SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Talbot is not a professional historian; he's a journalist. That aside, Reclaiming History also has citations, you know. Do you take everything in that work as gospel?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Talbot is not a professional historian; he's a journalist. That aside, Reclaiming History also has citations, you know. Do you take everything in that work as gospel?
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
From a review of The Devil's Chessboard by J. R. Seeger in Studies in Intelligence:
The Devil’s Chessboard is really two very different books in one. The first half of the book is a detailed description of the early leadership of the CIA with very specific attention (as stated in the title) to Allen Dulles and the way he ran the CIA in the 1950s and first years of 1960s. Along with the detailed background on Dulles—including tracking his work against Nazi Germany and the early days of the Cold War—we are given profiles of Richard Helms, William Colby, and James J. Angleton, as well as a number of CIA foot soldiers whose work in the Cold War is used to set the stage for the second half of the book. . . .
Unfortunately, The Devil’s Chessboard will serve as a textbook for many conspiracy theory devotees and others who are convinced “a secret government” runs the United States from the shadows. It is equally unfortunate that a book whose important research provides an auspicious beginning ends with speculation and conjecture.
Unfortunately, The Devil’s Chessboard will serve as a textbook for many conspiracy theory devotees and others who are convinced “a secret government” runs the United States from the shadows. It is equally unfortunate that a book whose important research provides an auspicious beginning ends with speculation and conjecture.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hey look, citations!
Mark Lane's a lying idiot1
So is Harold Weisberg and David Talbot2
Hank
____________
1 Author's opinion
2 Ibid
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Now that your argument is ridiculed into dust1, how about you answer one simple question2:
How many of those citations did you actually verify3, or did you simply accept everything Talbot said on faith4, simply assuming his citations support his claims5?
It sure looks more impressive with citations6,7!
Hank
_____________
1 Author's opinion.
2 You probably won't, however.
3 Probably none.
4 this almost certain.
5 This is most likely.
6 Mark Lane figured that out back in Rush to Judgment.
7 Most people won't bother to check.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Funny, so does the Warren Report.
That's the funny thing about his claims.
He clearly has a double standard for everything.
CT works: Has citations, must be true!
Anything Else: lying scum!
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
For example?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
There are certain folks who hold very strong opinions on subjects where they have no idea what they're talking about.
It's like my RW friend that believes anyone in California can walk into a gunshow and pay cash for a machinegun and walk out with it no questions asked.
It does not matter that he is as wrong as wrong gets, it's what he believes and nothing is going to change that.
MJ has strong opinions on firearms, ballistics, GSW's and marksmanship and it's clear he isn't doing anything more than parroting some other CTist jive from someone just as ill-informed as they are.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
I don't have any examples at the moment. I haven't read the book, and I don't plan to.
That's irrelevant, however; the burden of proof is on you to show that the claims about Dulles are accurate. It's not on anyone else to show that they're inaccurate. Your weak appeal to authority argument doesn't even begin to do that.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Seriously, MicahJava brings nothing new to the table. So far, absolutely everything he brings has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked - scientifically, historically and literally.
ALL of the verifiable evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald firing three, and only three bullets at JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD, missing with the first, wounding both JFK and Governor Connally with the second, and fatally wounding JFK with the third. That evidence is irrefutable;
1. the gun, a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano, the only one found
2. the sniper's lair where the gun was found
3. the witnesses who saw the gun poking out of the window
4. the witnesses near the TSBD who heard the shots and stated they came from the TSBD
5. the witness on the floor directly below hearing the shots, the bolt being worked and the casings landing on the floor above him
6. the fact that no bullets from any other gun was found
7. the forensics linking the bullets (6.5 x 52mm) and bullet fragments to the gun (a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano)
8. the records linking the gun (a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano) to LHO
9. the actions of LHO before and after the assassination
10. the forensic evidence from JFK's wounds showing the direction the bullet came from behind and with an elevation of about 17°
There is zero verifiable evidence for any other shooters on the day; LHO acted alone on that day. No suppressors, no invisible bullets, no invisible shooter on the Grassy Knoll.
Most important, MicahJava keeps bringing up "evidence" that actually debunks his theories... case in point, the acoustic testing done by the HSCA.
