You link a video where he does not give ANY specific number of seconds other than the perhaps 30 seconds where Nellie made a comment to the President that there were many people in Dallas that were for the President. I never indicated that he LIED, quit putting words in my mouth that. You fail miserably again. But all the adults in the room can see your attempts.
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]
A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome.
What you're claiming above is there are only two options, either your interpretation of his words are correct, or Connally lied. You want us to reject the "Connally lied" possibility, thus leaving us with only your interpretation.
That's nonsense. I've cautioned you before to check your posts for logical fallacies before you hit the "Submit Reply" button. It appears you're still not taking the time to do that. You really should try to eliminate logical fallacies from your arguments.
(Of course, if you did that, you wouldn't bother to reply most of the time).
For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).
Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."
For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).
Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."
You can find links to them in a few places on the last thread. He sited one the first time he tried to discredit the acoustical analysis or Dealey Plaza Bob Baer did on his History Channel show. It was a JFK-CT discussion board with a bunch of old guys smelling their own body gasses, and their brains stuck in 1978.
This is the narrated Secret Service Assassination film from 1964:
The film quality is fuzzy, but it also shows that the Secret Service wasn't operating under a massive budget, which really wasn't needed, but underscores the pace of the investigation. The film is great because it was made in the days following the shooting, and you can see the TSBD and Dealey Plaza as it was on that day in good detail. Visually it answers a lot of questions about the 6th floor, and Oswald's scope.
The narration and film are clunky, but effective.
This is the Tom Alyea film shot on the 6th floor immediately after the shooting:
It shows DPD detectives scouring the 6th floor, and the discovery of the Carcano hidden near the stairs. The raw film canister was tossed out of the window by Alyea to his waiting partner, and was on TV less than an hour later.
I like the Aylea footage and story because it undermines the CT. A random reporter and cameraman were able to run into the crime scene, and the cops were too busy to tell them to get lost. The DPD are seen searching almost every inch of the floor too.
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]
A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome.
What you're claiming above is there are only two options, either your interpretation of his words are correct, or Connally lied. You want us to reject the "Connally lied" possibility, thus leaving us with only your interpretation.
That's nonsense. I've cautioned you before to check your posts for logical fallacies before you hit the "Submit Reply" button. It appears you're still not taking the time to do that. You really should try to eliminate logical fallacies from your arguments.
(Of course, if you did that, you wouldn't bother to reply most of the time).
You seem to know a lot about logical fallacies. In all seriousness, I want to ask you...
Is there a name for the fallacy of arguing via pretending to have bad reading comprehension? (e.g. you arguing with my point about Connally's testimony by simply quoting his description of the time between the second and third shot, and posting it as if he was describing the first and second shot.
Is there a name for the fallacy of questioning somebody's source when the actual source was either self-evident (e.g. nobody trusts stuff from INFOWARS, but obviously things like Trump's last interview on INFOWARS is genuine and shows the real Donald Trump) or contained within the material you provided? (e.g. like when I link to a conspiracy-oriented book or website that itself provides painstakingly documented legitimate sources for the purpose of discussion).
Is there a name for the fallacy of dismissing somebody as a "conspiracy theorist" simply for providing legitimate information on conspiracy research (e.g. "who cares about what neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser says about the X-rays showing a hole in the forehead? Providing evidence for conspiracy makes him a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists can't be trusted)? I would say circular logic, but can that phrase apply to this kind of psychological blockade of cockamamie attempts to discredit an author source?
Is there a name for the fallacy of shoehorning an argument referring to the law or the constitution in a discussion about moral principals? (e.g. "You think Youtube aught to have freedom of speech? Well in the constitution it says corporations can do whatever the xxxx they want!"
That last one does not relate to this discussion, but I have had frequent encounters with it since I often argue subjects like freedom of speech, the role of Police in the USA, the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 election results, etc. Idiots will use the phrase "Democratically elected President" to describe Trump even though Hillary actually won the popular vote. Like, do you care more about your stupid semantics games than loyalty to time-tested principals such as Democracy? /rant
For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).
Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."
Is there a name for someone that when confronted with an actual cycle of failure, rushes to backtrack into that previously failed cycle and attempts to reset their failure meter to zero?
That's the problem we have in your posts. You went right back to your March 2017 conspiracy jive talking points and I have no doubt I'll have previous posts addressing any recycled CT jive you'll post in the future. Thanks!
For those of you who need it spelled out [MicahJava], that's 88 yards for his longest shot versus 500 yards in his training in the Marines).
Of course, MicahJava is the same conspiracy theorist who claimed Oswald couldn't make that 88-yard shot with the iron sights because JFK's head "would look like an ant". MicahJava ignored the fact that Oswald accomplished that feat from more than FIVE times the distance while in the Marines: "Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window."
MicahJava was talking about iron "sights"? Really? If MicahJava claims to know all about the JFK assassination, how come he didn't know something as basic as the fact that Oswald's Carcano was fitted with an Ordinance Optics "Hollywood" x4 power telescopic sight?
A quick lesson for MicahJava, and perhaps others who do not know much about firearms.
Magnification is the ratio of the size of the image to the size of the object. Looking at an object 100 yards away under 2x magnification will make that object appear to be 50 yards away. Looking at it under x4 magnification makes it appear 25 yards away
Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope) is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm. I could teach a complete novice to make that shot three out of four times with less than an hour's instruction (Oswald only made it one out of three). Remember that they do not have hit the actual spot Oswald hit. Almost any head shot at 88 yards with a high power rifle firing a high velocity bullet is a kill shot.
* For reference, its about the same distance that the batter is from the pitcher (or for those of us living in civilized parts of the world, the same distance that the batsman is from the bowler).
Thanks! I didn't think you'd fulfill my prediction this quickly, but you're a prolific recycler May, 2017:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post His head would've been the size of an ant through the iron sights, BStrong.
"Dixon led the founders of Adobe Walls to the Texas Plains, where he knew buffalo were in abundance. The group of 28 men and one woman occupied the outpost of five buildings 15 miles northeast of Stinnett.
The outpost was attacked on June 27, 1874, by a band of 700-1200 Indians, and that is when Dixon went into the history books for firing "The Shot of the Century" which effectively ended the siege. Although Dixon states in his biography that it was a "scratch shot", he is still honored to this day with competitions in England and the US that attempt to match his skill.
The stand-off continued into a third day, when a group of Indians were noticed about a mile east of Adobe Walls. It is said that Dixon took aim with a quickly borrowed .50-90 Sharps (as, according to his biography, he only had a .45-90 Sharps and felt it could not reach) buffalo rifle and fired, knocking an Indian near Chief Quanah Parker off his horse almost a mile away on his third shot and killing him. Unnerved, the Indians then withdrew and left the settlement alone. Commemorative "Billy Dixon" model reproduction Sharps rifles that supposedly recreate the specifications of Dixon's famous gun are still available."
The distance was later surveyed to be 1538 yards, 7/8's of a mile, iron sights.
Historically not every shooting that involves hits involves actual precision on the part of the shooter. Plenty of individuals barely able to hold "minute-of-man" have scored hits, including headshots.
For my part, had I ever encountered a target that needed shooting in similar or identical circumstances where collateral damage wasn't a concern, a good 1911 pistol would be enough to get the job done - might take more rounds, but 1911's shoot pretty well out to 100 yds.
A whole friggin group of Indians coming towards you?
They were in flight when Dixon made his shot. He used a single shot rifle requiring the manipulation of the cocking lever to open the action, eject the empty and insert another cartridge by hand into the chamber. - he did not have the advantage that LHO possessed by having a magazine fed action.
I've advised you several times to avoid firearms and marksmanship as subjects in this discussion.
The attack commenced on June 26 and raged for three days, with an estimated 700 warriors slain and 70 wounded. Frustrated, the Indians gathered on a distant bluff to reconsider their strategy. Seeing one of the warriors silhouetted, Dixon, who had lost his “Big 50″ Sharps in a skirmish, grabbed a friend’s .50-90 Sharps and fired. The warrior toppled from his horse. Their confidence shattered, the Indians grabbed the body and hastily rode away.
At some point most people realize that continuing to argue about subjects they know nothing about is detrimental to their cause.
I see you haven't reached that point.
XXXXXXXX
It makes it so much easier when an advocate for a particular opinion has to rely on misinformation and personal inexperience with the subject matter to establish their case.
When someone cites established facts, it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the subject matter. In the case of the Billy Dixon shot, had you read the material it would have saved yourself from making ignorant comments as above.
