Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[MicahJava]

And yet that's not what he said.

He said:



So how's that reading comprehension thing coming along?

The same distance as a batter from a pitcher? That's how far away you think JFK and the sniper's nest at z313 was?

 

[BStrong]

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.

If the argument is based on fiction, rephrasing it is even easier.

 

[Axxman300]

The same distance as a batter from a pitcher? That's how far away you think JFK and the sniper's nest at z313 was?

Again, not what he said.

What he said was:

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.

Let's break it down:

Hitting the head of a person who is only 22 yards* away with iron sights (the equivalent of 88 yards with a x4 scope)

Meaning that someone 22 yards away would look the same as someone 88 yards away looking through a scope, and therefore:

is an easy shot for anyone who is remotely competent with a firearm.

Meaning that someone with significant range time with a scope is going to be equally effective at 88 yards as someone using iron sights would be at 22 yards.

He even used a diagram to illustrate what a target looks like at 100 yards through iron sights. His mistake was that visual aids work well with children and teaching gorillas sign language, but are useless on CTists of any stripe.

Should point out that the distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate is 60 feet, 6 inches, and not 33 feet or 22 yards.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

You mean like how "Consistent with physical principals" was rephrased into something more cogent to the entire body of NIST's work? That kind of rephrasing?

 

[MicahJava]

Okay, but I said the iron sights alone, not with a scope. The scope in evidence is a piece of crap even factoring in the possibility of it falling on the floor in the snipers nest. So lone nutters like Bugliosi are coming around to the idea that a single shooter used the iron sights, not the scope.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

You've already lost. Are you ok with that legacy?

 

[bknight]

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.

Go to ANY page and look for someone else's post read the question, and answer it(them). Its not like it would take much time to find them, just might take longer for you to answer and admit you've been wrong all along.

 

[MicahJava]

Go to ANY page and look for someone else's post read the question, and answer it(them). Its not like it would take much time to find them, just might take longer for you to answer and admit you've been wrong all along.

What are you talking about? In your own words, not a link to somebody else's comment. Remember, a good well-thought-out argument can be rephrased a million ways.

 

[MicahJava]

Yearly reminder: Gerald Posner literally lied through his teeth about the EOP/cowlick controversy to make a name for himself in the research community.

Dr. Gary Aguilar's sworn statement:

Under Item Number 7, there were some recent revelations, and for this I have brought copies to give to you. I have three copies for you, and I could make more if they are needed, but three copies I will pass to you. As I mentioned, JFK's pathologist James Humes, J. Thornton Boswell described the entrance to the President's skull wound as being to the right and just above the external occipital protuberance in the original autopsy report. They repeated that assertion in an interview published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on May 27th, 1992.

On November 17th, 1993, author Gerald Posner, the author of the book Case Closed reported to the Congress Committee that he had interviewed both Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell at apparently the same time they were interviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992. Mr. Posner reported that Drs. Humes and Boswell told him that JFK's skull wound was not low and near the rear, near the external occipital protuberance, but rather it was high in the President's skull.

Mr. Posner indicated during his testimony to the Representative of Congress that he would ask Dr. Humes and Boswell for permission to release information on his interviews with them, but he has not done so to my knowledge.

On March 30th of this year, I, myself, called both Drs. Humes and Boswell to inquire about Mr. Posner's report of their surprising turnabout on this important question. Dr. Humes indicated to me that he stood firmly by his statements in JAMA. Dr. Boswell also told me that he had never changed his mind about the low location of JFK's skull wound and, moreover, Dr. Boswell told me that had never spoken with Mr. Posner. I have a recording of this and I would be happy to leave it with you, if you would like. As I spoke with both pathologists four-and-a-half months after Mr. Posner's claim, I am baffled at this discrepancy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180302061907/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index74.htm

Wow. How desperate can you get?

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Its not a trick, ITS A FACT.

A target 88 yards away, through a x4 scope PRESENTS EXACTLY THE SAME TARGET SIZE to the shooter as the same target 22 yards away over iron sights.

Your problem, is that your demonstrated ignorance regarding firearms gets in the way of your ability to understand what you are reading.... i.e, you have no *********** idea what you are talking about

 

[smartcooky]

Okay, but I said the iron sights alone, not with a scope. The scope in evidence is a piece of crap even factoring in the possibility of it falling on the floor in the snipers nest. So lone nutters like Bugliosi are coming around to the idea that a single shooter used the iron sights, not the scope.

Another completely fact free post in which you are just flat out lying and making stuff up as you go.

Tom Alyea found Oswald's rifle WITH THE SCOPE STILL ATTACHED

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have to ask...
Were the US marines only trained to fight in perfectly level fields of combat, from ground based positions, where they can lay prone.

Because I am struggling to imagine what, about the snipers nest would make the shot difficult.

He was in an elevated position, where he could brace his rifle, and was shooting on a target with minimal sideward motion. It was moving away from him, but not moving within his field of fire.

Isn’t that what snipers do?

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, he concocted a lie while he was being interviewed on the hospital bed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0

Hilarious.

That's the logical fallacy of a FALSE DILEMMA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

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.

Yes, it's called a straw man argument. That's where you pretend I'm advancing one point, and attack that, while ignoring the point I actually made.

I quoted Connally's total time estimate from his Warren Commission testimony (10 to 12 seconds), and divided by two to get the time between individual shots (five to six seconds). Note that Connally didn't specify the time between the first and second shot was longer or shorter than the time between shots two and three. I also quoted his HSCA testimony 15 years later, where his time estimate came down to six to ten seconds, but where he also specifically denied a short time span between any two shots. Ergo, he thought the time span between the first two shots was roughly equivalent to the time span between the last two shots.

You are pretending I quoted "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 didn't do that whatsoever.

You're making that up. Go back and read it again, this time for comprehension. I quoted his time estimate for the entire shooting, and divided by two. I also approached this a different way, and pointed out the actual elapsed time as seen in the Zapruder film for the second to third shots (the two hits the Governor spoke of) is about five seconds. The two hits occurred at approximately Zapruder frames 223 and 313 (90 frames divided by 18.3 fps equals 4.9 seconds) and the Governor estimated a low of ten seconds, so that would leave another approximately five seconds for the elapsed time between the first and second shot (ten seconds minus five seconds equals five seconds). Of course, if the Governor's high estimate is allowed of 12 seconds for the entire shooting, then that leaves as much as seven seconds between the first and second shots.

If you have any questions how I derived these numbers, ask.

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).

The sources are not the problem. For the most part, everyone is familiar with the evidence you utilize, or your conspiracy sources utilize. The problem is the *interpretation* of the evidence. So when some CT source writes an article and *claims* that the CE399 bullet isn't the one found in Parkland, or some CT source writes a book that *claims* Oswald was a CIA asset, or whatever, that doesn't make it so. And your citing that article or that book (and claiming, hilariously, that it must be true because it has citations)¹ doesn't make your claim true either.

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)?

Nobody claimed that. That's the straw man argument again. The point is their arguments rely on the same evidence everyone is familiar with, and just because someone comes up with a different *interpretation* of that evidence doesn't make them correct.

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 citing an authority who says something that on the surface appears to support your argument, but when examined, actually contradicts your argument? I'm guessing it's a reading comprehension problem or a willful ignorance of the argument advanced.

I'm remembering you advanced one pathologist's claim that a bullet hit in the EOP area to support your argument that a bullet hit there, but that same pathologist also said the bullet exited the top of the head, so you wound up citing a pathologist who claimed that which you specifically argue against, as you have claimed it's not possible for the bullet to strike the EOP and exit the top of the head.

Your own cited source says the outcome is what you claim is impossible. Thanks again for destroying your own argument.

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!"

Nobody here advanced that. If this is an analogy about the JFK argument advanced, why not use the actual argument to illustrate the point?

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

Nobody here is playing the semantics game except you. I'm reminded of Lifton building his entire case for body alteration by conspirators around his reading comprehension problem, and insisting that the FBI memo that mentioned 'surgery of the head area' had to apply only to some pre-autopsy medical procedure, rather than simply a bullet taking off the top of the President's head. You constantly take one phrase or claim out of context and pretend your interpretation of the phrase or the claim should be accepted, and you ignore all arguments that point out your interpretation is contrary to a lot of the other evidence you're ignoring.

All the best.

Hank

PS: You didn't respond to the actual points I made whatsoever. You simply pretended I advanced a series of logical fallacies, and then asked me to name the logical fallacy for your pretense. Now try rebutting the points I actually made. You do use this avoidance technique constantly. You never rebut the point made, but use logical fallacies and rhetoric to appear to have a rebuttal argument. And everyone here sees it.

__________________________

¹ You argued that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12195704&postcount=280

 

[MicahJava]

Another completely fact free post in which you are just flat out lying and making stuff up as you go.

Tom Alyea found Oswald's rifle WITH THE SCOPE STILL ATTACHED

The scope of off to the left side. You can look down the iron sights without using the scope. You should know this by now.

 

[HSienzant]

Umm... That's with a stationary target, level with the shooting position, right?

Your pretense that the 60-foot elevation of the shooter shooting at a slow-moving target moving downhill and almost directly away from the shooter makes a significant difference is just that, pretense.

Your original argument was that Oswald couldn't hit JFK in the head at 88 yards with the iron sights because "the people look like ants" from the sixth floor was destroyed because Oswald practiced by shooting at targets 500 yards distant in the Marines.

So like a dutiful little CT, you employ the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts. With your original complaint demolished, you now pivot and bring up a different complaint about the shooting that you haven't establish has any more legitimacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

Moving the Goalposts
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied.

Please quote the expert testimony that elevation matters and is somehow a hindrance to accurate shooting. Please quote the expert testimony that hitting a target moving almost directly away from 88 yards is substantially more difficult that hitting a stationary one at more than five times the distance (500 yards).

We'll await your attempt to establish your complaint here is a legitimate one. You never will. You simply read it in a conspiracy book / website somewhere and assumed it was true. So you repeat it here as if it were meaningful. It has no more meaning than your "the people look like ants" complaint.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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 [to] 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 can confirm your contention. On July 5th, 2015, using a 1917 Carcano obtained by my nephew (ex-U.S. Military), having never fired a firearm in my life, and with about two minutes of instruction from my nephew, I made one of three shots on a life-sized upper body target in my first attempt, and three of three on my second attempt (four of six overall). The target was 100 yards away, and we used the iron sights.

Oswald's rifle was 23 years old (manufactured 1940) when he used it in 1963. Ours was 98 years old when we used it - more than four times as old.

Summary: Using a 98-year-old weapon at 100 yards, with two minutes of instruction, I averaged hitting two of three shots on a life-sized upper body target.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The scope of off to the left side. You can look down the iron sights without using the scope. You should know this by now.

Not the point. Oswald trained at 500 yards using iron sights. The longest shot during the assassination was only 88 yards. He was fully capable of hitting JFK using that weapon using the iron sights, despite your complaint that the people would look like ants from the sixth floor.

The scope was a four-power scope, and if accurately aligned, would make the target appear four times closer - or just 22 yards away. That's 66 feet, or roughly equivalent to the distance between the batter and the pitcher in a baseball game (that distance is 60 feet, six inches).

Surely you can throw a ball accurately that distance. An aimed rifle would be far more accurate than your throw.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Speaking of a reading comprehension issue, I am sure the other readers didn't have the issue understanding the points made as you just displayed.

I'm also certain that the other readers understand that you're pretending an 88-yard shot at an elevation at a target moving slowly almost directly away from the shooter is difficult for an ex-marine who trained by shooting at 10-inch targets at 500 yards.

You have yet to establish that. Go ahead, we'll wait. Cite the expert testimony that claims that. You can't, because there is none. You simply drank the CT Kool-Aid, believing claims on websites because they have citations¹.

Hank

_______________

¹ Like this one.

 

[RoboTimbo]

[B][U][COLOR="Red"][/COLOR][/U][/B]

[COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR]


[B][U][COLOR="Red"]Wow. How desperate can you get?[/COLOR][/U][/B]

Are you so desperate to run away from answering questions? You've already lost.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The scope of off to the left side. You can look down the iron sights without using the scope. You should know this by now.

Here are some questions you keep scampering away from answering: Was it an impossible shot for anyone? Or just Oswald?

If it was an impossible shot, why do you sometimes seem to argue for more than one shot to the head?

Which side of your mouth can you answer from?