Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[CORed]

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.

In the aspects you mention, it strongly resembles all the crap about the location of the entrance wound. It is yet another red herring, supported by carefully cherry-picked "evidence" that doesn't really, even if it were true, support the notion of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy/frame Oswald. At most, it implies that something shady could have happened.

 

[Axxman300]

At most, it implies that something shady could have happened.

That's right, and in 1963-64 that's exactly what the CIA and FBI were actively investigating.

Lee Oswald was like the Forest Gump of the Cold War era:

He defected to Russia (changed his mind because nobody in Russia cared)

Goes to New Orleans, starts his Fair Play for Cuba Committee (more about him that Cuba), then mixes it up with anti-Castro Cubans who are losely affiliated with other Cuban nationals training in the Louisiana Swamps with the CIA.

Goes back to Dallas, buys his rifle.

Takes a shot at General Walker (Walker dropped his pen, bent to pick it up as bullet sailed above his head)

Goes to Mexico City, visits the Soviet and Cuban Embassies in October, 1963.

Returns to Dallas, kills JFK in November.

What most people see is a wannabe Marxist rebel without a clue. Shooting at Walker ( in his mind) gave him credibility as a serious revolutionary actor.When the Russians and Cubans laughed him out of their embassies he returns to Dallas and learns that JFK is coming to town - and driving right in front of his place of employment.

What the CIA saw was a guy with Soviet connections, and the newly released documents show that they shook every tree in Mexico, Europe, and Gulf of Mexico hoping to link him to a Soviet/Castro plot to kill JFK. The CIA continued to debate Oswald exclusivity well into the 1970's. You can see why, Oswald wandered into the shadow of the KGB and Cuban intelligence, and the CIA's paranoia on this subject was reasonable.

What the FBI saw was a guy with Soviet connections, who was then killed by Jack Ruby, who had mafia connections. Their investigations from 1963 to 1966 focused on domestic Communist cells. From 1968 through the mid-1970's their focus changed to a mafia link, especially after they found out about Operation Mongoose. Oswald's missing time in New Orleans skew the scales of the Mafia/JFK theories to this day.

The bottom line is that neither the CIA nor FBI ever found evidence to link Oswald to anyone else...because there is no evidence.

 

[Wolverine]

I dare you to have a two-user-only debate thread on JFK forensic evidence.

If you'd spend some time honestly and diligently attempting to actually answer the scores of questions you've been posed here (and ignored), it'd do vastly more to improve your understanding of the topic than griping about the format or chucking random gauntlets.

Seriously. Try it out.

 

[MicahJava]

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

Really? You're against the core concept of one-on-one debate? The regular thread would still be open for comment if there was a two-person-only debate thread. How about because it can be fun sometimes? BTW so far you have provided no evidence for the official story besides to pop in a couple of times to vaguely allude to the official story being correct.

 

[MicahJava]

If you'd spend some time honestly and diligently attempting to actually answer the scores of questions you've been posed here (and ignored), it'd do vastly more to improve your understanding of the topic than griping about the format or chucking random gauntlets.

Seriously. Try it out.

BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.

 

[MicahJava]

In the aspects you mention, it strongly resembles all the crap about the location of the entrance wound. It is yet another red herring, supported by carefully cherry-picked "evidence" that doesn't really, even if it were true, support the notion of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy/frame Oswald. At most, it implies that something shady could have happened.

That crap about the location of the entrance wound.

Yeah, this isn't the subject for you.

 

[MicahJava]

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?

I want a one-on-one thread because so far your routine has been to vaguely allude to non-existent earlier, better posts of yours that actually address my arguments, including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know. That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.

 

[MicahJava]

The only thing that is required is for an interested party to read through these threads and come to their own conclusion about where the truth lies, and who just plain lies.

Okay, well I have the autopsy report by my side. The EOP wound is in the autopsy report. 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. All other evidence indicates that "slightly" means slightly, not 4-5 inches above.

 

[Wolverine]

BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.

Actually I think that criticism was levied for repeatedly re-introducing select, debunked arguments, not "only sticking to one or two topics". And rightfully so.

Regardless, even if I'm mistaken, if you put forth the effort to answer those questions it'll assist you greatly -- assuming you're genuinely interested in learning and not just playing rhetorical games.

 

[MicahJava]

Actually I think that criticism was levied for repeatedly re-introducing select, debunked arguments, not "only sticking to one or two topics". And rightfully so.

Regardless, even if I'm mistaken, if you put forth the effort to answer those questions it'll assist you greatly -- assuming you're genuinely interested in learning and not just playing rhetorical games.

Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?

 

[Wolverine]

Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?

You're doing it again.

 

[MicahJava]

You're doing it again.

I don't play any debunked "4 inch above the EOP" games, but feel free to answer any way you'd like.

