinion on it rather than continue asking questions that often don't make any sense.

I believe the questions are simple and clear cut and your reluctance to do anything other than point at someone else's work w/o reference to the known evidence speaks for itself.

You have no answers. You have no evidence. You have unrelated facts not in evidence you wish to have considered as if they constituted evidence rather than opinion, recollection or conjecture - you might well be a master of conjecture but that doesn't mean much in the face of the in-hand evidence that has been determined as genuine.

If you feel the need to state your overall opinion on the assassination have at it, but isn't it clear to you what the opinion is of the active posters in this thread?

 

[MicahJava]

Why talk vague when you can talk about specific issues?

The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain. But Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed and he always said he could examine the crater in the intact skull just fine. This indicates the hole they examined was lower in the skull, near the EOP, and not 4 inches above the EOP like the HSCA put it.

Rebuttal?

 

[Axxman300]

We have- or I have been talking about strong evidence against the official shooting for more than one thread now. I noticed an explosion of crap when the subject slightly deviates from the brain removal problem, how it relates to Finck's statements, etc.

I've explained that issue more than enough, everybody watching should state their overall opinion on it rather than continue asking questions that often don't make any sense.

No, you're the guy at the office who has pulled out the TV dinner that has been in the breakroom freezer since 1986, and has heated it up, and now ask everyone to take a bite.

You are looking for conspiracy, not facts. You take obvious facts like the head wound and deliberately obfuscate them with cherry-picked statements that leave you talking in circles...sometimes in the same post.

 

[MicahJava]

I just found out that almost this exact point was argued by Joseph N. Riley in 1994 (Riley "holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience, specializing in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology"):

"...A semi-circular skull defect has been identified as part of an exit wound. The location of this defect depends upon the interpretation of the autopsy photographs. The interpretations to date (by the Clark Panel and the HSCA forensics panel) are in error. These interpretations fail to appreciate basic neuroanatomical relationships (unfortunately, there was no neuroanatomist on either panel -- parietal foramina alone are enough to orient the photographs), are contradictory, and ignore the obvious (it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so much skull were left, as it must be in the official interpretations of the photographs)..."

http://jfkhistory.com/riehl/What_Struck_John.html

 

[MicahJava]

No, you're the guy at the office who has pulled out the TV dinner that has been in the breakroom freezer since 1986, and has heated it up, and now ask everyone to take a bite.

You are looking for conspiracy, not facts. You take obvious facts like the head wound and deliberately obfuscate them with cherry-picked statements that leave you talking in circles...sometimes in the same post.

And you're the guy who thinks you can see the bullet on the Zapruder Film.

 

[Axxman300]

Why talk vague when you can talk about specific issues?

The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain. But Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed and he always said he could examine the crater in the intact skull just fine. This indicates the hole they examined was lower in the skull, near the EOP, and not 4 inches above the EOP like the HSCA put it.

Rebuttal?

Does it?

I already posted a link - from a CT site of all things - where Humes addressed how the brain was removed from the skull (hint: they used a saw like they always do).

This means that you either don't read our links, or ignore the information within, or simply do not understand the information.

I suspect it's all three.

 

[Axxman300]

And you're the guy who thinks you can see the bullet on the Zapruder Film.

Nope, just where it hits JFK in the back of the head.

 

[MicahJava]

Does it?

I already posted a link - from a CT site of all things - where Humes addressed how the brain was removed from the skull (hint: they used a saw like they always do).

This means that you either don't read our links, or ignore the information within, or simply do not understand the information.

I suspect it's all three.

CT site... Humes' testimony to the ARRB? Yeah, we've covered it. It doesn't say anything there that explains how you think it happened. I think one time you were bold enough to use the word "lunchbox" to explain how the doctors removed the brain through the skull cavity, but didn't elaborate when pressed because it didn't make any sense.

 

[BStrong]

Why talk vague when you can talk about specific issues?

The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain. But Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed and he always said he could examine the crater in the intact skull just fine. This indicates the hole they examined was lower in the skull, near the EOP, and not 4 inches above the EOP like the HSCA put it.

Rebuttal?

The vagarity of memory and human frailty.

We have the murder weapon.

The murder weapon is connected to an individual.

The individual was employed at a facility in the area where the murder occurred.

The weapon was found at the facility.

The individual was in the wind.

The individual was stopped by an LEO who was shot and killed by the individual.

The individual was taken into custody with the weapon used to murder the officer in hand.

Ballistic evidence connects the weapons to the victims.

Playing pin-the-headwound doesn't amount to exculpatory evidence.

Now would be the moment where you provide something other than speculation to back up your support for some other CTist's flight of fancy, or maybe you could go to work on providing evidence of your suppressed .22 LR speculation.

 

[BStrong]

And you're the guy who thinks you can see the bullet on the Zapruder Film.

You're asserting that you can hear suppressed rifle fire and detect forensic anomalies from 54 years in the past.

If we start a fantasy assassination league you're sure to earn the out-of-thin-air award

 

[bknight]

Here is Speer's chapter on the SBT animations, with responses to the FAQ section of Dale's website: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania

Nobody in their right mind should take Dale seriously. All we know about his animation is a clip from a propaganda television special and some screenshots and writings from his website. He has not released his computer data. Is this the behavior of a man who used photographic evidence to prove one of the biggest forensic controversies ever? No.

I'm sure that Speer thinks that, however if you do some reading, which you haven't, Myers discusses why he hasn't released the original data files. You call the Discovery channel and History channel as "propaganda"? Why do you use such terms? Because they produce films that don't happen to conform to yours and other CT's beliefs?

