• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
bknight said:
He can't post/cite the evidence of any of these questions because that evidence resides in his mind or CT mind set. You and Axxman300 have cite more than enough evidence to show MJ has nothing but beliefs.
Click to expand...

A reminder every now and then to the lurkers about who can cite the evidence to prove their points and who is blowing smoke doesn't hurt.

MicahJava makes a LOT of assertions. But never backs them up.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
A reminder every now and then to the lurkers about who can cite the evidence to prove their points and who is blowing smoke doesn't hurt.

MicahJava makes a LOT of assertions. But never backs them up.

Hank
Click to expand...

The really sad thing is MJ has not dived into the recent document release by the National Archives at all. A real truth seeker would be living on that site for the next three weeks downloading files, and sorting them to construct a narrative - even if it was for a CT narrative.

I know MJ hasn't because I found a memo that - while it doesn't prove his theory - he could certainly find a new horse to beat to death with it. I wasn't even looking for it, I was just systematically opening the FBI files from 1968.

And no, I'm not going to discuss the contents because this would mean I'd have to find it again to post the supporting link, and in the end the story itself is obvious hearsay. But it's waiting out there in cyberspace just waiting for MJ to find it...which he won't because that involves work.
 
Axxman300 said:
The really sad thing is MJ has not dived into the recent document release by the National Archives at all. A real truth seeker would be living on that site for the next three weeks downloading files, and sorting them to construct a narrative - even if it was for a CT narrative.

I know MJ hasn't because I found a memo that - while it doesn't prove his theory - he could certainly find a new horse to beat to death with it. I wasn't even looking for it, I was just systematically opening the FBI files from 1968.

And no, I'm not going to discuss the contents because this would mean I'd have to find it again to post the supporting link, and in the end the story itself is obvious hearsay. But it's waiting out there in cyberspace just waiting for MJ to find it...which he won't because that involves work.
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully it keeps him busy looking for it and off the streets at night. ;)

Hank
 
Axxman300 said:
The really sad thing is MJ has not dived into the recent document release by the National Archives at all. A real truth seeker would be living on that site for the next three weeks downloading files, and sorting them to construct a narrative - even if it was for a CT narrative.

I know MJ hasn't because I found a memo that - while it doesn't prove his theory - he could certainly find a new horse to beat to death with it. I wasn't even looking for it, I was just systematically opening the FBI files from 1968.

And no, I'm not going to discuss the contents because this would mean I'd have to find it again to post the supporting link, and in the end the story itself is obvious hearsay. But it's waiting out there in cyberspace just waiting for MJ to find it...which he won't because that involves work.
Click to expand...

I like how you see evidence as something that I use as a weapon, rather than something that concerns everybody because there can be only one truth.
 
MicahJava said:
I like how you see evidence as something that I use as a weapon, rather than something that concerns everybody CTs because there can be only one truth.
Click to expand...

FTFY.
Yes there is only one truth, you just can't take the evidence and match the findings by the autopsy, Warren Commission, HSCA et. al.
 
MicahJava said:
I like how you see evidence as something that I use as a weapon, rather than something that concerns everybody because there can be only one truth.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to go there?

Let's hear your one truth.

It only happened one way.

Here's the way I put it together:

The evidence indicates that one Lee Harvey Oswald brought his rifle(1) to the Depository within a paper bag(2). Ballistic and witness evidence indicates his rifle fired three shots during the assassination(3). Further ballistic evidence indicates his rifle fired the bullets that wounded the two men(4). All three of these pieces of evidence - along with the three shells - were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. No other weapon was found in Dealey Plaza, no other shooter was seen in Dealey Plaza other than the one in the sniper's nest, and no shells, bullets, or bullet fragments were found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting other than those ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons. The autopsy determined - and all subsequent forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy material agreed - that JFK was struck twice - and only twice - both shots entering the posterior of the body in the upper back and head, and exiting the anterior of the body in the throat and top-right side of the head, respectively.

That's what the evidence indicates. One shooter - Oswald - with Oswald's weapon, from Oswald's place of work. Two bullets struck JFK with an entry and exit for each.

Now, let's hear your evidence for this one truth.

No hemming and hawing or changing the subject.

If it only happened one way and there's only one truth, and if the above is not it, how did it happen?

Point to the medical evidence of more than three shots.

Point to the forensic evidence of multiple shooters.

Tell us where they were located. Provide the evidence for that. Tell us what they struck - if anything - and why all of the evidence large enough to examine points only to Oswald's weapon.

Name names. Tell us why all the autopsists and forensic pathologists said just two bullets struck JFK.

Tell us your one truth.

Your problem is you don't have a coherent alterative story. All you have is your opinion which more often than not disagrees with what the experts determined everywhere in this case.

And still you can't come up with a coherent story and spell out your one truth. Because you don't have any truth, just a series of quibbles and alternative opinions, with nothing supporting them but your own opinion.

Your 'weapon', upon examination, strongly resembles a wet noodle that you are attempting to lash us with.

Hilarious!

Hank
_____________________
(1) A rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was found in the Depository after the assassination; that weapon was shipped from Kleins to Oswald's PO Box; Oswald was photographed with the weapon; his prints are on it.
(2) He was seen by two witnesses with a long paper sack that morning and a long paper bag with his prints on it was found in the Sniper's Nest.
(3) Three shells were found at the window traceable to his rifle and about 90% of the witnesses heard three shots.
(4) A nearly whole bullet was found at Parkland and two large fragments were found within the limo.
 
Last edited:
MJ, do you know what 7.62 x 52 mm means? What would be the minimum entry hole size?
Oh I forgot you've never fired a weapon before.
 
HSienzant said:
Do you really want to go there?

Let's hear your one truth.

It only happened one way.

Here's the way I put it together:

The evidence indicates that one Lee Harvey Oswald brought his rifle (serial number C2766 was found in the Depository after the assassination; that weapon was shipped from Kleins to Oswald's PO Box; Oswald was photographed with the weapon; his prints are on it) to the Depository within a paper bag (he was seen by two witnesses with a long paper sack that morning and a long paper bag with his prints on it was found in the Sniper's Nest). Ballistic and witness evidence indicates his rifle fired three shots during the assassination (three shells were found at the window traceable to his rifle and about 90% of the witnesses heard three shots). Further ballistic evidence indicates his rifle fired the bullets that wounded the two men (a nearly whole bullet was found at Parkland and two large fragments were found within the limo). All three of these pieces of evidence - along with the three shells - were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world). No other weapon was found in Dealey Plaza, no other shooter was seen in Dealey Plaza other than the one in the sniper's nest, and no shells, bullets, or bullet fragments were found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting other than those ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons. The autopsy determined - and all subsequent forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy material agreed - that JFK was struck twice - and only twice - both shots entering the posterior of the body in the upper back and head, and exiting the anterior of the body in the throat and top-right side of the head.

That's what the evidence indicates. One shooter - Oswald - with Oswald's weapon, from Oswald's place of work. Two bullets struck JFK with an entry and exit for each.

Now, let's hear your evidence for this one truth.

No hemming and hawing or changing the subject.

If it only happened one way and there's only one truth, and if the above is not it, how did it happen?

Point to the medical evidence of more than three shots.

Point to the forensic evidence of multiple shooters.

Tell us where they were located. Provide the evidence for that. Tell us what they struck - if anything - and why all of the evidence large enough to examine points only to Oswald's weapon.

Name names. Tell us why all the autopsists and forensic pathologists said just two bullets struck JFK.

Tell us your one truth.

Your problem is you don't have a coherent alterative story. All you have is your opinion which more often than not disagrees with what the experts determined everywhere in this case.

And still you can't come up with a coherent story and spell out your one truth.

Your 'weapon', upon examination, strongly resembles a wet noodle that you are attempting to lash us with.

Hilarious!

Hank
Click to expand...

Tell it like it is.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
HSienzant said:
He's hoping to wear us down with nonsense until we all give up and leave in disgust. Then he'd have this platform to himself.

That won't happen.

(I get paid too much to allow it to happen). ;)

Hank
Click to expand...

I only get a check from NASA. ;)
Different drawer from the slush fund.
 
bknight said:
FTFY.
Yes there is only one truth, you just can't take the evidence and match the findings by the autopsy, Warren Commission, HSCA et. al.
Click to expand...

[MJ]...but, but...EOP vs cowlick theory![/MJ]

Seems like by now even MJ would understand how that one note he's whistling (and in the wrong key to boot) is completely overwhelmed by the symphony that sings Oswald's guilt. But understanding consilience is just not something CTists are equipped to handle, I guess.
 
MicahJava said:
I like how you see evidence as something that I use as a weapon, rather than something that concerns everybody because there can be only one truth.
Click to expand...

Actually there really is only one truth and you are doing your very best to avoid it at all costs.

You must be so proud.
 
MicahJava said:
I like how you see evidence as something that I use as a weapon, rather than something that concerns everybody because there can be only one truth.
Click to expand...

