bknight
Master Poster
The two step lives on forever, courtesy of MJ currently.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
The two step lives on forever, courtesy of MJ currently.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Why would that be strange? The official evidence is more than enough to conclude a conspiracy.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
That's because you rely on your one CT source. A consilience of evidence points to just Oswald firing three shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD. What would ever make someone foolishly think otherwise unless they're just gullible?
Axxman300
Philosopher
And yet they've never found one.
People who have actually taken the time to read the Warren Commission, and have waded into the thousands of documents at the National Archives, and the FIOA National Security Reading Room come to the understanding that Oswald acted alone.
Obviously this is hard to take. The recent documents detail the official distrust of the evidence by Hoover, and later by many department chiefs who would then order additional avenues of investigation...beating a herd of dead horses. You have the director of CIA in the 1970's openly asking the question "Did we miss something?". The staff of the HSCA requisitioned CIA and FBI documents going back to 1947 in their attempt to link Oswald to just about anything that would stick, yet nothing ever did (or will). Nobody likes the idea of a Lee Harvey Oswald killing JFK all by himself...but that's what the evidence -ALL THE EVIDENCE - proves.
bknight
Master Poster
No, the official evidence points to LHO and you have failed in your poor attempts at finding any conspiracy.
HSienzant
Philosopher
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Hitchens)
Hank
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Yet, strangely, the official conclusion was that there was no conspiracy.
Can you explain this, MicahJava?
Moreover, you have yet to post any evidence yourself for a conspiracy.
Perhaps you could lay out your case for us? You have said that you have more than enough evidence. Should be a piece of cake.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Not if you understand the evidence.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
The official evidence is always more than enough to conclude a conspiracy when a conspiracy is the only conclusion countenanced.
Dave
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sure I'm belaboring the obvious, but Micah Java clearly believes that he has laid out his case. In his view, the cherry picked quotes, bare assertions and question-begging he has presented constitute overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy involving multiple shooters. He is mystified that the "evidence" that he swallowed hook, line and sinker hasn't convinced anybody here.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
If there is anything you don't understand about the EOP wound, let me know.
HSienzant
Philosopher
And I'm equally mystified (as I'm certain others here as well are) why it has convinced him.
I've read twice through the Warren Commission 26 Volumes of Hearings and Evidence and I know where the conspiracy authors get their quotes from (and they are out of context) and more importantly, I know what they are leaving out.
I find it humorous that MicahJava has gotten his information from a couple of books and some websites and thinks that's sufficient to come here and lecture us on what actually happened. He has no clue what is wrong with that approach and why no one here finds it convincing.
Hank
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Okay: Why can't you show us it on the x-rays and back of head photographs?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Honestly, you're the last resource I'd go to.
What makes you think you know more about the head wounds than the actual autopsy doctors (you think they erroneously called a tangential shot an exit wound and missed the path of the head wound entirely) and the HSCA forensic pathologists, each of whom have a decade or more in their field and all of whom got to examine the extant autopsy photos and radiographs. You think they got the entry wound wrong by four inches.
So tell us why you think you should be the go-to resource for anyone here. You simply have your own theory of the assassination, and you've tried to shoehorn everything into your theory, whether it's a good fit or not (and most of it is not).
Hank
bknight
Master Poster
Even if the wound is/was 4 inches off, where is the conspiracy? I have never understood the point of contention MJ is so fixated on. There was a shot to the back of the heard causing all the wounds(skull and brain) ballistically matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSB. You know the same rifle LHO ordered.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Hank, if you can stand an occasional sane question, I have one for you, or anyone else but MicahJava, whose opinion is too biased to be of any value:
When the autopsy report describes the entry wound as "slightly above and 2.5cm to the right of" the EOP, is it possible that this is simply a misrecording of a statement that the wound was 2.5cm above and slightly to the right of the EOP?
Dave
When the autopsy report describes the entry wound as "slightly above and 2.5cm to the right of" the EOP, is it possible that this is simply a misrecording of a statement that the wound was 2.5cm above and slightly to the right of the EOP?
Dave
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
2.5 cm is approximately one inch. Not 4-5 inches.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
True. But given the consilience of evidence, the only sane conclusion is that the autopsy report recorded the position of the entry wound incorrectly and that in fact it was significantly higher than stated in the report, so I'm just vaguely interested in why and how this might have occurred.
Dave
Axxman300
Philosopher
I understand that it's fictional.
I understand that you're claiming a second head wound from behind, something that not even the wackiest CTist has ever advanced.
I understand that this EOP was the only bullet wound to the head in the history of bullets and or heads where there was no blood.
I understand that for your theory to work, JFK's cerebellum was somewhere under his liver.
I understand you think the EOP wound was caused by a subsonic round that entered the skull without fracturing bone (your words).
I understand you think the EOP bullet was fired by a silenced weapon - an obvious one-off weapon never seen again even though the CIA and MACV-SOG would have killed to have such a gun in Vietnam during the next 11 years (they didn't, and I've seen their inventory).
I understand that nobody saw the EOP: Jackie,the dozens of people on the sidewalk, the Secret Service, the Parkland doctors, the pathologists at the Autopsy, and the mortician.
I understand that you don't believe in the Magic Bullet, but for your theory to work you would need a magic bullet (and by this I mean Harry Potter magic).
I understand you believe the autopsy evidence was faked, that key photographs and x-rays are missing (even though you refuse to list which ones), that the pathologists were coerced into lying about their findings, but you have never said by whom.
Here's what you clearly don't understand:
Ballistics.
Pathology.
1963 Radiology
Geography
Context
History (big picture, and detail)
Conspiracy
Other than that, yeah, if I have any questions I'll ask.
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Not wanting to keep flogging the same point, but everything he thinks has to be explained by an additional bullet: The exit wound, the damage to the brain, the fractures in the skull, all of it, could be explained as well by his simply placing the wound too low.
Given the choice of all the experts trying to tell us there was a conspiracy, then immediately contradicting this within a few pages of testimony, the presence of a silent rifle, being able to pull off additional wounds, while leaving no physical trace, with a range, accuracy, and power that was not known in technology at the time, and expertly covering all physical traces of the additional bullets... and a leyman being wrong and cherry picking the evidence he thinks supports his idea, without being able to address the "evidence" when context is applied...
I'm going for one guy being wrong.
If we aren't convinced, that is not because we "don't get it" or are "Lone nuts", or whatever. It is because he is not presenting an argument that convinces us.
A lot of posts have taken a lot of time to explain why the "evidence" does not offer a more convincing take than LHO being the lone assassin. If the intention was to actually prove the assertions, or at the very least to present them as viable, it is entirely possible to read back and work out what evidence would be required to be taken seriously.
- Status