Look at this funny bit on his website where his JFK project was "reviewed" by the Z-Axis animation company: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/zaxis.htm

Let's take a look at the website of Z-Axis to see where they display their finest work: http://www.zaxis.com/experience/our-history/

These people do little more than create CARTOONS as explanatory tools in court cases. Let's see their top 8 list:

1. A 3D cartoon of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster.

2. A 3D computer model of a building.

3. A 3D cartoon of how a CD drive works.

4. Helped create several 3D cartoons of an old man with arthritis.

5. Helped create several 3D cartoons showing why smoking is bad for you.

6. A 3D animation of the WTC destruction with the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, which calls itself Finite Element Analysis but certainly is not a comprehensive FEA that models the physics of that event in the fullest, realest sense.

7. A 3D cartoon explaining how to use a computer to surf the internet.

8. Another 3D cartoon showing why smoking is bad for you.

Yes that is what they do, is there anything wrong with programming an event so that it can be viewed from ANY angle? They were asked to evaluate what had been created and pass judgement on the validity of the presentation. Their analysis was, again if you read more was that the animation was accurate depiction of the Zapruder film, nothing more nothing less.

This is Dale Meyers' "peer-review", people! What the Z-Axis company does has no relation on the project's intention to "trace over" the Zapruder Film and other films of Dealey Plaza to create a near-perfect 3D recreation.

Again you have failed to read anything but Speer's comments which are a layman's attempt to draw conclusions which are not correct. Read Myers and gain the understanding that the animation was NOT to "trace over" Zapruder, but to construct an accurate animation that conforms to what the Zapruder film shows and to do it in a way so the viewing angle may be changed to any angle. All that Z-Axis was asked to do is to verify that the animation was as accurate as possible with all the error cones of perception taken into account. They were. Z-Axis was not asked to support or defend any particular theory of the assassination. Is there anything inherently in error to have a 3d company review a 3d animation?

This kind of behavior should cast doubt on any other work he did on the JFK case. For all we know, he has fabricated interviews.

There is obvious friction between the two men and its pretty obvious that both comment on each other's work. The work should be judged by its accuracy, not by peoples' passion toward each other. I'm not sure if the last comment is your or Speer's, but to withhold proprietary method's doesn't appear to be unrealistic to me.

There is no evidence that any interview was fabricated, if you have any then cite it, otherwise keep to facts not opinions, not in evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I already corrected your misconception on like the first page of this thread. Please do not bother me any more about it.

Your untruths are running away with you. Is this how the one CT website you depend on for your opinions tells you to behave?

What was the point of all your posts about how various others couldn't make the same shot Oswald did? Did you even have a point? Did your one CT website not tell you where to go with the argument when you were called on it?

You should really be more angry at that one website than you are with the people calling you on your lack of knowledge.

 

[BStrong]

Your untruths are running away with you. Is this how the one CT website you depend on for your opinions tells you to behave?

What was the point of all your posts about how various others couldn't make the same shot Oswald did? Did you even have a point? Did your one CT website not tell you where to go with the argument when you were called on it?

You should really be more angry at that one website than you are with the people calling you on your lack of knowledge.

It's the CTist version of the old Jackie Mason bit about Ronald Reagan and the then-current budget deficit:

(Gesticulate) There is No Deficit!(/Gesticulate)

Ctist debate tactics 101 - declare it's a settled issue (and hope like hell nobody notices it isn't) It actually works for certain politicians w/o any relationship to CT's People expect Politicians to lie their ass off and take no offense.

The way this particular line of fantasy is going, we can reasonably expect that there will be more pin-the-headwound jive w/o anything to back it up other than wishes and speculation, the ignoring of reasonable questions, answering questions not asked, the always popular strawman citing assertions not made in argument (has any anti- CTist ever claimed suppressors didn't exist in '63?) and the attempts to tie in every other non-related CT that they can come up with using the time honored false equivalence argument, something along the lines of "denying the obvious evidence of (fill in the blank) in the conspiracy of JFK's assassination is just like saying the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11 because of some fire!"

I'm just hoping for some more gems of ignorance. The headspace gauge as a testing methodology for determining when a weapon was fired was such a hit that to this day, folks I showed the actual post to have asked me to later tell the story for the edification of those not present when the original story was told. I'm still asked about it and the unintended humor of that assertion hasn't worn out yet.

While I was on vacation out of state and visiting a SOT friend of mine, after I and the guy I was traveling with told him the story, he didn't believe it happened. He didn't believe that we were lying, he thought we had somehow misunderstood because that assertion is too crazy to believe for people that are experienced in the subject matter

I got on his computer and pulled up the post - Sept last year iirc - then he believed it and we had a pretty good laugh.

That's what this thread is - an opportunity for the uneducated to explore creative story-telling about subjects they have no knowledge of and the bad sense to put it in writing.

 

[Axxman300]

I would pay money for a time machine just to see the look on any hitman's face when he's handed a .22 rifle with a silencer, and told he has to shoot Kennedy in a motorcade.

Pretty sure it would be the same as when he's told there is a second shooter who's going to be the patsy, and he's armed with a 6.5x52mm.

I would love to be there when this assassination scenario is hatched, and later approved. Multiple gunmen nobody sees, or actually fires their weapons, and we pin it all on a guy like Lee Oswald, a glory-hound who would turn us all in for that medal/reward/fame.