 

[Axxman300]

Okay Wolverine, let's see you debunk this: JFK's autopsy report says the entry wound on the back of his head was located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?

Yes.

This has been proven dozens of times, a few of them by lasers.

The only ones who don't believe it are CTists, normal people accept that lasers move in a straight line.

 

[Axxman300]

Okay, well I have the autopsy report by my side. The EOP wound is in the autopsy report. 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. All other evidence indicates that "slightly" means slightly, not 4-5 inches above.

How is a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD on your side?

 

[Axxman300]

I want a one-on-one thread because so far your routine has been to vaguely allude to non-existent earlier, better posts of yours that actually address my arguments, including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know. That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.

You have demonstrated time and again that you do not read the information we link to on this thread. We are not going to repeat ourselves to make you feel powerful. Answer the questions as they come along.

hat and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.

This is an example of you NOT reading YOUR OWN SOURCE MATERIAL before you spam it here. Lifton's whole case hinges on his theory that both the President and Connally's woulds were altered to hide a frontal attack, and to frame Oswald as the lone gunman. That's why his "research" is worthless.

You can't cite Lifton unless you share his conclusions - period.

 

[Axxman300]

Really? You're against the core concept of one-on-one debate? The regular thread would still be open for comment if there was a two-person-only debate thread. How about because it can be fun sometimes? BTW so far you have provided no evidence for the official story besides to pop in a couple of times to vaguely allude to the official story being correct.

Dave doesn't have to provide evidence. The Warren Commission, Dallas Police, and the FBI all concluded Oswald acted alone.

You, on the other hand, haven't even put forth a theory of what happened in Dallas. Why is that?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I want a one-on-one thread because so far your routine has been to vaguely allude to non-existent earlier, better posts of yours that actually address my arguments, including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know. That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that? Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.

You have demonstrated time and again that you do not read the information we link to on this thread. We are not going to repeat ourselves to make you feel powerful. Answer the questions as they come along.



This is an example of you NOT reading YOUR OWN SOURCE MATERIAL before you spam it here. Lifton's whole case hinges on his theory that both the President and Connally's woulds were altered to hide a frontal attack, and to frame Oswald as the lone gunman. That's why his "research" is worthless.

You can't cite Lifton unless you share his conclusions - period.

MicahJava, tusk, tusk. You played the feigned incomprehension card before, and were called out on it. Pretending not to understand properly-constructed questions in perfect English, just because you can't answer them, will not help you at all.
We all know you understand. Stop auto-censoring around and just answer the auto-censoring question.

 

[HSienzant]

Really? You're against the core concept of one-on-one debate? The regular thread would still be open for comment if there was a two-person-only debate thread. How about because it can be fun sometimes? BTW so far you have provided no evidence for the official story besides to pop in a couple of times to vaguely allude to the official story being correct.

How many people need to provide evidence for the official story before you read any of it?

Here's an example of the evidence that was previously provided to you.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/contents.htm

Why does that need to be provided a second, third, or fourth time?

If you ignore it the first time, why should anyone bother to provide it anew?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.

First off, thanks for letting us know when your argument that follows is BS.

And yours is a straw man argument. You were being criticized for repeating yourself after the point had been addressed, repeatedly. You were also being criticized for ignoring the rebuttal points made that were counter to your arguments.

For example, you raised the issue of an interview of Francis X. O'Neill conducted by William Law, but you never responded to the post asking for further information. You claimed O'Neill's statements to Law supported your arguments.

You ignored follow-up reminders to that post.

Here's the link to the link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12140127&postcount=3387

After citing O'Neill's claims to Law, you then tried to slough off criticisms by suggesting O'Neill was lying!

But that raised further criticisms of your argument posted here, which you likewise ignored:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12142100&postcount=3402

You do this repeatedly, anytime there is any points raised that you cannot rebut. That is why you were cautioned here thusly:

If you'd spend some time honestly and diligently attempting to actually answer the scores of questions you've been posed here (and ignored), it'd do vastly more to improve your understanding of the topic than griping about the format or chucking random gauntlets.

Seriously. Try it out.

You deflected from that argument by raising a strawman argument here:

BS. Earlier I was being criticized for only sticking to one or two topics for pages at a time.

And so we wind up going in circles with you.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do you think that could work with the Sixth floor?

Where do you think it would work from? And who fired the shot? With what weapon? Where did that person and weapon go? How did three spent rifle casings end up by Oswald's sniper nest? Why did Oswald murder Officer Tippitt? Why did he try to murder more officers who confronted him where he was hiding in the theater?

Answer those and I'll have some more homework for you, otherwise your repetitiveness is just boring. Come on, MicahJava, be a CT unlike any other.
One who can answer questions and be honest.