Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I do not think so. This would require Logic and Pathos, but so far he only supplies Ethos.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
I do not think so. This would require Logic and Pathos, but so far he only supplies Ethos.
Thus you never went to Dallas and looked out the window LHO killed the president from. What would LIC say, "SAD". lol
Your nonsense makes no sense (like your 9/11 stuff, you are consistant), better luck with Bigfoot. Where do you get this silly tripe from? Some sad conspiracy theorists made this up, you repeat it without anything to back up it up except hearsay, opinion, and speculation. Dumbed down claims to fool people who refuse to think for themselves.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hilarious. What's wrong with right here, right now?
Or is it too hard answering questions and providing evidence?
Still waiting for you to tell us what Mark Lane got right in Rush to Judgment.
Still waiting for you to tell us why a dented shell after ejection means Oswald couldn't commit the assassination.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the conspirators thought shooting JFK from the front and altering the wounds would work.
Still waiting for you to tell us what medical evidence indicates more than three shots.
Still waiting for you to cite the forensic evidence of multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Your responses to questions are taking infinitely longer than a week. Answer the questions already asked.
Axxman300
Philosopher
You clearly have not read the autopsy, your grasp of basic physiology is painfully lacking, your inability to understand ballistics make debate on the ACTUAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE impossible.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Why do you need another thread to fail to support your assertions, and to ignore the contradictory evidence you have already and repeatedly dismissed?
bknight
Master Poster
I agree with Hank, this is hilarious. You have a thread here and now. You present "beliefs" that are based on logical fallacies and can't differentiate truth from assertions.
How many entry wounds to the back of the head did the autopsy indicate?
How many exit wounds in the head did the autopsy indicate?
How many entry wounds to the back did the autopsy indicate?
How many exit wounds in the throat did the autopsy indicate?
You have yet to prove that the back entry wound is lower than the throat exit wound, why?
Another thread is not needed, but you could answer the questions asked here.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
I think this illustrates quite well the fact that MicahJava's goal, like that of most other conspiracists, is simply to win a debate, rather than to discover the truth.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Absolutely - but they don't have to even win -- they have no chance of winning as their arguments are all logical fallacies, quotes out of context, speculation, and innuendo, and assertions that they can't support -- they merely have to prolong the debate to give the illusion there are unresolved issues that still need to be discussed and resolved.
There aren't. Oswald, with a rifle, from the Depository. Then Oswald again, with a revolver, from near the corner of Tenth And Patton streets.
Thus the assertions by our latest CT (but this is a constant for all of them) with no evidence in support, the repeated fringe resets, and the logical fallacies that imbue every CT post.
Hank
Last edited:
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Yep; and, as Hank says, simply having (and prolonging) the debate is, for the CTist, winning it. I also suspect it's step one of an old CTist two-step; step two is to proclaim, when nobody accepts his challenge to a debate he's not qualified for (but is already having anyway), that it's because everybody is afraid to. Win-win-win...
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
Yeah a common fringe tactic in so many areas where woo lives, to endlessly evoked the 'possibility'.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
******** assertion in the first degree.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Need to ask this again:
The recent document release shows the FBI and CIA aggressively trying to link Oswald to a conspiracy - so why frame him as the sole assassin?
How does the assertion that there was a second gunman make sense in the light of the new files?
If anything they could have fudged the evidence to get a conspiracy in order to go 9-11 crazy on Communists...but they didn't.
The idea of a second gunman in Dealey Plaza is now a thousand times dumber than it was this time last week.
The recent document release shows the FBI and CIA aggressively trying to link Oswald to a conspiracy - so why frame him as the sole assassin?
How does the assertion that there was a second gunman make sense in the light of the new files?
If anything they could have fudged the evidence to get a conspiracy in order to go 9-11 crazy on Communists...but they didn't.
The idea of a second gunman in Dealey Plaza is now a thousand times dumber than it was this time last week.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I'm guessing the CT version will borrow a little from real concerns at the time, and crank them up to eleven.
