• 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.
MicahJava said:
The wound itself was approximately 15 x 6mm. It was anatomically located an inch to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. For more information on what "slightly" means, consult the testimonies of the autopsy pathologists or just (somebody else's) common sense.
Click to expand...

So we're back to accepting the official autopsy result?

That means Oswald acted alone.

This is what you are stating with this post.
 
HSienzant said:
Here's a neat little back-and-forth which shows exactly how MicahJava raises an issue, then drops the subject entirely to avoid the logical conclusion. Then brings it up again. The first post below is on page 88 in this thread. It was posted January 14th.


At this point MicahJava dropped discussing John Stringer and Tom Robinson and never responded to my point.

Ten pages later (yesterday, February 4th), he brought up the RECOLLECTIONS of John Stringer and Tom Robinson AGAIN, as if the preceding exchange never happened.

He brought up an issue, saw it destroyed, waited 21 days and brought it up again.

This is the very definition of a fringe reset.

Hank
Click to expand...

All you did was post your old comments and assert that I never replied to it. I did. Just go back a couple of pages.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank, Finck said the small wound was intact within the open cranium, as an undisturbed perforation in the occipital bone.
Click to expand...

Quote him saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passage in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what he meant out of it.


MicahJava said:
He specifically denied exactly what you are trying to state as fact.
Click to expand...

Quote him saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passage in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what he meant out of it.


MicahJava said:
And also, leaving skull fragments attached to the scalp after reflection and while removing the brain could damage the brain. Such an idea is a mockery of a very delicate procedure.
Click to expand...

Quote a recognized authority saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passage in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what he meant out of it.



MicahJava said:
And the autopsy doctors specifically denied doing that.
Click to expand...

Quote them saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passages in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what they meant out of it.


MicahJava said:
And is that even physically possible?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the autopsy report says is done.

This was discussed with you about a year ago.


MicahJava said:
Nevermind, don't bother answering, we know it's wrong either way.
Click to expand...

We know nothing of the sort. We have a series of allegations by you, each undocumented. We'll await your documentation. Or your logical fallacy, whichever comes first.

Thanks,

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
All you did was post your old comments and assert that I never replied to it. I did. Just go back a couple of pages.
Click to expand...

Provide the link or the response. Otherwise this is just par for your course, another unproven assertion by you.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Provide the link or the response. Otherwise this is just par for your course, another unproven assertion by you.

Hank
Click to expand...

All you do is quote your own posts and say "you didn't respond to this!" even though I did. That does't make you look good.
 
MicahJava said:
All you did was post your old comments and assert that I never replied to it. I did. Just go back a couple of pages.
Click to expand...

Hank proved what most everybody knows.

And I'm sure that a guy that doesn't know up from down in a GSW might not realize that there are posters here that have adult attention spans - we remember other poster's greatest hits and worst misses.

You're problem is that you're heavily weighted in the latter.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Answer the questions asked of you, MicahJava. What was the red spot? Point out the entrance wound in the pics. I accept your admission that the answers destroy your fantasy land dream, otherwise.
Click to expand...

Get in line.

I'm still waiting for him to address the points I made on page 88, as just one example. Or even acknowledge their existence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12146759&postcount=3486

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12146776&postcount=3487

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12147218&postcount=3490

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12147402&postcount=3496

Or the first five on the prior page, starting with this one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12145394&postcount=3441

Hank
 
Last edited:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
Click to expand...

There are a few errors of fact in the story. Most are minor:

"he made up an easily contradicted story that the manager of the Depository brought a rifle to the building" - in fact, Roy Truly testified that Warren Caster, an employee of the Depository, brought in a rifle on Wednesday, 11/20/63. It's more than likely Oswald simply misunderstood whose weapon it was. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly2.htm

"bullets that had slammed into Walker’s wall were consistent with Oswald’s gun" - only one bullet was fired.

"Oswald was already a left-winger at the age of thirteen when he distributed pro-Rosenberg material in New York" - he was handed pro-Rosenberg material in New York which helped to convert him. He admitted this in the Soviet Union upon his attempted defection.

"For nearly 30 years, platoons of conspiracists have concertedly scavenged the record, floating their appalling and thrilling might-have-beens, unfazed by the contradictions and absurdities in their own wantonly selective accounts, often consciously, cunningly deceitful. They have refused to let go of any shred of their earliest suspicions, even when these have been demolished by decisive scientific findings." - this is wholly accurate, and describes pretty accurately what MicahJava has been doing on this thread for the past year. And it was written a quarter-century BEFORE MicahJava started posting here.

Overall, the article is a very good summary of Stone's JFK, the criticisms leveled by critics, and the facts uncovered by the Warren Commission and the HSCA that establish the critics are wrong.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
There are a few errors of fact in the story. Most are minor:

Overall, the article is a very good summary of Stone's JFK, the criticisms leveled by critics, and the facts uncovered by the Warren Commission and the HSCA that establish the critics are wrong.
Click to expand...

You would agree though that as far as being an evidence based account of what happened in Dealey Plaza, it pretty much has everything covered, and clearly shows that Oswald acted alone in the killing of JFK?
 
smartcooky said:
You would agree though that as far as being an evidence based account of what happened in Dealey Plaza, it pretty much has everything covered, and clearly shows that Oswald acted alone in the killing of JFK?
Click to expand...

I could have written it - except for the few errors mentioned, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. I think my posts here over the past six-plus years establish exactly what I believe.

Did you read the fourth highlighted remark in blue and my commentary, or did you just skim those errors I pointed out?

Here it is again:

"For nearly 30 years, platoons of conspiracists have concertedly scavenged the record, floating their appalling and thrilling might-have-beens, unfazed by the contradictions and absurdities in their own wantonly selective accounts, often consciously, cunningly deceitful. They have refused to let go of any shred of their earliest suspicions, even when these have been demolished by decisive scientific findings." - this is wholly accurate, and describes pretty accurately what MicahJava has been doing on this thread for the past year. And it was written a quarter-century BEFORE MicahJava started posting here.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
All you do is quote your own posts and say "you didn't respond to this!" even though I did.
Click to expand...

Again, quote or cite your response to this post:

HSienzant said:
Why don't you? We could use the laugh.

So your argument reduces to his recollection from decades after the fact is better than his medical photography skills?

You already admitted he was a qualified autopsy photographer. Remember?
Click to expand...

You never did respond.

You dropped the discussion at that point only to bring up Stringer and Robinson again three weeks later.

Hank
 
smartcooky said:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
Click to expand...

Good reads, thanks!
 
HSienzant said:
I could have written it - except for the few errors mentioned, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. I think my posts here over the past six-plus years establish exactly what I believe.

Did you read the fourth highlighted remark in blue and my commentary, or did you just skim those errors I pointed out?

Here it is again:

"For nearly 30 years, platoons of conspiracists have concertedly scavenged the record, floating their appalling and thrilling might-have-beens, unfazed by the contradictions and absurdities in their own wantonly selective accounts, often consciously, cunningly deceitful. They have refused to let go of any shred of their earliest suspicions, even when these have been demolished by decisive scientific findings." - this is wholly accurate, and describes pretty accurately what MicahJava has been doing on this thread for the past year. And it was written a quarter-century BEFORE MicahJava started posting here.

Hank
Click to expand...

I've often commented that this-or-that piece of CTist jive goes back (X - whatever) years and it's no more true now than it was then.

New gen CTists find something they think is new and incredible but don't know it's 20 or 30 years old and was found false in the same time frame.
 
smartcooky said:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
Click to expand...

Given that until today you thought the red blob on the Zapruder film was brain tissue, I would suggest staying in the rabbit hole to gather more facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom