RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You didn't answer the question. Try again. LOL.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
You didn't answer the question. Try again. LOL.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You must have an amazing amount of expertise. Do share your credentials, won't you?
I wonder why Hank continually scolds you for advancing your layman's opinion as if it were fact.
LOL again.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Your problem is you are apparently bored to sleep by evidence and testimony. That's the stuff that should get your attention. It puts you to sleep.
Also quoted the testimony of Frazier and Nicol, who are experts and found the matching characteristics that tied the two fragments to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusions of all other weapons in the world. THAT'S "the specific proof that the fragments can be traced to the rifle in evidence to the exclusion of all other weapons" that you are seeking. THEY claimed the fragments weren't so mangled that they were useless. To the contrary, they both said the fragments contained sufficient surface area that they could match the fragments at a microscopic level to the test bullet fired from Oswald's weapon.
Your uninformed contrary opinion that they were too "mangled" to do so carries no weight.
Denying the facts doesn't make them more true. But that's pretty much your modus operandi. You made a false claim. You got called on it. You double-down and repeat the false claim.
Nope, that's not going to work.
Hank
PS: You also ignored the other point I made, about asserting to have read the Warren Commission Report yet apparently being unfamiliar with their basic conclusions and the testimony supporting those conclusions.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hilarious. Based on the testimony of Frazier and Nicol, cited here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11993018&postcount=1534
I scolded you in that original post to not just skim the testimony but go back and read it ("MicahJava, go back and actually read the above. Don't just skim it"). It appears you never did. Just because you ignore the testimony and evidence that destroys your assertions doesn't mean we have to accept your ignorance of that evidence.
The Warren Report even told you (and I quoted) the source of their claim:
That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of an appeal to personal incredulity. Scratch a conspiracy theorist argument, you typically find a logical fallacy underneath.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Personal Incredulity
"Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that*understanding."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity
Argument from Incredulity
(also known as:* argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity)
Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.
Logical Form:
Person 1 makes a claim.
Person 2 cannot believe the claim.
Person 2 concludes, without any reason besides he or she cannot believe or refuses to believe it, that the claim is false or improbable.
Example #2:
NASA: Yes, we really did successfully land men on the moon.
TinFoilHatGuy1969: Yea, right. And Elvis is really dead.
Explanation: The unwillingness to entertain ideas that one finds unbelievable is fallacious, especially when the ideas are mainstream ideas made by a reputable source, such as a NASA and the truthfulness of the moon landings
Just so we're clear, I'm person one in the above, you're playing the part of person two (and doing so quite well, I might add). You're the one refusing to accept the testimony of two independent experts who concluded the fragments had sufficient undamaged surface area to make the match.
Your personal incredulity aside, the evidence is that those two fragments found in the limo were indisputably fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Just like no two fingerprints are alike, no two weapons can put the same markings on a bullet. And these two fragments had the microscopic markings linking them to Oswald's rifle.
You can pretend the evidence doesn't exist. You can pretend your failure to understand that evidence renders it meaningless. You can even stamp your feet and hold your breath until you pass out.
None of that changes the fact that you were wrong to claim the fragments couldn't be linked to Oswald's rifle, by science. They can. And they do so to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Here's some of that evidence for you to ignore or not understand (comparison photos of fragments compared microscopically to test bullet):
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0150a.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0150b.htm
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
I said at the time one of your approaches would be to change the subject. You're ignoring all the points I made and now just questioning the expertise or independence of one of the experts. Your approach here is straight out of the conspiracy books. Folks like Mark Lane denigrate Nicol but never say why -- apparently it's only because they didn't like his testimony. You are doing the same thing, in the exact same manner. No reasons given, just a dismissal of the man.
Please, read this and tell me what - precisely and specifically - you have a problem with:
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, would you state your name and position?
Mr. NICOL. Joseph D. Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly describe your qualifications in the field of firearms investigation?
Mr. NICOL. I began studying this field in 1941 in the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory under Charles Wilson, remained there as a firearms technician for approximately 9 years, and then moved to Pittsburgh, where I directed and set up the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County Crime Laboratory, also working in the field of ballistics. Then I went to Miami, Fla., and set up the Dade County Crime Laboratory and worked there for 5 years. I went to Michigan State and taught for 4 and now I am back in Illinois, in Springfield, as Superintendent of the Bureau.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us approximately how many bullets and cartridge cases you have examined to identify them or attempt to identify them to suspect weapons?
Mr. NICOL. This would number in the thousands, I do not have an exact figure, but our caseload in Chicago is approximately 4,000 guns annually, of which we would make approximately between 10 and a dozen comparisons, so the comparisons that would be conducted by myself or those under my direct supervision would be approximately 50,000 a year. Now this is just a rough figure.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any publications or lectures?
Mr. NICOL. I have one minor publication in the field of firearms. Most of my publication work has been with the "Journal of Criminology" in the area of the technical note and abstract section. I do not have any major publications in the firearms field.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your association with that journal?
Mr. NICOL. I am associate editor of the "Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology."
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you lecture on any regular basis?
Mr. NICOL. At the present time I am lecturing with the University of Illinois in criminal investigation, at the Chicago campus, and prior to that I had been on the staff at Michigan State University for approximately 4 years.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your education before you went into this field?
Mr. NICOL. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Northwestern, and during the period that I was with the Chicago Crime Laboratory I got a Master's in Physics also from Northwestern.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to take Mr. Nicol's testimony as an expert witness in the field of firearms identification.
Mr. DULLES. You may proceed.
You don't have any real objections to his qualifications (there are none, he was eminently qualified). You are just trying to prolong the conversation so it looks like you have a point.
You don't.
Your claim that the two fragments recovered from the limo couldn't be matched to Oswald's rifle was false and remains false.
Keep digging that hole you're in deeper.
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I can give you a link to the pdf of the WCR, if you think you would learn anything from it.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Is that what a CT website told you to think?
HSienzant
Philosopher
You are still attempting to change the subject. We were talking about the two fragments recovered from the limo and whether or not those fragments could be linked to Oswald's weapon. I cited the testimony of two experts who said they could, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
If you have some reason to doubt his expertise or his conclusions about the fragments, spell it out.
You are now talking about bullets removed from Tippit. Not a surprise to me. I totally predicted you would take this approach. Right here:
I might as well take this opportunity to point out the HSCA ballistics panel studied the extant ballistic evidence and reached the same conclusions as Frazier and Nicol. Presumably you will be dismissing them next because you don't like their conclusions either.
You can ignore that finding at your leisure here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0190a.htm (see paragraphs 141 and 145).
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
You lie again. The rifling marks could only be more clear if they were neon:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151
Gotta love the National Archives, you can zoom right in on the two angles .
Plus, if there was a second rifle in Dealey Plaza it would have been a Carcano because science and ballistics are funny that way.
HSienzant
Philosopher
You lie again. The rifling marks could only be more clear if they were neon:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151
Gotta love the National Archives, you can zoom right in on the two angles .
Plus, if there was a second rifle in Dealey Plaza it would have been a Carcano because science and ballistics are funny that way.
It doesn't matter what you see, or what the experts saw. MicahJava's opinion is the only one that matters, at least to MicahJava. He will figuratively close his eyes and sing "La La La, I can't hear you!" rather than admit the evidence establishes his claim was wrong.
And he wonders why his claims aren't taken seriously. Just because he chooses to ignore the evidence and dismiss the testimony he doesn't like doesn't mean anyone else has to.
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
First off, a "pristine" bullet is one that was never fired.
Second, the statement that CE-399 was fired into water is a LIE.
Anyone with a few hours of trigger squeezing of the Carcano can tell you that this bullet was fired by a Carcano. Specifically Oswald's Carcano.
CE 399 is not pristine, it is deformed from impact, which is clearly visible in these high resolution pictures:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144
In fact, looking at the bottom you can see pieces of lead missing from the core. Guess where these were found, no really - guess:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305166
The basic truth of the assassination is that the lone weapon was a Carcano rifle, 6.5x52mm, fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD, by Lee Oswald.
Thanks for playing.
Axxman300
Philosopher
bknight
Master Poster
You lie again. The rifling marks could only be more clear if they were neon:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151
Gotta love the National Archives, you can zoom right in on the two angles .
Plus, if there was a second rifle in Dealey Plaza it would have been a Carcano because science and ballistics are funny that way.
Looks to me that there rifling's on that piece of evidence.
Axxman300
Philosopher
If you have to ask it's a great indicator that you should read grownup literature on the subject.
Tippet's shooting is straight forward, and Oswald tried to shoot a second Dallas cop in the theater with the SAME GUN.
bknight
Master Poster
The Apollo hoax was got me started in wading through the CT BS. You also need to include basic distrust of authority, as I feel a lot of the CT's start there or maybe continue there. Because "they" always lie then everything "they" tell us is incorrect. One can list all the CT's thoughts after that statement.
Axxman300
Philosopher
I keep trying to give MJ an out. I tell him that if there was a conspiracy he's not going to find evidence in Dealey Plaza, and to look into Oswald's life for someone who might have known what he was up to, or even gave assistance.
If someone needs JFK's death to be a result of conspiracy this is the best they can get. No coordinated kill-zone in Dealey Plaza, no secret bullets, no silenced weapons, just a guy with his cheap Italian rifle in the best place to take the shots, and was 2 for 3.
If someone needs JFK's death to be a result of conspiracy this is the best they can get. No coordinated kill-zone in Dealey Plaza, no secret bullets, no silenced weapons, just a guy with his cheap Italian rifle in the best place to take the shots, and was 2 for 3.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
There's a little more to it than that. He also brands any expert who disagrees with him as unreliable for disagreeing with him, which he then takes as a pretext to ignore the testimony of that expert. It's a very tight little circular argument.
Dave
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
No surprise to you that I would point out a major flaw in your argument: That Nicol's trustworthiness is demonstrably questionable. The HSCA claimed that no new reliable analysis could be done on rifling marks because it was fires too many times after, so I guess you only have Mr. "I'm the only person out of seven to say the Tippit bullets matched the revolver". What exactly do you have besides Neutron Activation baloney debunked years ago and not used in courts anymore?
- Status