• 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.
HSienzant said:
Snort. You brought up the 2AM casket arrival as evidence for the autopsy ending as late as 2:45AM.




And given that O'Neill remembers the exact opposite, what do you make of their disparate recollections?

Are you still trying to reconcile them? That's a fool's errand.

I thought you would have understood by now that recollections from 40 years after the fact are bound to have errors, and it's a mistake to put any weight on those recollections.

Of course, as I keep pointing out, without those recollections from the HSCA, ARRB, and now William Law, you would not have much to cite. It's curious, don't you think, how frequently you must mention these interviews from decades after the fact in an attempt to make your case?

Hank
Click to expand...

It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie. Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy book logic. Two wrongs make a right, but only if one wrong is smaller than the other.


MicahJava said:
Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
Click to expand...

Punt!

If O'Neill is lying under testimony, how do you know that? And if he is, how do you know WHAT he's lying about?

Yours is no response at all. It's just more accusations by you of lying by witnesses whenever they said anything that conflicts with your conspiracy dream scenario.

How reliable is your "liar-liar-pants-on-fire" detector and when was it last calibrated? And where did you go to have it calibrated?

And, of course, as always when stuck, you just change the subject and accuse others of lying... now it's two more witnesses central to your argument that Oswald was innocent, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle. ("Minnie" indeed).

We're supposed to ignore the hard evidence that confirms the homemade paper sack story now, the hard evidence of the homemade paper sack long enough to contain Oswald's disassembled rifle, bearing Oswald's palmprint on it, that was found in the sniper's nest corner and confirms the homemade paper sack story told by BWF and LMR, that Oswald brought a long homemade paper sack to work on the morning of the assassination?

We're supposed to ignore the fact that Oswald's rifle was likewise found in the depository where he worked, and you can't explain how the sack was created or why or how the rifle got into the building, and who brought it there, if not Oswald in the homemade paper sack?

Wait... your excuse is coming to me... the cops made the paper sack to frame Oswald, and yes, they too lied about it!

And the entire paper trail showing Oswald ordered the rifle, paid for the rifle, and had it shipped to his PO Box? All forgeries?

And the photos of him with the rifle, taken with his own camera by his own wife? More forgeries to frame Oswald?

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

You have no facts on your side, so you constantly resort to the "everyone was lying except for Oswald" argument.

It's nonsense.

You keep looking for the deception in the evidence, but the only deception evident from CT posts I can see is self-deception.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie. Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
Click to expand...

Again you provide no proof of your accusations of anybody lying and resort to this failed tactic anytime it fits your beliefs. If it is so simple why then does most of the civilized world conclude a different outcome, than yours, to this issue?
 
MicahJava said:
It's very simple: sometimes you tell a white lie to relieve some of your guilt of covering up a big lie. Same with the possible case of Buell Wesley Frazier, lying about a package small enough to fit under Oswald's armpit to relieve the guilt of making up the whole curtain rod story with Minnie.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a lie?

Why can't Frazier just have believed what Oswald told him about the package being curtain rods?

Why can't he be mistaken about how long the package was?

Why can't we give him the benefit of a doubt that maybe his brain remembered it wrong to alleviate the guilt of driving the murderer and his weapon to the scene of the crime were the leader of the free world died?

Mis-remembering things is a coping mechanism for a lot of people who've undergone a traumatic event.

Every step of the way you ignore the human factor.
 
All of this autopsy-mortician time line nonsense is a waste of time.

None of it changes what happened in Dallas, it doesn't change the evidence of a single gunman, it doesn't point away from Oswald as that gunman, and doesn't serve any purpose other than a red herring.

The autopsy occurred while Oswald was still alive. He could have been talking to the DPD and FBI while they were cutting into JFK, and nobody could have stopped him. Why alter wounds when you don't know what's happening in Dallas? Why fake an autopsy when the entire National Security apparatus is actively searching for a link to a larger conspiracy?

For a conspiracy theory to function these questions, and all of the other ones asked of MJ must be addressed.
 
Pardon the quick interruption. It'd been a while since I'd logged in here, but I've kept up with these threads since Part III, before Harris's arrival. Just stopping by to post a quick note of appreciation to (almost) all participants, especially HSienzant for so many detailed, wonderful posts. I've learned a ton from following these exchanges the last couple of years. Thank you.
 
Wolverine said:
Pardon the quick interruption. It'd been a while since I'd logged in here, but I've kept up with these threads since Part III, before Harris's arrival. Just stopping by to post a quick note of appreciation to (almost) all participants, especially HSienzant for so many detailed, wonderful posts. I've learned a ton from following these exchanges the last couple of years. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no doubt that HSeinzant's knowledge is encyclopedic.
 
MicahJava said:
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

Translation:

I want a thread where I can lie, misrepresent and handwave as much as I want without multiple people pointing out my lies, misrepresentations and handwaves.
 
MicahJava said:
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

It's a classic conspiracist tactic, or indeed a tactic of anyone whose views are so extreme and bizarre that only a very small number of people espouse them, to try to reduce the opposition to their ideas to a single person's contribution. It's a lot like the creationists demanding "teach the controversy," in that it seeks to generate the illusion that views on both sides of the question have some kind of equivalence. All that a one-on-one debate usually proves is that one person is better at one-on-one debating than another; that's why science and history are established by broad consensus and peer review, not by adversarial one-on-one debate.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

I triple-dog dare you to post any evidence for a conspiracy, backed by sound reasoning without logical fallacies and taking quotes out of context, and follow up by actually debating the points made in rebuttal, instead of punting and changing the subject.

You can start by reviewing any of my recent posts you ignored the first time around and attempting to respond to the points made.

Hank

PS: Did you ever figure out who altered Connally's wounds?
 
Last edited:
This also illustrates the fact that conspiracists are mainly interested in scoring rhetorical points and attempting to win debates, rather than uncovering the truth.

JayUtah, who is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on fake moon landing CTs, always declines such one-on-one debate challenges, stating that everyone should be free to contribute to the discussion, for exactly this reason.
 
SpitfireIX said:
This also illustrates the fact that conspiracists are mainly interested in scoring rhetorical points and attempting to win debates, rather than uncovering the truth.

JayUtah, who is unquestionably the world's foremost authority on fake moon landing CTs, always declines such one-on-one debate challenges, stating that everyone should be free to contribute to the discussion, for exactly this reason.
Click to expand...

I believe that Jay's stance is to not debate in a non moderated media, he has certainly debated in apollohoax.org and in CosmoQuest
 
bknight said:
I believe that Jay's stance is to not debate in a non moderated media, he has certainly debated in apollohoax.org and in CosmoQuest
Click to expand...


Of course, but he declines challenges to one-on-one debates. His position is that anyone who wishes to contribute to the discussion should be allowed to, in order better to arrive at the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom