Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

Yes. It. Is.

You got it! You finally got it!

Recollections can be false (GASP!).

Recollections aren't always true and don't imply a cover-up if they conflict with hard evidence or contemporaneous documents. Earlier recollections are more likely to be true than ones made more than a decade later.

They don't have to be deliberate lies - they can just be false.

Now, since we have photos of the brain in JFK's head taken at the very start of the autopsy, remember that when citing O'Neill's recollection that there was no brain in the head.

Or go back and look at literally almost any of your posts over the past year. They almost all rely on recollections made to the ARRB or HSCA. They almost all contradict the contemporaneous evidence. They almost all are wrong.

Hank

Hank, you should also know that O'Neill went even farther when he was interviewed by the ARRB and William Law, saying that he stayed long enough to view the dressing and that after the morticians were done Kennedy looked good, like he was asleep. For an FBI guy trained to credibly remember and record events, he sure is sloopy with his innocent "big fish" stories while under oath. Or he's lying.

 

[HSienzant]

Lisa Pease tweeted this

[qimg]Remove CT Idiocy[/qimg]

Punt!

Did it ever occur to you that if we wanted to read Lisa Pease's tweets, we could subscribe to them ourselves?

What's the point of posting them here?

Other than to change the subject.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I am often more than willing to spend a few dollars to order a book online if it means being able to know and present one more piece of evidence, even if it's just a couple of paragraphs I'm interested in. I don't know what your researching habits are. If you think you can keep the facts straighter than me, then maybe we can have a special one-one-one debate thread about the JFK forensic evidence.

Well, there's part of the problem.

Reading a couple of paragraphs from a book and building your argument around them, without accounting for the author's bias, which can skew how he presents the 'facts' of the case, isn't going to be very helpful to getting to the truth.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, all you did is link to older posts of yours and mine and claim that you have refuted them.

Anyone clicking on the links can see what occurred.

And you attack Lifton's overall theories as if they have anything to do with the raw evidence he collected.

Punt! Does this mean you won't be explaining how the Governor's wounds were altered anytime soon? I figured as much.

And it appears your argument now is that Lifton's theory is divorced from his facts. A strange way to defend the body alteration theory you brought up.

And of course his theory of body alteration has everything to do with the raw evidence he collected. He bases his theory on his interpretation of that evidence. You base your theory on your interpretation of that evidence. So we're not talking about the evidence itself, per se, we're talking about his and your interpretations of it, and how much weight you each assign to it, and why. And that's what you can't defend. Your interpretation of it.

He found the 11/29/1963 George Barnum diary which shows the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.

No, it doesn't. That's your interpretation of it. We've cover this extensively in the past. Do you need the links to those discussions?

Here's a few (there's plenty more):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066895&postcount=2647

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066946&postcount=2650

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12067019&postcount=2656

There are more. You are ignoring a lot of evidence in your attempt to shove the Barnum entry to the front of the line.

If a one-on-one debate thread with only our comments sounds easier to manage these subjects, say so because that sounds interesting.

I don't think that would change anything. The facts are still going to be the facts, your interpretations are still going to be your interpretations, and never the twain shall meet.

There's really no good reason to go private with your arguments. I love puncturing CT balloons with the sharp needle of the facts and watching the CTs cry in anguish.

Hank

 

[bknight]

I am often more than willing to spend a few dollars to order a book online if it means being able to know and present one more piece of evidence, even if it's just a couple of paragraphs I'm interested in. I don't know what your researching habits are. If you think you can keep the facts straighter than me, then maybe we can have a special one-one-one debate thread about the JFK forensic evidence.

First off, I don't think I can keep facts straighter than you, I know I can. And as for your "facts" they all are derived from Individuals taking a lot of out of context statements in an effort to show a conspiracy, something that no one who has the real fact in memory can believe in. On shooter, Three shots, one miss two hits one causing mortal damage to JFK.
All of your ramblings since I have been part of this thread have not proven a conspiracy, perhaps a bit of memory lapses that you think point to a conspiracy. Give it up and get a life.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I am often more than willing to spend a few dollars to order a book online if it means being able to know and present one more piece of evidence, even if it's just a couple of paragraphs I'm interested in. I don't know what your researching habits are. If you think you can keep the facts straighter than me, then maybe we can have a special one-one-one debate thread about the JFK forensic evidence.

You seem to be suggesting it is an advantage to your argument that your evidence is gathered from biased secondary sources pedalling their own conclusions.

It is not.

Why do you NEED to buy books online when the primary sources are freely available?

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, you should also know that O'Neill went even farther when he was interviewed by the ARRB and William Law, saying that he stayed long enough to view the dressing and that after the morticians were done Kennedy looked good, like he was asleep. For an FBI guy trained to credibly remember and record events, he sure is sloopy [sic - sloppy] with his innocent "big fish" stories while under oath. Or he's lying.

Page # where O'Neill says this to Law in IN THE EYE OF HISTORY?

And you might want to explain when the interview in question took place - how many decades after the assassination?

And touch on why you expect O'Neill's recollections to be accurate that many decades after the fact.

And please expand on what exact training FBI agents get to "credibly remember and record events" as you allege above. And whether studies show that training persists for 38 years.

And please delve into some of the errors of memory O'Neill displayed elsewhere in that interview, and point out how in many cases William Law tried to lead the witness into the answer he wanted. And explain why you discounted all that.

Here's one example of leading the witness from page 303 to get you started:

LAW: You've seen tracheostomies before, perhaps?
O'Neill: Yes.
LAW: Did you ever see one that was that big?

And why the false dichotomy of two choices only - O'Neill is either sloppy or a liar - and artificially eliminating the most reasonable explanation, he's trying to be helpful and remember, but like everyone else, he's human and his memory doesn't work as well as he'd like to think it does.

Let us know why the false dichotomy was inserted here.

Thanks a bunch.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Hank, all you did is link to older posts of yours and mine and claim that you have refuted them.

Which he has.

And you attack Lifton's overall theories as if they have anything to do with the raw evidence he collected.

We've just pointed out that his "raw evidence" collecting ability is suspect. All of his work shares the same flaw. All of his evidence is skewed to support his theory of multiple shooters - from the front - and the body being altered to frame Oswald.

You cannot separate his evidence from his conclusions. This is a common CTist failure, this is why there are so many JFK-CT books. Each author takes so-called research from another CT-hack to use to build their own theory, never once considering - like Lifton - that the evidence is crap.

He found the 11/29/1963 George Barnum diary which shows the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.

No. This is Lifton's interpretation, and nobody can tell when the diary was actually written.

If a one-on-one debate thread with only our comments sounds easier to manage these subjects, say so because that sounds interesting.

Nope.

 

[Axxman300]

Hank, you should also know that O'Neill went even farther when he was interviewed by the ARRB and William Law, saying that he stayed long enough to view the dressing and that after the morticians were done Kennedy looked good, like he was asleep. For an FBI guy trained to credibly remember and record events, he sure is sloopy with his innocent "big fish" stories while under oath. Or he's lying.

I need you to show everyone in the FBI Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines (MIOG) Part 02- 04 of 06 where an agent must be prepared for a deposition 30 years after the fact:

https://vault.fbi.gov/miog/manual-o...ons-and-guidelines-miog-part-02-04-of-06/view

I'm also going to need you to show how the autopsy room was an active crime-scene, thus necessitating thorough documentation instead of the usual agent's activity report.

I might be missing something, but looking at the FBI Training Academy website there is nothing about a requirement for super-human abilities of any kind:

https://www.fbi.gov/services/training-academy

So if the FBI just hires regular, garden variety humans then the usual margin of error must be expected.

I apologize for bringing the real world into this conversation.

 

[MicahJava]

You seem to be suggesting it is an advantage to your argument that your evidence is gathered from biased secondary sources pedalling their own conclusions.

It is not.

Why do you NEED to buy books online when the primary sources are freely available?

If you want to quote Bugliosi or someone like that, go ahead. But don't use Posner because he has been proven to fabricate interviews with witnesses such as James Tague and Dr. James Humes.

 

[MicahJava]

I need you to show everyone in the FBI Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines (MIOG) Part 02- 04 of 06 where an agent must be prepared for a deposition 30 years after the fact:

https://vault.fbi.gov/miog/manual-o...ons-and-guidelines-miog-part-02-04-of-06/view

I'm also going to need you to show how the autopsy room was an active crime-scene, thus necessitating thorough documentation instead of the usual agent's activity report.

I might be missing something, but looking at the FBI Training Academy website there is nothing about a requirement for super-human abilities of any kind:

https://www.fbi.gov/services/training-academy

So if the FBI just hires regular, garden variety humans then the usual margin of error must be expected.

I apologize for bringing the real world into this conversation.

And cops technically aren't required to protect people, just enforce the law.

 

[HSienzant]

If you want to quote Bugliosi or someone like that, go ahead. But don't use Posner because he has been proven to fabricate interviews with witnesses such as James Tague and Dr. James Humes.

Punt!

The point was using secondary sources is poor research when primary sources are available. You didn't defend your practice. You just named a couple of "Warren Commission defenders" and attacked one of them.

That's entirely different than defending your usage of secondary sources.

This is yet another example of why I say you punt all the time.

Besides, all you're doing is employing the logical fallacy of "two wrongs make a right" here to attempt to justify your usage of secondary sources.

You were accused of using secondary sources who take claims out of context and twist them to make them appear conspiratorial, so your response is that we're okay to use secondary sources, except for Posner, who you claim is a liar.

Sorry, "two wrongs make a right" is still just a logical fallacy. And that's all you're using to attempt to justify your usage of secondary sources.

And again, that's entirely different than defending your usage of secondary sources.

Tell us why you're using CT websites and CT authors, can you?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And cops technically aren't required to protect people, just enforce the law.

Punt!

You claimed FBI are trained to remember stuff, and attempted to justify your usage of Agent O'Neill's recollections from 33-years after the event and 38-years after the event by means of that claim.

You allowed for only one other possibility: He was lying.

That's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy, as well as a bogus assertion (that FBI agents are trained to remember stuff).

I asked you to cite for that claim. You didn't. You simply made it up.

And changing the subject to cops and what they are required to do is another whole subject area that deserves its own thread. It has no bearing on what FBI agents are trained to do.

Defend this claim of yours:

For an FBI guy trained to credibly remember and record events, he sure is sloopy [sic - "sloppy"] with his innocent "big fish" stories while under oath. Or he's lying.

You can't. You made it up.

Hank

 

[CORed]

Hank, all you did is link to older posts of yours and mine and claim that you have refuted them. And you attack Lifton's overall theories as if they have anything to do with the raw evidence he collected. He found the 11/29/1963 George Barnum diary which shows the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.

If a one-on-one debate thread with only our comments sounds easier to manage these subjects, say so because that sounds interesting.

He has refuted your points (the few that you have actually made). For you to claim otherwise is equivalent to the Black Knight looking at the stump of his severed arm and saying, "It's only a flesh wound."

 

[Axxman300]

And cops technically aren't required to protect people, just enforce the law.

An FBI Agent is not a beat cop.

https://www.fbijobs.gov/career-paths/special-agents

What laws needed to be enforced at the autopsy?

Can you tell me who has jurisdiction on a military base?

 

[HSienzant]

Still waiting:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12137676&postcount=3356

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Punt!

The point was using secondary sources is poor research when primary sources are available. You didn't defend your practice. You just named a couple of "Warren Commission defenders" and attacked one of them.

That's entirely different than defending your usage of secondary sources.

This is yet another example of why I say you punt all the time.

Besides, all you're doing is employing the logical fallacy of "two wrongs make a right" here to attempt to justify your usage of secondary sources.

You were accused of using secondary sources who take claims out of context and twist them to make them appear conspiratorial, so your response is that we're okay to use secondary sources, except for Posner, who you claim is a liar.

Sorry, "two wrongs make a right" is still just a logical fallacy. And that's all you're using to attempt to justify your usage of secondary sources.

And again, that's entirely different than defending your usage of secondary sources.

Tell us why you're using CT websites and CT authors, can you?

Hank

Hank, by "secondary source" do you mean Killing The Truth by Harrison Livingstone? I only used the parts from his interview with Joe Hagan to demonstrate that he arrived 11:00 PM - 12:00 PM. This is roughly consistent (there's a disagreement over who rode with who in the hearse to the hospital) with the information from Joe Hagan et. al of Gawler's funeral home in the 1967 book The Death of a President by William Manchester and the 1968 book The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop. He quotes directly from Hagan numerous times.

The combined contemporaneous statements of Clint Hill and Roy Kellerman, the "2 AM" entry on the Mahogany Casket delivery's paperwork, and The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop leave a strong impression that autopsy procedures could have gone on as long as 2:45 AM.

With sources like Jim Bishop (considered "sloppier" than Manchester), who write their books as a collage narrative made of their witness statements from a few years later, news reports, Warren Commission etc., everybody knows that you can be treading on thin ice in terms of how valuable evidence can be.

But guess what, it's a goldmine compared to if we had nothing. Imagine if we had books like that about other ancient leaders. And it's worth a charm if you have corroborating evidence, which is what this throat issue has been about. And it seems like you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary on these issues which would suggest these sources should be ignored. Historians use this as evidence because it is. EVIDENCE, Mr. Monday-To-Friday, do you speak it?

 

[MicahJava]

Still waiting:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12137676&postcount=3356

Hank

Dude, you are now linking to links of links to links. You win: I need you to slow down.

A coherent argument for why history shouldn't remember the autopsy pathologists are liars because of the throat business, perhaps?

 

[MicahJava]

An FBI Agent is not a beat cop.

https://www.fbijobs.gov/career-paths/special-agents

What laws needed to be enforced at the autopsy?

Can you tell me who has jurisdiction on a military base?

Admiral Galloway?

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you want to quote Bugliosi or someone like that, go ahead. But don't use Posner because he has been proven to fabricate interviews with witnesses such as James Tague and Dr. James Humes.

Pop quiz. Would I then be quoting a primary or secondary source?
Why would that make a difference to my argument being convincing?