Evidence is worthless without context.

You have chosen an argument where corroboratory evidence is unavailable (autopsy photos) because you think it allows you room to argue conspiracy without explaining how it was pulled off. A lot of Ctists use this strategy, and it always rings hollow. Your EOP issue is exactly the same tactic as the Roswell Crash folks who draw upon after-the-fact testimony to make their case, and like your EOP there are photographs that have been used to assert something fishy was going on.

Like Roswell fanatics you have come late to the JFK CT show and waste time foisting CTs that have been put to bed decades ago.

Truth is a philosophical concept, fact is a scientific one. You have stated you came into this looking for a conspiracy, and not with an objective mind. I was a CT-Loon for over 25 years, and it's easy to find conspiracies everywhere when you have the mindset that conspiracies are everywhere.

The fact is JFK was struck by two of the three bullets fired by Oswald from the 6th floor of the TSBD. All of the known facts point to his guilt. None of the facts point to a conspiracy. And nobody can say that the FBI and CIA didn't look for a conspiracy, the record are testament to how hard they looked for one.
 
MicahJava said:
I like how you see evidence as something that I use as a weapon, rather than something that concerns everybody because there can be only one truth.
Click to expand...

Well there is a string of nonsense

For starters everyone but you cares about actual evidence.

For seconcders, Faux evidence as evidence will not fly, even on planet Zog.

For thirders, Why exactly is it that you consider you crank claims to be a blunt instrument of violence?

For fourthers, sure there can only be one truth. But you have utterly failed to grasp it.

You have my sympathy. It is not often that one happens upon such a level of crankery.
 
Notice how my rants include actual evidence that can not be ignored in a crime case, while everybody else is just whining and chanting old mantras like a weakened fictional antagonist?

Serious question: If it were ever proven that the official photographs and x-rays are incompatible with the existence of a small bullet hole resembling an entry wound near the external occipital protuberance, why should any rational person then not then logically conclude that they are faked?

The official autopsy report, partially based on notes made at the autopsy, says "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance". A face sheet diagram, marked at the actual autopsy and stained in the President's blood, indicates a small wound roughly in the occipital area.

A serious load of autopsy participants have described a small wound at this location. Dr.'s Humes, Boswell, and Finck all throughly examined the body and detailed this. Then you have John Stringer, the photographer who was probably the fourth closest to the body. These golden four have all disagreed with the "four inches above the EOP" theory, denied the red spot on the back-of-head photographs was the wound they reported, and continued until their deaths insisting that this wound was near the EOP, near the base of the head, not on the top of the head. Then you have the small cast; Francis X. O'Neil examined the body himself and made statements and a drawings indicating a wound on the base of the head, in the "lower head" area. Then you have Charles Boyers, Roy Kellerman, and Richard Lipsey (Lipsey even called it a "upper neck" wound, but proceeded to clarify that he meant in the lower head area and marked face sheet diagram indicating a small wound near the EOP). I guess you could include the mortician Tom Robinson, who handled the body and told the HSCA he remembered seeing the doctors probing the base of the head (note that when reading his testimony or looking at his drawings of the large head wound, that the cranium had to have already been enlarged by the time he arrived at the autopsy). There are literally no humans present at the autopsy who were ever interviewed and agreed with any theory that the photographs or X-rays supported the theory that there was any entry wound high on the top of the head, and not low near the base of the head/EOP. There are virtually none alive by now to change their minds. That's history.


This is a hypothetical, of course. I think the official evidence could fit very well with a missile entrance near the EOP; nothing has to be faked. There are many serious indications that the panels of experts hired to re-evaluate the official JFK medical-legal evidence (totaling only about a dozen individual human forensic pathologists, and the occasional radiologist known to be experienced in X-rays) were ridden with a pressure to make the official evidence confirm the basic autopsy and official conclusion that the head wounds were caused by one bullet, entering from "above and behind". The Clark Panel and HSCA's cowlick entry was truly a unique pet theory in the hsitory of forensic evidence. Then you have about a dozen more forensic pathologists and some radiologists who have independently examined the official X-rays and either couldn't identify any particular entry wound or specifically denied the cowlick entry theory (for example, radiologist John Ebersole from the actual JFK autopsy was shown the official X-rays first by the Clark Panel and then the HSCA, where he was interviewed and did not agree with their "entry wound on the top of the head" theory).
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
MicahJava, why did you dishonestly post this:


If you weren't going to answer this:


Why are you still dishonestly running away?
Click to expand...

Seems pretty obvious that a small semicircular wound of entry in the back of the head would come from behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom