Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

I'm not surprised you're getting tired of having every one of your posts shown to be complete nonsense. The best way to stop it would be to stop posting complete nonsense.

Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films. I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films.

But your "explanations" have proven to be wilfully naive repetitions from less than intelligent CTist websites. You haven't even found one that was interesting that you could crib from.

I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.

I don't think you realize people are openly mocking the silliness you post. Your CT websites have left you out in the cold when you're asked any questions. Haven't you noticed?

 

[HSienzant]

Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films.

And it's not convincing, because it's built on recollections from 15 years or 33 years after the fact, along with a heaping dollop of logical fallacies and quotes out of context. Along with quoting a witness one day as if their recollection is gospel, and then turning around and accusing them of lying the next day when something else they said contradicts your beliefs.

And I patiently show you the logical fallacies, the quotes out of context, and how the recollections disagree with the hard evidence and with the other evidence you cite. And how accusing someone of lying whose testimony you're citing as evidence elsewhere isn't exactly the best approach.

I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with.

What misunderstandings by me are you alluding to?

I've asked before. You never got specific. You never get specific about these so-called 'misunderstandings'. Man up and let's discuss my 'misunderstandings'.

Your problem isn't that I misunderstand you.

Your problem is I was a JFK conspiracy theorist myself for the better part of two decades. Until I actually stopped accepting everything I read in conspiracy books (because those authors were contradicting each other), and actually went back to the primary source evidence and read what was actually testified to by the witnesses and the experts.

Then I understood exactly how the conspiracy authors I read (there was no internet web sites devoted to JFK conspiracy theories back then) were lying to me. And I read everything I could get my hands on. I own over 500 books on the JFK assassination. And have read them all, most more than once.

You lack that understanding of the evidence, because you read exclusively (or primarily) about the case from conspiracy books and conspiracy web sites, and accept those lies without researching them independently.

Your problem isn't that I misunderstand you.

On the contrary, your problem is that I do understand you. I understand you and where you're coming from and why you believe what you believe exactly. I was you forty years ago.

If you think otherwise, post what I 'misunderstood'.

Let's discuss and clarify these supposed 'misunderstandings'.

You can start by explaining why the bullet that struck the back of JFK's head could deflect downward to exit the throat (something there's no evidence for) but a deflection upward to exit the top of the head is ruled out by you (despite the evidence of the brain damage and the radiographs and the autopsy photographs and the autopsy doctors and the HSCA forensic pathologists who reached that very conclusion - that a bullet hit JFK in the back of the head and exited the top of the head.

Despite all that evidence, you believe - and argue for here - the exact opposite, that the bullet went anatomically downward, not anatomically upward. Clear up my 'misunderstanding' there.

Ball in your possession. Advance it or punt it away.

So Hank is most likely just screwing with me.

Nope. I am trying my darnedest to clear up your apparent confusion by actually pointing out the facts you're ignoring, the logical fallacies you're employing, the quotes out of context you're utilizing, and how many of your current attempts to clarify your argument just contradict other arguments you advanced previously.

You're screwing yourself into knots trying to keep your arguments straight, and blaming me. Keep pretending I'm screwing with you if it helps you sleep at night.

I'm quite sure anyone else not beholden to a conspiracy mindset understands quite clearly the points I'm making.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

You're a victim of a self inflicted wound.

You recycle arguments based on speculation that are refuted by facts in evidence.

Because your MO is limited to regurgitation of speculation you'll be subjected to continued references to the facts in evidence you want to ignore.

 

[BStrong]

Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films. I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.

You have done no such thing.

What you have done is describe your (actually some other CTist's) interpretation of inconsistencies in various sources from day one to today as evidence for conspiracy.

 

[Axxman300]

Actually, I have explained the case for conspiracy in the autopsy in virtually every way that doesn't involve body alteration or faked films.

You might as well go with faked films and body alteration since you are using those CT books as sources for your "evidence". Your case is based on misinterpretation of a handful of low-resolution photographs combined with zero medical knowledge compounded with zero ballistic knowledge.

I can tell that Hank is familiar enough with this evidence too that he wouldn't have such basic misunderstandings like he constantly fills the page with. So Hank is most likely just screwing with me. I am not so sure about you.

Hank is posting documented statements and evidence which counter your pet theory. He does it over and over in response to you posting the same drek over and over instead of adding concrete evidence to support your case. The problem is that you cannot, and you've been willingly sucked into the JFK-CT rabbit hole where the evidence you'd need is locked away from view (which you already know), and this allows you (in your mind anyway) to assail the Autopsy and the pathologists involved. This in spite of the fact you didn't know what an RN was.

 

[abaddon]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

Irony. It isn't something made of iron.

Really, did you say that? The prince of the fringe reset? The very person whose claim is that "something else happened"? And at the same time claims to not know WHAT ELSE happened?

Sorry, but if you are going to make such a claim in the face of all of the available evidence, claiming a vague "SOMETHING ELSE" that you cannot identify is just not going to cut the mustard.