In reality, one of the reasons that LBJ etc wanted the evidence presented to the public, to show LHO would have been found guilty, that the case was closed, and that he was the lone assassin, was out of exactly the kind of fear you describe. Not just the pressure to take military action if it was believed that the Communists were behind a conspiracy, but also because of the small scale reprisals that might kick off, if people decided to retaliate (why should perfectly innocent Cubans have to pay if some knuckle dragger blamed it on Castro, and so forth).
CTs will probably crank this up to: "If we proved the Russians were behind it, there would have been a nuclear war, so America chose to cover it up, when they should have sought real justice!"
Axxman300
Philosopher
The "Johnson covered up the Communist involvement to head off WWIII" has been around for a long time, even articulated in Oliver Stone's "JFK".
My point is the slant of the initial investigations by the FBI and CIA - the two agencies needed to pull off a cover up - were looking for a conspiracy, and based on the number of times the leadership ordered field to go back to the same sources and ask the same questions again it looks like they were either making sure there was nothing, or they were hoping to find that link.
This based on the files dated from 11/23/63 through the end of 1966.
CTists will never see it this way.
The CTists can find all kinds of out-of-context information to support their views.
When you combine the new documents to the rest of the known files what you get is not a "botched" investigation" but a painfully thorough one. When LBJ and Hoover both said they wanted no doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin they meant it, and the FBI and CIA chased down every lead no matter how stupid (a few memos talk about claims by psychics). All for an open and shut case.
My point is the slant of the initial investigations by the FBI and CIA - the two agencies needed to pull off a cover up - were looking for a conspiracy, and based on the number of times the leadership ordered field to go back to the same sources and ask the same questions again it looks like they were either making sure there was nothing, or they were hoping to find that link.
This based on the files dated from 11/23/63 through the end of 1966.
CTists will never see it this way.
The CTists can find all kinds of out-of-context information to support their views.
When you combine the new documents to the rest of the known files what you get is not a "botched" investigation" but a painfully thorough one. When LBJ and Hoover both said they wanted no doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin they meant it, and the FBI and CIA chased down every lead no matter how stupid (a few memos talk about claims by psychics). All for an open and shut case.
bknight
Master Poster
I thought it was LBJ "wanted to be President and JFK told/inferred that he would not be on the ticket in 64.
HSienzant
Philosopher
And the CTs who voice that opinion about the reason for the cover-up are typically of the mindset that it was the U.S. Government that was responsible for JFK's murder and NOT the Russians. Paraphrasing as seen in JFK: Could the Russians have altered the body, Bill? Could they have planted Oswald's rifle in the Depository and fudged the autopsy?
Did the Russians control the motorcade route? Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Terror Attack in Lower Manhattan 10/31/2017
This is personal as my daughter, her husband, and their child live in the area. My daughter, her child, and my wife were in the area trick-or-treating and apparently were only a few blocks west of where the terror incident occurred.
I spoke with both my daughter and wife after the incident and they are all safe and didn't witness any of the attack.
We are very familiar with the area and in fact I was at the very intersection where the incident ended after I got out of the subway at the Chambers street stop last Thursday when I went into the city to babysit.
But it astounds me that three years from now, if a witness remembers the driver of the Home Depot pick up truck as getting out of a Ryder truck, that some knucklehead would argue that means the driver didn't commit the attack.
And that is precisely the type of argument JFK conspiracy theorists put forward as arguments for a cover-up / conspiracy / Oswald's innocence (pick one or more).
Hank
This is personal as my daughter, her husband, and their child live in the area. My daughter, her child, and my wife were in the area trick-or-treating and apparently were only a few blocks west of where the terror incident occurred.
I spoke with both my daughter and wife after the incident and they are all safe and didn't witness any of the attack.
We are very familiar with the area and in fact I was at the very intersection where the incident ended after I got out of the subway at the Chambers street stop last Thursday when I went into the city to babysit.
But it astounds me that three years from now, if a witness remembers the driver of the Home Depot pick up truck as getting out of a Ryder truck, that some knucklehead would argue that means the driver didn't commit the attack.
And that is precisely the type of argument JFK conspiracy theorists put forward as arguments for a cover-up / conspiracy / Oswald's innocence (pick one or more).
Hank
Last edited:
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
Out of curiosity, have there been any truthers from this site that have posted here, since Part I, that came to the conclusion that the JFK Assassination wasn't a conspiracy?
- Status