Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Tomtomkent]

Hank, we know Tom Robinson said that 15 years later. You aren't special by pointing it out. It's supposed to be something the reader silently considers. I don't have a lower standard of evidence than you, I'm just being thorough (and no, denial is not a standard of evidence).

Firstly, one should never "silently consider" the quality of evidence in any discussion of history or historical event. Weighing the standard of evidence is the point of such discussions.

People only state such things when they want to pretend poorly evidenced assertions are of equal importance or weight towards a conclusion.

Secondly, if you are NOT discussing the standards of evidence you are NOT being thorough.
It is more thorough to acknowledge not only that a witness statement fifteen years after the fact will be prone to all the errs of human nature, but that contemporary statements, and the findings of extant records may disagree.

Thirdly, and I know this is something that has been said before, but if you are not a troll, and don't want to appear to be trolling the thread, then perhaps consider why the date of the evidence moves it down the scale from convincing, and why it is unlikely to change any minds.

 

[Axxman300]

Where does it say (or show) there was no brain in Kennedy's cranium when these photographs were taken? The scalp isn't reflected. The doctor is indeed holding a loose piece of scalp, but that isn't peeling the entire scalp back. Either way, you can't use a picture of the scalp to judge what the skull looked like.

You mean aside from the HUGE EMPTY GAP between the forehead and the flap of skin where THERE IS NO BRAIN?

Either way, you can't use a picture of the scalp to judge what the skull looked like.

First off, you do it all the time, so make up your mind.

Second, I base my assessment from what is obviously visible in the photograph, and link it to the autopsy report, and Hume's testimony on this subject. No 3rd or 4th party sources, direct from the horse's mouth.

 

[BStrong]

You mean aside from the HUGE EMPTY GAP between the forehead and the flap of skin where THERE IS NO BRAIN?



First off, you do it all the time, so make up your mind.

Second, I base my assessment from what is obviously visible in the photograph, and link it to the autopsy report, and Hume's testimony on this subject. No 3rd or 4th party sources, direct from the horse's mouth.

I believe that MJ has -0- concern for the facts in evidence and is better rooted in popular fiction than reality.

 

[MicahJava]

You mean aside from the HUGE EMPTY GAP between the forehead and the flap of skin where THERE IS NO BRAIN?

It literally makes no difference with or without a brain in the cranium, so let's simmer down here. The official brain photographs show a "large gap" in the frontal region. Scroll down 3/4ths of this page and see the morphing gif:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

I am not sure if the "gap" is as big as it looked to you. I think there may still be a brain in there.

First off, you do it all the time, so make up your mind.

Second, I base my assessment from what is obviously visible in the photograph, and link it to the autopsy report, and Hume's testimony on this subject. No 3rd or 4th party sources, direct from the horse's mouth.

Vague gibberish is not an argument.

 

[BStrong]

snipped

Vague gibberish is not an argument.

The Irony! It burns!

 

[HSienzant]

Quote without comment.

Tom Robinson did say he saw a small hole in the right temple, but that he was under the impression it was an exit wound from a fragment. Either way, the autopsy doctors never mentioned such a wound, so Robinson's statements are considered evidence for a plot to sanitize the forensic evidence.

Or his recollections, decades after the assassination, are meaningless froth that only a conspiracy theorists would consider "evidence" and cite as meaningful.

You've claimed you only cite the recollections where there's contemporaneous evidence to support it. Cite the contemporaneous statement from the morticians that supports that claim by Robinson. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

Look, we get it. You want a conspiracy really badly, so you have to pull recollections made to the ARRB, a full third of a century after the assassination out of the junk pile to suggest a conspiracy. But nowhere are recollections this late in the game considered evidence. Nowhere do they overturn the statements in the first days, weeks, and months after the assassination. Nowhere do they overrule the autopsy report and the autopsy x-rays and photographs.

But you have a case to make, and you're stuck with mining the junk pile for something usable.

It won't make a silk purse out of that copper wiring you're pulling from an old Betamax player.

Hank, we know Tom Robinson said that 15 years later. You aren't special by pointing it out. It's supposed to be something the reader silently considers. I don't have a lower standard of evidence than you, I'm just being thorough (and no, denial is not a standard of evidence).

Vague gibberish is not an argument.

 

[HSienzant]

Quote without comment.

...denial is not a standard of evidence...

Vague gibberish is not an argument.

Just... no.

 

[BStrong]

Quote without comment.

When it comes down to body of work MJ is more Olive Oil than Jayne Mansfield.

 

[HSienzant]

Quote without comment:

Hank, in the real world, shooters hide their guns and pick up their shells.