 

[Axxman300]

It's not enough to fabricate stuff about a secret second GSW to the back of the head that JFK doesn't react to, bleed from, and is not visible on the Zapruder Film, nor was seen by anyone on the sidewalk, or at Parkland, or the Autopsy.

You also have to lay out the scenario:

Where was this gunman?
How did he get there?
Why did no one see him?
Why did no one hear him?
How did he get away with his rifle?
Who was he?
Who did he work for?
Where did he go?
Was he working with Oswald, and if so why was he working with an obvious loose canon?

You can't just claim a second GSW to the head without - adequately - explaining how it go there.

You also have to explain why the pathologists didn't see it (GSW's to the head are OBVIOUS).

You have to explain why a lone gunman was preferred by the conspirators while a second shooter was not. How does two gunmen foil their plans? Why couldn't they frame two people?

You have to account for and answer these questions.

 

[HSienzant]

Deleted duplicate posting

 

[HSienzant]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

And I'll just point out that MicahJava ignored all my points in this post, instead simply telling me to delete all my posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12151962&postcount=3533

Then he went out to assert that I am pretending to misunderstand him - but of course, posted no specifics on exactly what I'm misunderstanding, nor did he post any clarifications to any of his points to alleviate those supposed misunderstandings (MJ is always short on specifics and clarifications).

More than likely, his next post will be another red herring... a change of subject where he neither addresses any of the points I made above, nor specifies what specific misunderstandings he is alluding to.

We've all seen it too many times to count.

And of course, three or six months from now, he'll crank up the JFK conspiracy carousel once more, pretending none of his points were already rebutted.

All Aboard the JFK Conspiracy Carousel!

Hank

 

[bknight]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

I suggest you quit posting nonsense beliefs and Hank won't post links.

 

[Tomtomkent]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

Assuming you actually want to convince anybody your idea is valid, you might want to simply address the many repeatedly unanswered points.

Hank is literally telling you what it would take for your theory to stand. It might not be taken as the “truth” by other posters, but if you answer the points, it could be considered a viable possibility.

When people point out the flaw in weighing so much on decades old memories? That is not a hand waving dismissal, that is showing you why other evidence can and does invalidate later claims, so you can find stronger evidence.

 

[Elagabalus]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

Let me just type in what you just said into my Irony Meter ....

 

[HSienzant]

From Skeptic Magazine: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

"Some conspiracy theories are true, some false. How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5.The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence."

Reasonable men may differ, but it appears from here MicahJava pretty much nailed all ten.

Hank

 

[dudalb]

From Skeptic Magazine: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

"Some conspiracy theories are true, some false. How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5.The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence."

Reasonable men may differ, but it appears from here MicahJava pretty much nailed all ten.

Hank

Yup, Textbook example.

 

[MicahJava]

From Skeptic Magazine: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

"Some conspiracy theories are true, some false. How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5.The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence."

Reasonable men may differ, but it appears from here MicahJava pretty much nailed all ten.

Hank

Oh my God. Do you really not see how this is the same kind of vague crap used by creationists who try to argue against evolution? Most of these could mean anything under any interpretation. Is this your little bible you consult when you realize you don't have any evidence against the case for conspiracy?

BTW have you noticed that I have all of the evidence to justify distrust of the official shooting scenario?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh my God. Do you really not see how this is the same kind of vague crap used by creationists who try to argue against evolution? Most of these could mean anything under any interpretation. Is this your little bible you consult when you realize you don't have any evidence against the case for conspiracy?

BTW have you noticed that I have all of the evidence to justify distrust of the official shooting scenario?

Conspiracy 'theorist' is a sort of misnomer, isn't it? It should just be 'conspiracist' when the conspiracist has no alternative coherent theory at all and becomes confused by simple questions, causing them to run away.

 

[Steve]

Oh my God. Do you really not see how this is the same kind of vague crap used by creationists who try to argue against evolution? Most of these could mean anything under any interpretation. Is this your little bible you consult when you realize you don't have any evidence against the case for conspiracy?

BTW have you noticed that I have all of the evidence to justify distrust of the official shooting scenario?

What, exactly, is this "case for conspiracy" that you mention? You have been asked may times to summarize it. You have yet to do so.

How can evidence be provided against something that does not exist in any coherent form?

 

[BStrong]

snipped

BTW have you noticed that I have all of the evidence to justify distrust of the official shooting scenario?

You have speculation filtered through ignorance of the subject matter mixed with a refusal to recognize the factor that human nature plays in witness reports.

 

[pgwenthold]

From Skeptic Magazine: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

"Some conspiracy theories are true, some false. How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5.The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence."

Reasonable men may differ, but it appears from here MicahJava pretty much nailed all ten.

Hank

There is another:

The conspiracy theorist takes pride in their ability to see things that others cannot, and will claim to have special revealed insight while those who don't buy the conspiracy are blind followers, merely sheeple.