MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
It's called going to work.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
It's called going to work.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What were the results of the autopsy? Not your interpretation, which is worthless.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
No, it's called "running away". Which, to be fair, could be seen as your full time job.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Because it's not physically impossible, no pretense is necessary. That's just another example of you Begging the Question. That's where you assume - and imbed in your question - the very point you must prove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
LOGICAL FALLACY #1.
Asked and answered multiple times. I've asked you to quote them saying that, somehow you never get around to doing so. That's just another example of you building a straw man argument that you can argue against. But the straw man is not something they actually said. You invented it merely to knock down. And despite being shown how the argument is false from numerous posters above this, you repeat the same strawman argument once more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
LOGICAL FALLACY #2.
This conclusion assumes your preceding arguments are true, but they are not. They are logical fallacies. So your conclusion isn't supported by anything you've posted to date.
Repeating the same discredited arguments in various forms and guises doesn't make them more true. It makes you less credible.
For a change, try addressing what we're saying, and what the forensic panel said. Quote us (and them) and then try showing why that's wrong from the evidence (not from your opinion, which is another sticking point for you).
Hank
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Sorry, but if you think the highlighted is accurate, then I'm not going to believe you actually read the HSCA material, and certainly am not going to weigh any credence on your opinions.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Great, now that you're off work, address the contradiction exposed in your arguments in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12036986&postcount=1962
Quoting:
So they [the Dealey Plaza witnesses-Hank] are more reliable when nearly all of them are wrong as opposed to half of them?
Granting for the moment your claim that the witnesses were split relatively evenly for the knoll vs. the Depository as the source of the shots (that's not close to true, but I'll grant it for the time being), your claim that any of these witnesses could be accurate and confirm your theorizing is beyond belief.
First of all, let's point out that only a very few (less than five) witnesses suggested shots came from multiple locations.
Out of all the other witnesses who responded, most named ONE location only (many others said "don't know").
And that one location varied, from "the overpass", "the railroad yards", "the Sexton Building" (the old name for the Depository), "the Depository", etc.
Lumping all non-Depository responses (like "overpass") into grassy knoll responses inflates that count for the knoll, but that's not even my complaint here.
Your arguments conflict with each other. You cannot argue for reliable witnesses AND argue for multiple shooting locations. But that's exactly what you do.
Why do they conflict?
Because the vast majority of witnesses thought the shots came from ONE location, not several. But in your theory all the shots didn't come from one place, the shots came from several different locations.
So all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the knoll must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the Depository and elsewhere, according to your theory.
And all the witnesses who thought all the shots came from the Depository must be wrong about the location of some of the "other" shots, which came from the knoll and elsewhere, according to your theory.
You cannot reconcile your two arguments, for reliable witnesses AND multiple shooting locations, because nearly all the witnesses who named a source named one location, not multiple locations. So all those witnesses who named only one source got it wrong, and that makes them unreliable.
My theory has only about half (it's actually fewer than that) the witnesses being wrong for thinking all the shots came from the knoll. And the other half (those who thought all the shots came from the Depository) being right.
Only conspiracy-land theorists like yourself would think claiming nearly 100% of the witnesses got the location of some of the shots wrong would establish to a reasonable person's satisfaction that witnesses are reliable. I'm sure you think that's some high-level thinking on your part. Most people would see right through that delusional nonsense.
How reliable can witnesses be when nearly all of them thought shots came from one location, and your theory has multiple shooting locations? They were nearly all wrong about the source of some of your shots, according to your own arguments.
I asked you this before, and you ignored the question.
Which one of the two arguments above are you going to abandon because both your arguments cannot be true?
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I already explained how that could happen acoustically. Supersonic ammunition with a noise-suppressed rifle shot can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise. Apparently some hunters use this to their advantage, because it works on animals.
Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction. You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity. An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw. A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw. An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back. The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived. The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat.
Your faked inability of understand a simple point is not a contradiction. You know what is a contradiction? A photograph showing a five-inch empty skull cavity. An entry wound nobody at the autopsy ever saw. A small hole in the forehead above the right eye that everybody but the autopsy doctors saw. An exit wound in the throat small than it's entry wound in the back. The most revealing autopsy photographs going missing while the most ambiguous ones survived. The doctors changing their story, on one case in the middle of being interviewed, about when they discovered Kennedy had a small bullet hole in his throat.
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
If you "explanation" relies on supersonic ammunition and suppressed weapons, then you probably shouldn't be describing it as something that "could" happen.
bknight
Master Poster
It is an illustration, to provide a graphical representation of the event. It is not made to infer that the brain was removed through the hole. You have been linked direct evidence of how the brain was removed. Continual misrepresentation is not going anywhere, nor make it true.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The HSCA contended that you could see both the alleged beveled entry and the beveled exit on the top of the skull in the same photograph. They say those wounds were 5 inches apart. The HSCA wants you to think that Kennedy's whole brain was removed a five-inch hole.
bknight
Master Poster
That's because there wasn't a hole in the forehead, except the large defect caused by the bullet entry from the rear. It is all in the report, and you presume that hole existed, when in fact it doesn't.
I have already asked/told you the doctors who signed the report all had a change to add an exception, which none did therefore all of them agreed to the findings. Attempting to piece together a scenario where one or more of them disagree, with out of context statements, your beliefs, misrepresenting their testimony 15 years after the fact.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
These may be correct, but...
...this does not follow on from the other statements.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Suppressors are handy for night fighting for limiting muzzle flash, and they make it easier to communicate verbally within the fire team without yelling.
Look up Operation Red Wings and you'll see how four SEALs with suppressed weapons didn't exactly melt away into the forest under Taliban fire.
And in 1963, nobody was going to use a silencer for a job like Dealey Plaza.
The photo also shows that the scalp had already been peeled back, which means the skull had already been sawed open on the left. You don't know the sequence of when this picture was taken, you haven't seen all of the autopsy photos, so you are in no position to make any claim here.
There's only one. It's location is documented.
A non-existent hole that doesn't appear in any of the photographs.
That's not even true. Parkland made the hole bigger.
You have yet to site which pictures are gone. You have no proof that any are missing. You do not know what the other photographs detail. You forget about the negatives, which are likely in a safe in Massachusetts.
Nope.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
The term "one trick pony" has never been more appropriate.
Axxman300
Philosopher
No they don't. This is your misinterpretation.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Historical origin of the CTist mindset:
MJ is either the Black Knight or the invisible horses, take your pick
bknight
Master Poster
After re-reading your beliefs, I remembered the very first time I view CT material, where the CT wrote/produced a report/video(I'm not sure which) contending that the autopsy doctors missed a massive exit wound somewhere around the hairline at the back of the Presidents head, because Parkland's personnel remembered it.
After doing a little research, it wasn't difficult to find out why no exit wound was discovered during the autopsy. There simply is no exit wound, x-rays showed nothing, images showed nothing.
Calling the autopsy doctors procedures flawed is just one of the misunderstanding image/body conditions that spur interest in the CT's agenda. MJ, your attempts resemble the same failed agenda.
Again it would be a travesty to call yourself a truth seeker a spinner of yarns perhaps.
HSienzant
Philosopher
LONG ANSWER:
Still makes no sense for the following reasons:
1. There's no evidence of a noise-suppressed rifle shot.
2. No witnesses saw another rifle other than the one in the sniper's nest.
3. Your argument is that the witnesses wouldn't hear these "noise-suppressed rifle shot(s)", that's why they thought there were only three shots.
4. You're left with the witnesses hearing only the three NON-noise suppressed shots and therefore confusing the source of the three NON-noise suppressed shots.
5. It doesn't explain why almost ALL of the witnesses thought the three non-noise suppressed shots they heard ALL came one source, but generally named two different ones: some witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, some witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Depository. Only less than a handful (less than five) of witnesses thought there were two sources. Your argument relies on the vast majority of witnesses being reliable when you want (when they named the grassy knoll), but yet somehow unreliable when you want at the same time (when they heard only three shots and when they thought all the shots came from only one location).
"Apparently" is a dead giveaway you still don't understand acoustics, rifles, bullets, or shooting. You're not arguing from personal experience, you're arguing from what you surmise.
The bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, therefore the animal doesn't hear the shot that kills it.
STILL PART OF THE LONG ANSWER:
Your problem is I do understand your point, and can see right through to the other side.
1. Where's the evidence of a noise-suppressed rifle being used in Dealey Plaza?
2. You beg the question of a noise-suppressed rifle shot (or shots) to argue for more than three shots from Oswald's NON-noise suppressed rifle, to explain why about 90% of the witnesses heard only three shots.
3. Having used the argument that the witnesses didn't hear the "noise-suppressed rifle shot(s)", you cannot use these shots to claim they confused the witnesses as to the source of the shots they did hear.
4. You're left with arguing the witnesses confused the source of the THREE NON-noise suppressed rifle shots, all fired from the Depository, and some thought they all came from the Depository, while others claimed they all came from the knoll.
5. You then somehow claim the knoll witnesses are reliable, when you actually just established the exact opposite.
SHORT ANSWER:
You just admitted that rifle shots can confuse witnesses as to the source of the shots: "Supersonic ammunition ... can confuse where witnesses will determine the origin of the noise." (You haven't established this is unique to noise-suppressed shots only, so I left that part of your claim out).
We're done here. The witnesses are unreliable as to the source, you just admitted it. Since there's no evidence of shots from the knoll, other than the witness reports, we can discard those witnesses as mistaken (i.e., "confuse[d] ... [as to] the origin of the noise").
Why are five inch holes in the head a contradiction? How'd you determine that empty skull cavity was five inches?
Except the autopsy report notes two entry wounds, both in JFK, both inflicted from above and behind.
Who is 'everybody'? Every conspiracy website you consulted?
And this is a problem why? This never happens? Ever?
Wait, what? How do you know the most revealing autopsy photos are missing, if you never SAW them, and therefore can't speak authoritatively about what's contained in them? Your arguments never make any sense, but they usually take a little more unravelling than this.
It's called faulty recall, and trying, 35 years after the fact, to reconcile facts you're being told are true, but that you have no way of verify but accept on faith. You remember one thing, but are being told that can't be right. So you then admit you must be wrong, and change your story.
This has never happened to you?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Five inches apart when the wound was first examined. Not when the brain was removed.
No, you want us to think the HSCA wants us to think that. I asked you to cite for that claim multiple times in the past. You never have.
There's a reason. They never said it. You're guilty of making stuff up.
Look, another strawman!
Hank
- Status