That series of acoustic tests CLEARLY shows that listeners can be mistaken about where they hear loud gunshots coming from... it was actually a conclusion the testers themselves came to. I argue that this means listeners near the Grassy Knoll were hearing echoes of shots that came from the TSBD. Equally, it also means that listeners near the TSBD could have been mistaken, and that the echoes led them to believe the shots were coming from there instead of from the Grassy Knoll; as a skeptic, I must accept this, and taken on its own, this is a reasonable conclusion. However, unlike MicahJava, I also accept that there are other factors that must also be taken into consideration.
1. There were eye-witnesses who saw the shooter and his gun in the corner, 6th floor window of the TSBD. There were witnesses on the Grassy Knoll and behind the stockade fence at the top in it. NOT ONE HEARD OR SAW A SHOOTER.
2. We KNOW that three shots must have been fired from the 6th floor snipers lair, because the bullet fragments found match that rifle both in rifling and metallurgically. This means that if there was a shooter firing from the Grassy Knoll, there would have been HUGE number of people who heard shots coming from two different directions. Only 4% of the witnesses claim this.
3. If the only shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll (assuming the TSBD sniper's lair was a setup to frame Oswald) then the VAST MAJORITY of ear witnesses would have heard the shots coming from there, even the witnesses near the TSBD. The reason for this is simple acoustical physics... the speed of sound v the distance covered. The main reflective echo source was the large flat, front of the railway overbridge at the other end of Dealy Plaza. The TSBD itself is also a large reflective echo source.
[imgw=500]https://www.dropbox.com/s/o00qb6zmrplyjbz/DP-Acoustics-GNonly.png?raw=1[/imgw]
NOTE: Sound radiates in waves travelling in all directions. This diagram is purely to show path lengths of sounds and not directions of reflected waves
In this diagram, the shooter is at the red X and an example ear-witness near to he TSBD is represented by the green X.
a2 = the path length from an alleged GN shooter directly to the TSBD witness
a1 + b1 = the path length from an alleged GN shooter to the TSBD witness via an echo from the TSBD.
They are virtually the same. If the shots were fired ONLY from the Grassy Knoll, the incident sound of the shots, and their echoes off the TSBD would not only have arrived so close to simultaneously that ear-witnesses could not have told them apart - "b'bang" - but the amplitude of the echoes would have been about the same and many of the ear-witnsses would have been confused about the direction.
a3 + b2 = the path length from an alleged GN shooter to the TSBD witness via an echo from the railway over-bridge.
This is a long path with a delay of about 0.8 - 1 second, and would also appear to come from the direction of the Grassy Knoll (the Knoll and the over-bridge were in the same quarter as viewed from the TSBD
The result of this scenario would have been
i. A huge majority of ear witnesses saying that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll, and
ii A huge number of people reporting the hearing of shots from two directions.
In both cases, this is not what happened. Now lets have a look what happens when we place the shooter at the corner of the TSBD.
[imgw=500]https://www.dropbox.com/s/yvxfl9x94i2lhrv/DP-Acoustics-TSBDonly.png?raw=1[/imgw]
Now we see that any ear-witness near the TSBD has no echo to confuse them. They hear it coming from the TSBD. The most significant echo they have to deal with is one that travels all the way from the TSBD to the over-bridge on the other side of Dealey Plaza and back, a distance that will attenuate the sound, making the echo detectably quieter. However any ear-witness at the Grassy Knoll still has to contend with considerably louder echoes from the over-bridge.
The result of this scenario is that ear-witnesses near the TSBD are far less likely to be confused about direction (which is why more weight must be placed on what they report) but witnesses near the Grassy Knoll are far more likely to be confused about direction. Furthermore, very few witness would be likely to report two different directions. This is EXACTLY what happened.
Ergo, there was only one shooter, and that shooter was in the TSBD and NOT on the Grassy Knoll, and this is fully backed up by all other evidence.
Now, whether or not LHO was part of a wider conspiracy is open to question. There are some indications, but there is no direct smoking gun. I leave that question open.
ALL of the verifiable evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald firing three, and only three bullets at JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD, missing with the first, wounding both JFK and Governor Connally with the second, and fatally wounding JFK with the third. That evidence is irrefutable;
1. the gun, a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano, the only one found
2. the sniper's lair where the gun was found
3. the witnesses who saw the gun poking out of the window
4. the witnesses near the TSBD who heard the shots and stated they came from the TSBD
5. the witness on the floor directly below hearing the shots, the bolt being worked and the casings landing on the floor above him
6. the fact that no bullets from any other gun was found
7. the forensics linking the bullets (6.5 x 52mm) and bullet fragments to the gun (a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano)
8. the records linking the gun (a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano) to LHO
9. the actions of LHO before and after the assassination
10. the forensic evidence from JFK's wounds showing the direction the bullet came from behind and with an elevation of about 17°
There is zero verifiable evidence for any other shooters on the day; LHO acted alone on that day. No suppressors, no invisible bullets, no invisible shooter on the Grassy Knoll.
Most important, MicahJava keeps bringing up "evidence" that actually debunks his theories... case in point, the acoustic testing done by the HSCA.
That series of acoustic tests CLEARLY shows that listeners can be mistaken about where they hear loud gunshots coming from... it was actually a conclusion the testers themselves came to. I argue that this means listeners near the Grassy Knoll were hearing echoes of shots that came from the TSBD. Equally, it also means that listeners near the TSBD could have been mistaken, and that the echoes led them to believe the shots were coming from there instead of from the Grassy Knoll; as a skeptic, I must accept this, and taken on its own, this is a reasonable conclusion. However, unlike MicahJava, I also accept that there are other factors that must also be taken into consideration.
1. There were eye-witnesses who saw the shooter and his gun in the corner, 6th floor window of the TSBD. There were witnesses on the Grassy Knoll and behind the stockade fence at the top in it. NOT ONE HEARD OR SAW A SHOOTER.
2. We KNOW that three shots must have been fired from the 6th floor snipers lair, because the bullet fragments found match that rifle both in rifling and metallurgically. This means that if there was a shooter firing from the Grassy Knoll, there would have been HUGE number of people who heard shots coming from two different directions. Only 4% of the witnesses claim this.
3. If the only shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll (assuming the TSBD sniper's lair was a setup to frame Oswald) then the VAST MAJORITY of ear witnesses would have heard the shots coming from there, even the witnesses near the TSBD. The reason for this is simple acoustical physics... the speed of sound v the distance covered. The main reflective echo source was the large flat, front of the railway overbridge at the other end of Dealy Plaza. The TSBD itself is also a large reflective echo source.
[imgw=500]https://www.dropbox.com/s/o00qb6zmrplyjbz/DP-Acoustics-GNonly.png?raw=1[/imgw]
NOTE: Sound radiates in waves travelling in all directions. This diagram is purely to show path lengths of sounds and not directions of reflected waves
In this diagram, the shooter is at the red X and an example ear-witness near to he TSBD is represented by the green X.
a2 = the path length from an alleged GN shooter directly to the TSBD witness
a1 + b1 = the path length from an alleged GN shooter to the TSBD witness via an echo from the TSBD.
They are virtually the same. If the shots were fired ONLY from the Grassy Knoll, the incident sound of the shots, and their echoes off the TSBD would not only have arrived so close to simultaneously that ear-witnesses could not have told them apart - "b'bang" - but the amplitude of the echoes would have been about the same and many of the ear-witnsses would have been confused about the direction.
a3 + b2 = the path length from an alleged GN shooter to the TSBD witness via an echo from the railway over-bridge.
This is a long path with a delay of about 0.8 - 1 second, and would also appear to come from the direction of the Grassy Knoll (the Knoll and the over-bridge were in the same quarter as viewed from the TSBD
The result of this scenario would have been
i. A huge majority of ear witnesses saying that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll, and
ii A huge number of people reporting the hearing of shots from two directions.
In both cases, this is not what happened. Now lets have a look what happens when we place the shooter at the corner of the TSBD.
[imgw=500]https://www.dropbox.com/s/yvxfl9x94i2lhrv/DP-Acoustics-TSBDonly.png?raw=1[/imgw]
Now we see that any ear-witness near the TSBD has no echo to confuse them. They hear it coming from the TSBD. The most significant echo they have to deal with is one that travels all the way from the TSBD to the over-bridge on the other side of Dealey Plaza and back, a distance that will attenuate the sound, making the echo detectably quieter. However any ear-witness at the Grassy Knoll still has to contend with considerably louder echoes from the over-bridge.
The result of this scenario is that ear-witnesses near the TSBD are far less likely to be confused about direction (which is why more weight must be placed on what they report) but witnesses near the Grassy Knoll are far more likely to be confused about direction. Furthermore, very few witness would be likely to report two different directions. This is EXACTLY what happened.