Is there a name for the fallacy of arguing via pretending to have bad reading comprehension? (e.g. you arguing with my point about Connally's testimony by simply quoting his description of the time between the second and third shot, and posting it as if he was describing the first and second shot.
I think it's the same Latin phrase describing someone who missuses parenthesis.
Is there a name for the fallacy of questioning somebody's source when the actual source was either self-evident (e.g. nobody trusts stuff from INFOWARS, but obviously things like Trump's last interview on INFOWARS is genuine and shows the real Donald Trump) or contained within the material you provided?
It's the same word to describe going off topic because it's impossible to defend your remarks with facts.
(e.g. like when I link to a conspiracy-oriented book or website that itself provides painstakingly documented legitimate sources for the purpose of discussion).
You assume the details have been "painstakingly documented", and yet in most every case the details fall apart under scrutiny. This was the same mistake I made back when I was a JFK-CT idiot. The fact is the average JFK-CTist in my day was a Vietnam Era burnout who wanted to create a mythical world where the war never happens if JFK isn't killed. All things JFK CT stem from Vietnam, and sea of BS the war generated on all sides.
Is there a name for the fallacy of dismissing somebody as a "conspiracy theorist" simply for providing legitimate information on conspiracy research (e.g. "who cares about what neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser says about the X-rays showing a hole in the forehead? Providing evidence for conspiracy makes him a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists can't be trusted)?
Here you have an avowed JFK-CT believer making a medical judgement based on less than 10% of the autopsy x-rays, and making an evaluation on a patient he has never seen, and never touched. It's equal to medical doctors who show up on cable news making prognosis on people they have not examined directly.
Specifically, the x-ray does not show a bullet wound to the forehead.
I would say circular logic, but can that phrase apply to this kind of psychological blockade of cockamamie attempts to discredit an author source?
You posted photos from the autopsy that clearly show that the skull was sawed open per standard procedure, and in those photos the forehead bone is just visible enough to show no damage from a GSW of any kind.
Plus, the Zapruder Film shows no bullet striking JFK from the front.
You wasted our time with more CT-fluff, so someone of us are annoyed by that.
Is there a name for the fallacy of shoehorning an argument referring to the law or the constitution in a discussion about moral principals? (e.g. "You think Youtube aught to have freedom of speech? Well in the constitution it says corporations can do whatever the xxxx they want!"
I don't know, you're the guy who just brought up Trump.
That last one does not relate to this discussion, but I have had frequent encounters with it since I often argue subjects like freedom of speech, the role of Police in the USA, the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 election results, etc.
Off topic is off topic. Does not establish credibility.
Idiots will use the phrase "Democratically elected President" to describe Trump even though Hillary actually won the popular vote. Like, do you care more about your stupid semantics games than loyalty to time-tested principals such as Democracy? /rant
MicahJava was talking about iron "sights"? Really? If MicahJava claims to know all about the JFK assassination, how come he didn't know something as basic as the fact that Oswald's Carcano was fitted with an Ordinance Optics "Hollywood" x4 power telescopic sight?
A quick lesson for MicahJava, and perhaps others who do not know much about firearms.
Magnification is the ratio of the size of the image to the size of the object. Looking at an object 100 yards away under 2x magnification will make that object appear to be 50 yards away. Looking at it under x4 magnification makes it appear 25 yards away
Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope) is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm. I could teach a complete novice to make that shot three out of four times with less than an hour's instruction (Oswald only made it one out of three). Remember that they do not have hit the actual spot Oswald hit. Almost any head shot at 88 yards with a high power rifle firing a high velocity bullet is a kill shot.
* For reference, its about the same distance that the batter is from the pitcher (or for those of us living in civilized parts of the world, the same distance that the batsman is from the bowler).
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to the reader to falsley infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to falsely implicate to ta reader skimming this post would infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.
I like that little trick you did there at the end. "It's easy to shoot somebody in the head from 22 yards away"... yadda yadda... "getting shot in the head from 88 yards away would kill you". Almost as if you wanted to falsely implicate to ta reader skimming this post would infer that an 88 yard head shot, moving target, elevated, with only the iron sights, was easy.
Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope) is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm.
What questions? Please be specific. In fact, I'd rather you rephrase them yourself instead of linking to posts written by others? If you can comprehend this material, you should be able to argue the evidence yourself without relying on others. If an argument is legitimately compelling, it can be rephrased in a million ways.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