And in the real world, unicorns and leprechauns leave no trace of themselves either. You might as well be arguing for the existence of those as well. Or perhaps you are. Did a leprechaun shoot JFK from the Dal-Tex building while a unicorn acted as a spotter?

Harris tried that same nonsensical argument two and a half years ago (July of 2015):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10757814&postcount=3173
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10757984&postcount=3180

From the first link above:
...

Apparently you are branching out. You're going to recycle not only your own failed arguments, but all of Robert Harris failed arguments as well. You should have read the thread when you were advised to. Your argument here makes no more sense than the same argument when it was advanced by Harris in the third of these threads.

So you've got, as evidence of the other shooter(s) with silenced weapons, all this:
(a) Unheard weapons
(b) Unseen assassins
(c) Unseen weapons
(d) Unseen shells
(e) No bullets traceable to another weapon other than Oswald's
(f) No fragments traceable to another weapon other than Oswald's
(g) No damage to either victim that could be traced to another weapon other than Oswald's
(h) No damage to the limousine or anything else in Dealey Plaza that could be traced to another weapon other than Oswald's

Wow, that is a lot of "evidence" for a second shooter. Correct me if I missed any of your "evidence".

And you think a silenced weapon is a better explanation than no weapon because "shooters hide their guns and pick up their shells"?

Yeah, we saw that at Columbine. And the Texas Tower shootings. And in Vegas. And in the theatre in Aurora, Colorado. And at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. And in Sandy Hook.

And when someone robs a convenience store, they never brandish a weapon, and if they do shoot, they always stop to pick up their shells.

And of course, every drive-by shooting in every major city in the country happens that way. That's how those guys are apprehended, when they stop their car to look for their shells (also why nobody is ever killed in a drive by shooting. It's tough to fire accurately when you're holding the gun in your lap and shooting through the closed door).

You're right. In the real world, shooters hide their guns and pick up their shells.

I just have one question: What real world are you talking about? It's not this one.

...

Did you ever see the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy? There is solid evidence for them as well. Didn't you ever see a colored egg on Easter or find a dime under your pillow where you left your tooth the night before?

Hank

PS: I know you're still searching for that second shooter as earnestly as someone looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but you will never find either. Because there is no end of the rainbow and no pot of gold. And there was no second shooter.

Let's get back to your assertion that criminal shooters police their brass after shooting - will a cite to a documented instance of this be forthcoming or is this another example of you making things up as you go along?

Cite a single instance of a person committing a crime with a firearm and then picking up the shell casings to remove evidence? I just don't think that's worth my time, BStrong.

I don't have a lower standard of evidence than you, I'm just being thorough...

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, not being able to grasp what somebody is saying does not mean that person is speaking in vague terms.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hank, not being able to grasp what somebody is saying does not mean that person is speaking in vague terms.

Why did they photograph a "red spot" for the autopsy right where the entrance wound is described as being? Remember, one entrance and one exit per the autopsy you've been citing.

What was the red spot? You've not answered that yet.

 

[MicahJava]

Why did they photograph a "red spot" for the autopsy right where the entrance wound is described as being? Remember, one entrance and one exit per the autopsy you've been citing.

What was the red spot? You've not answered that yet.

The red spot is 2-4 inches above the EOP, not next to the EOP and not within the hairline. The people at the autopsy denied several times that the red spot was the wound described in the autopsy report. You should know this by now.

 

[HSienzant]

Quote without comment:

And in the real world, unicorns and leprechauns leave no trace of themselves either. You might as well be arguing for the existence of those as well. Or perhaps you are. Did a leprechaun shoot JFK from the Dal-Tex building while a unicorn acted as a spotter?

Harris tried that same nonsensical argument two and a half years ago (July of 2015):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10757814&postcount=3173
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10757984&postcount=3180

From the first link above:


Apparently you are branching out. You're going to recycle not only your own failed arguments, but all of Robert Harris failed arguments as well. You should have read the thread when you were advised to. Your argument here makes no more sense than the same argument when it was advanced by Harris in the third of these threads.

So you've got, as evidence of the other shooter(s) with silenced weapons, all this:
(a) Unheard weapons
(b) Unseen assassins
(c) Unseen weapons
(d) Unseen shells
(e) No bullets traceable to another weapon other than Oswald's
(f) No fragments traceable to another weapon other than Oswald's
(g) No damage to either victim that could be traced to another weapon other than Oswald's
(h) No damage to the limousine or anything else in Dealey Plaza that could be traced to another weapon other than Oswald's

Wow, that is a lot of "evidence" for a second shooter. Correct me if I missed any of your "evidence".

And you think a silenced weapon is a better explanation than no weapon because "shooters hide their guns and pick up their shells"?

Yeah, we saw that at Columbine. And the Texas Tower shootings. And in Vegas. And in the theatre in Aurora, Colorado. And at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. And in Sandy Hook.