Ergo, there was only one shooter, and that shooter was in the TSBD and NOT on the Grassy Knoll, and this is fully backed up by all other evidence.
Now, whether or not LHO was part of a wider conspiracy is open to question. There are some indications, but there is no direct smoking gun. I leave that question open.
Edited by Loss Leader:
Image resized for readability. Please use IMGW tag for large images. The above is IMGW=500.
Last edited by a moderator:
Axxman300
Philosopher
You should try the non-kook shelves of the library:
From the man himself:
The Craft of Intelligence: America's Legendary Spy Master on the Fundamentals of Intelligence Gathering for a Free World
by Allen Dulles
The Secret Surrender
by Allen Dulles
The Marshall Plan
by Allen W. Dulles and Michael Wala
Great Spy Stories
by Allen Dulles
The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War
by Stephen Kinzer
Allen Dulles: Spymaster: The Life and Times of the First Civilian Director of the CIA
by Peter Grose
Allen Dulles
by James Srodes
Gentleman Spy: The Life of Allen Dulles
by Peter Grose
From Hitler's Doorstep: The Wartime Intelligence Reports of Allen Dulles, 1942–1945
by Neal H. Petersen
There are a few more, but this will get you started.
I know you won't bother to read any of them, but someone else might be interested.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Not a bullet hole. We have a good idea of what a bullet hole in the skull looks like from the other side of this same x-ray. You have nothing.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Since this thread tends to be picture-heavy, let me just remind people to use IMGW tags instead of IMG. As an example:
[IMGW=500]Pictureurl.com[/IMGW]
Thank you.
[IMGW=500]Pictureurl.com[/IMGW]
Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Loss Leader
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Never knew about that trick. Does this mean I can post images without having to use photoshop to resize them?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
Too bad you'll never be able to say anything unproving a shred of material from Talbot.
Back to the wounds, Bugliosi says that the autopsy doctors intentionally lied about the location of the entry wound because of personal spite from getting it wrong. Do you believe that BS?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
What "other side of the same X-ray"? Jesus, you guys are worse at this than a bot.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
I find it amusing that you can only make the official story work by posting a wall of text parroting the official story in a way that overflows with misleading and controversial statements (or at least a string of words resembling a sentence). May as well try the thumb-fell-off trick at the Disability office. See look no thumb.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
One sign that you know what you're talking about is that you know what you don't know. Do you?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The official story works because it is supported by the evidence at every step. Not only that, it is entirely self-consistent.
The unmitigated tripe you have tried to peddle here is distinctly lacking in any evidence, and your attempts to provide support has been self-contradictory. Furthermore, you have either refused, or have simply been unable to answer important questions pertaining to your "theories".
When are you going to answer our questions?
When are you going to support your theories with hard evidence?
When are you going to provide a narrative of exactly what you think happened?
I am pretty sure that the answer to all three of those questions is....never!
Firstly, you are too gutless to answer the tough questions, secondly you don't have any supporting evidence, and thirdly because you operate the same way that all other CTs operate; they have a desperate need to pretend they have secret knowledge and to control the debate in such a way as to be able to move the goalposts when needed. If they commit themselves to a theory and a narrative, they know that skeptics will tear them both to shreds, and the goalposts will be stuck.
Which statements are misleading?
Which statements are controversial?
Which sentences are you taking about?
These are all more questions that you will be too gutless to answer!
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Why is "Parroting" the WC narrative a bad thing?
It is the best explanation of the evidence. If it was mutable and pliable it would not be a good theory.
Which is why MicahJava's posts fail to work. They Gish-gallop away and never offer anything that can be nailed down to cohesive narrative.
He won't show us a precise location for the wounds.
He won't show us any evidence of another weapon, or any bullets fired by them.
He won't identify an alternative or additional shooting location.
All we get is conspiracy innuendo.
It is the best explanation of the evidence. If it was mutable and pliable it would not be a good theory.
Which is why MicahJava's posts fail to work. They Gish-gallop away and never offer anything that can be nailed down to cohesive narrative.
He won't show us a precise location for the wounds.
He won't show us any evidence of another weapon, or any bullets fired by them.
He won't identify an alternative or additional shooting location.
All we get is conspiracy innuendo.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
You could always try reading the review. There are several examples in it.
- Status