Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

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

How would that work any differently than the one on many? You would still ignore any points you can't answer. There might be fewer of them because the 'one' wouldn't necessarily think of all possible rebuttals to your arguments, but it would not change how your routine works.

My 'routine' has been to address your arguments, then link to my original posts pointing out how you're ignoring my points and simply reiterating your points.

See my post immediately prior to this one (about Law's interview of McNeill) for just ONE out of dozens of examples.

Here's the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12145381&postcount=3439

After citing those ignored posts a couple of times by providing the actual links, I then allude to them, but they are not "non-existent" nor "vague". Your rebuttals are either not factual or contain logical fallacies, which I then point out and ask you to address the points without the errors of logic or fact. You never do.

including linking to links of links of links to my posts as if I have not already addressed everything you need to know.

You seldom address the points I make. You make a response that is either a logical fallacy (like a straw man argument or a change of subject) or respond that so-and-so was lying (but never explain how you know that).

I link to links to links of my responses to show how many times you've ignored the original post.

That and gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? Why do you keep saying that?

I'm pretty certain everyone else who read the point understands it. If any lurker needed further details or was confused by my point they have yet to come forward to say so.

Your arguments citing Lifton and body alteration directly imply Connally's wounds must also be altered, if the President's were. Failure to address the point exposes Lifton's argument - and yours, lifted from Lifton - as worthless inanity.

Here's some of the links to my arguments about that point. Feel free to ignore them, or even more fun, pretend they are 'gibberish' to you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12027483&postcount=1760
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12049447&postcount=2233
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12050013&postcount=2247
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12135493&postcount=3338
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12137669&postcount=3355

Ignore them at the peril to your own credibility. Pretend they are gibberish if you want. Doesn't do your credibility much good.

Is the rest of this thread going to be literal gibberish like "who altered Connally's wounds"? This is getting boring.

Only because you're stuck for an answer. It's not boring to those of us watching your avoidance of the critical points. It's fascinating.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

We covered all that months ago.

This is just another fringe reset by you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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?

Here's Z-frame 312. Show how it doesn't work.

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe312.html

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

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.

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

He already did. He pointed out you're doing it again -- invoking a fringe reset, AND invoking a logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof... you're asking him to disprove your contention.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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?

Do you?

Why or why not?

Be precise and cite your evidence.

We'll wait.

Hank

PS: Who altered Connally's wounds?

 

[bknight]

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?

Of course it works. There have too many experiments and demonstrations that prove the both the shots that hit targets came from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

 

[MicahJava]

Of course it works. There have too many experiments and demonstrations that prove the both the shots that hit targets came from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Please do show me.

BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials? Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.

 

[HSienzant]

BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials? Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.

Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN.

He found a necktie offered shoring to the flesh and the result was a smaller exit wound.

BTW, you're now changing the subject once more.

Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.

Asked and answered. We covered this extensively in the past.

No free fringe resets for you.


Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN.

He found a necktie offered shoring to the flesh and the result was a smaller exit wound.

Go on?

Asked and answered. We covered this extensively in the past.

No free fringe resets for you.


Hank

Answered with gibberish BS which cannot refute the original autopsy report nor can it refute the autopsy participants.

 

[HSienzant]

BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials?

Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN.
He found a necktie offered shoring to the flesh and the result was a smaller exit wound. BTW, you're now changing the subject once more.

Go on?

No need. Asked and answered. You raised a point and I answered it. You said you had the book, as I recall.

Answered with gibberish BS which cannot refute the original autopsy report nor can it refute the autopsy participants.

The original autopsy report says the bullet entered JFK's head from above and behind. The three autopsy doctors said the same thing. Two large fragments of a bullet were found in the limo after the assassination that were determined to come from the rifle found after the assassination that would have been above and behind the limousine during the assassination.

Those two large bullet fragments came from that rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Those fragments most likely comprised the remnants of the bullet that hit JFK in the back of the head, exiting the top right of the head.

The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, where numerous witnesses said they saw a young slender white male in the window from which a rifle was seen, was traceable to one person, a 24-year-old slender white male named Lee Harvey Oswald, who ordered it from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of 1963, paid for it by money order in his handwriting, had it shipped to his post office box, was photographed holding the rifle by his wife with the family camera, and left his fingerprints and a palmprint on the rifle. Oswald worked in that building from which the shots were fired and was seen with a long homemade paper sack that morning. A long homemade paper sack - long enough to contain the disassembled rifle - was found in the depository within a few feet of the window from which the shooter was seen. It bore Oswald's print.

That's really all you need to know.

You want to quibble all over again about where precisely on the head the entry wound was, go right ahead. But after quoting the doctors on this point, you also turned around and call the doctors who conducted the autopsy and prepared the autopsy report liars when you disagreed with them.

Nobody is buying what you're selling.

So don't expect me to play along again. We covered this extensively in the past, and your arguments about the location of the head wound don't overturn any of the above facts.

The autopsy said one bullet hit JFK in the head, entering the rear of the head, and exiting the top right. We have two large fragments of that bullet, and they are traceable to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Oswald's rifle fired the shot that killed JFK.

Learn to live with the things you cannot change.
And you cannot change that.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, I think the Lattimer experiments you're referring to are also featured in this free paper:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf

See? I'm so genuine in my discourse that I'm willing to share (alleged) evidence against conspiracy from time to time if I do come across it. You would never see that from LNers.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, I think the Lattimer experiments you're referring to are also featured in this free paper:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf

See? I'm so genuine in my discourse that I'm willing to share (alleged) evidence against conspiracy from time to time if I do come across it. You would never see that from LNers.

On the contrary, I share evidence against conspiracy all the time.

If you knew about the Lattimer experiments, why'd you ask if the small exit wound had been replicated?

And if you knew about the Lattimer experiments, why'd you ask me to 'go on' after I pointed them out to you?

And if you knew about the Lattimer experiments, why do you suggest now they are only 'alleged' evidence against conspiracy?

And if you're aware they were published in WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW, THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION, why are you questioning their validity?

So much for your 'genuine discourse'.

Hank

 

[abaddon]

Once again, MJ, what is your theory of what actually happened. Enquiring minds want to know and for reasons unexplained, you are avoiding this like the plague.

 

[bknight]

Please do show me.

BTW, has anybody ever replicated a tiny exit throat wound using ballistics gel or tissue stimulant materials? Either way, we have the EOP wound, which must be explained.

You have been presented several demonstrations you just ignore them or hand wave them away because those demonstrations validate the autopsy findings.

I'm not going to search something that has been shown many times. And no I don't have them all bookmarked, go do your own research in something other than a CT book/webpage.

 

[MicahJava]

Once again, MJ, what is your theory of what actually happened. Enquiring minds want to know and for reasons unexplained, you are avoiding this like the plague.

Definitely some EOP going on there.

 

[Steve]

Definitely some EOP going on there.

I think you misunderstood. The question was "what is your theory of what actually happened."?

You have spent years posting about what you think didn't happen. Now how about a coherent summary of what you think did happen? For me you do not even have to explain why, just summarize the sequence of events as you see them. Thanks.

 

[MicahJava]

I think you misunderstood. The question was "what is your theory of what actually happened."?

You have spent years posting about what you think didn't happen. Now how about a coherent summary of what you think did happen? For me you do not even have to explain why, just summarize the sequence of events as you see them. Thanks.

There are a lot of great theories out there, but one thing for sure is the EOP wound. Any investigation must explain the EOP wound.

 

[HSienzant]

I think you misunderstood.

No, he didn't. He didn't have an answer a year ago. He didn't have an answer six months ago. He doesn't have an answer now.

He doesn't know what happened. He only knows what he believes didn't happen. Oswald alone, from the Depository, with a Mannlicher-Carcano.

That's all he has. That belief that it wasn't Oswald alone. Everything else is subservient to that belief. So

So he simply deflects. And like a drowning man, clings to the floating debris in an ocean of evidence point to Oswald.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

There are a lot of great theories out there,

No, there is only one supported by a consilience of evidence. Which of the others do you subscribe to?

Note that you will be asked to support your theory with a consilience of evidence and it will be held to the same standard you hold the established narrative to.

I'm guessing that you will run away from answering. Just like any other CTist.

 

[Steve]

There are a lot of great theories out there, but one thing for sure is the EOP wound. Any investigation must explain the EOP wound.

You seem to have misunderstood again. I was asking specifically what you think occurred. I doubt that you subscribe to all the "great theories".I expect there is one that best represents your views. Do you have your own theory or is there a specific theory from someone else that accurately reflects you thoughts? All I am asking for is a brief summary, in your own words, of what you think happened that day. Without, of course, any comments on what you do not think happened that day.
Thanks again.