And when someone robs a convenience store, they never brandish a weapon, and if they do shoot, they always stop to pick up their shells.

And of course, every drive-by shooting in every major city in the country happens that way. That's how those guys are apprehended, when they stop their car to look for their shells (also why nobody is ever killed in a drive by shooting. It's tough to fire accurately when you're holding the gun in your lap and shooting through the closed door).

You're right. In the real world, shooters hide their guns and pick up their shells.

I just have one question: What real world are you talking about? It's not this one.





Did you ever see the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy? There is solid evidence for them as well. Didn't you ever see a colored egg on Easter or find a dime under your pillow where you left your tooth the night before?

Hank

PS: I know you're still searching for that second shooter as earnestly as someone looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but you will never find either. Because there is no end of the rainbow and no pot of gold. And there was no second shooter.

Hank, not being able to grasp what somebody is saying does not mean that person is speaking in vague terms.

 

[HSienzant]

The red spot is 2-4 inches above the EOP, not next to the EOP and not within the hairline.

Of course it's within the hairline... as much as the EOP is. Do you even understand what 'within the hairline' means?

The people at the autopsy denied several times that the red spot was the wound described in the autopsy report. You should know this by now.

We know you have retrieved junk recollections from the junk pile of the ARRB and are trying to weave a silk purse out of those strands of copper wire you ripped from an old Betamax machine. We know you claim to have contemporaneous accounts that confirm those 33-years later recollections and you're only citing the recollections to be thorough, but you don't have those contemporaneous statements.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Of course it's within the hairline... as much as the EOP is. Do you even understand what 'within the hairline' means?

In the context of JFK stuff, the "hairline" means the short hairs that surrounded Kennedy's long hairs.

We know you have retrieved junk recollections from the junk pile of the ARRB and are trying to weave a silk purse out of those strands of copper wire you ripped from an old Betamax machine. We know you claim to have contemporaneous accounts that confirm those 33-years later recollections and you're only citing the recollections to be thorough, but you don't have those contemporaneous statements.

Specificity, that's what you need to work on. Are you talking about the EOP wound? The autopsy face sheet and autopsy report says it right there: "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP". Can't argue objective facts, but I bet you will try to so I will get my Hank Bingo card (the regular Lone Nutter Bingo card is far too coherent).

 

[BStrong]

In the context of JFK stuff, the "hairline" means the short hairs that surrounded Kennedy's long hairs.




Specificity, that's what you need to work on. Are you talking about the EOP wound? The autopsy face sheet and autopsy report says it right there: "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP". Can't argue objective facts, but I bet you will try to so I will get my Hank Bingo card (the regular Lone Nutter Bingo card is far too coherent).

What's the point when you continually make up "facts" as you go along?

 

[HSienzant]

In the context of JFK stuff, the "hairline" means the short hairs that surrounded Kennedy's long hairs.

You need to cite for that. Of course you can't. Stop making up stuff.

The hairline means where the hair ends and the bare skin begins.

"Within the hairline" means anywhere there is hair. Short or long, grey, white, blonde, brown, red, or black, curly or straight.

Period.

There isn't a special definition for hairline "in the context of JFK stuff".

Specificity, that's what you need to work on.

"Not within the hairline" is far from specific, but that's as specific as you got here:

The red spot is 2-4 inches above the EOP, not next to the EOP and not within the hairline.

Are you talking about the EOP wound? The autopsy face sheet and autopsy report says it right there: "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP".

"Slightly above" isn't specific either. That was pointed out to you over a year ago.

Can't argue objective facts, but I bet you will try to so I will get my Hank Bingo card (the regular Lone Nutter Bingo card is far too coherent).

I'm not the one claiming specificity and then using terms like "slightly above" and "within the hairline".

I'm not the one claiming criminals pick up their spent shells and hide their weapons when committing crimes "in the real world" either. Asked to provide one example of this happening in the real world, you punted.

I'm not the one claiming "within the hairline" means something different when discussing the JFK assassination than it does the rest of the time.

You don't argue objective facts. You just claim whatever pops into your head to move the conversation along. Check your BINGO card again.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

What's the point when you continually make up "facts" as you go along?

Can you read well? Because this is not made up.

 

[BStrong]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/wj998fS.png[/qimg]

Can you read well? Because this is not made up.

My reading comprehension isn't the issue.

What is at issue is your comprehension of the evidence given your insistence that simple inconsistencies explained by normal human fallibility are evidence of conspiracy and your continued reliance on "facts" made up by you out of thin air.

 

[Axxman300]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/wj998fS.png[/qimg]

Can you read well? Because this is not made up.

Yes. Everyone can and has read this. It's the truth.

What's your point?