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

[RoboTimbo]

No I have not read the thread. If there is said information somewhere in it, feel free to cite it and paste it. No need to do it twice.

You do know how to cite/copy and paste?

You've been told to do your own research and use "SEARCH". You do know how to do that, right? Do that and then come back and post from a position of knowledge.

 

[bknight]

Could you please point out and cite the relevant parts of those specific documents?

Are you reading impaired? No spoon feeding read the thread(s).

 

[manifesto]

Now you just need compelling evidence for a shooter on the knoll.

The argument was that nobody reported seeing a shooter anywhere else than the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

Now you just need compelling evidence for a Mauser.

The argument was that (only) a Carcano was reported found on 6th floor in the TSBD. That is a faulty statement.

Do you agree?

Now you've added needing compelling evidence that Oswald's M/C

Where, in the thread, do I find compelling evidence of Oswald owning said Carcano?

was NOT located in the TSBD.

The argument was that (only) a Carcano was reported found on 6th floor in the TSBD. That is a faulty statement.

Do you agree?

Now you just need compelling evidence for a shooter on the grassy knoll.

There were two arguments presented:

1. The argument was that nobody reported seeing a shooter anywhere else than the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

2. The claim was that there were ”no traces” of a shooter anywhere else than from the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

Now you just need compelling evidence for a conspiracy.

The argument was that there were ”no traces” of a shooter anywhere else than from the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

There is compelling evidence for the Carcano. Not for your Mauser. You'll need to provide that.

The argument was that (only) a Carcano was reported found on the 6th floor in the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

What happened to the curtain rods?

What curtain rods? Why do you not believe Oswald when he says he had his lunch in his lunchbag?

You do need to provide a comprehensive narrative that explains all of the evidence. As it stands, the prevailing narrative still prevails. It has met the burden of proof and will continue to be the null hypothesis.

Wrong. If your ”null hypotethis” consists of bogus evidence it is a bogus hypothesis.

I asked Hank to clear it up for me, but the only answers I get is that I can find them somewhere ”in the thread”. How is that for a good exemple of Scientific Scepticism?

No, it's absolutely appropriate to ask for that. The bad air continues to fail at providing it.

The null hypothesis stands. Sucks to be a CTist.

Nonsense arguments and name calling. Am I really on a forum for Scientific Scepticism? Sure?

 

[manifesto]

Are you reading impaired? No spoon feeding read the thread(s).

No, it is called ”submitting your sources”. Am I rellay in a forum for Scientific Skepticism?

Really?

 

[manifesto]

You've been told to do your own research and use "SEARCH". You do know how to do that, right? Do that and then come back and post from a position of knowledge.

Lol. Since when is it the opponents responsibility to find sources and good arguments supporting YOUR thesis?

Are you nuts?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The argument was that nobody reported seeing a shooter anywhere else than the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

No, the argument is that you need compelling evidence for a shooter. Address that argument.

The argument was that (only) a Carcano was reported found on 6th floor in the TSBD. That is a faulty statement.

Do you agree?

No, the argument is that you need compelling evidence for a Mauser. Addess that argument.

Where, in the thread, do I find compelling evidence of Oswald owning said Carcano?

What did you find in your extensive reading about Oswald owning a Carcano?

The argument was that (only) a Carcano was reported found on 6th floor in the TSBD. That is a faulty statement.

Do you agree?

Very dishonest of you. Only a Carcano was actually found at the TSBD even though someone had mistakenly called it a Mauser. What you don't have is a Mauser being found.

Do you agree?

There were two arguments presented:

1. The argument was that nobody reported seeing a shooter anywhere else than the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

Again, very dishonest of you. There is only compelling evidence for one shooter. You don't have compelling evidence for a second.

2. The claim was that there were ”no traces” of a shooter anywhere else than from the TSBD. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

You're claiming other shooters than Oswald. That is a faulty statement. Do you agree?

What curtain rods? Why do you not believe Oswald when he says he had his lunch in his lunchbag?

If you aren't familiar with the curtain rods, do some research and then come back.

Wrong. If your ”null hypotethis” consists of bogus evidence it is a bogus hypothesis.

Then we're both satisfied that it isn't a bogus hypothesis. That's why it's the null hypothesis. What is your hypothesis?

I asked Hank to clear it up for me, but the only answers I get is that I can find them somewhere ”in the thread”. How is that for a good exemple of Scientific Scepticism?

How is asking questions good when you have resources you don't read?

Nonsense arguments and name calling. Am I really on a forum for Scientific Scepticism? Sure?

You get what you deserve. You came to the thread (again) with the specific intent to dishonestly ask idiotic questions and not answer any and not accept any answers you got.

You want different results? Change your behavior.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Lol. Since when is it the opponents responsibility to find sources and good arguments supporting YOUR thesis?

Since when is it anyone else's responsibility to spoon feed you answers to the questions you can easily find with the directions you've already been give?

Are you nuts?

Are you foolish?

 

[manifesto]

They were wrong.

When you went to Dallas what did you see? Oh that's right, you've never been.

Let me clue you in, a shooter on the Grassy Knoll would have stood out like a lighthouse, and EVERYONE would have seen him.

EVERYONE was intensly focused on Jackie and JFK. If the shooter hides behind the fence seconds before and quickly rise, aim and shoot and back down again, no one has to see anything. Not even the very few in the audience positioned on the south side of Elm Street, facing the knoll.

Also, if there was a shooter on the Knoll he didn't hit anything. The shots came from behind. The forensics, ballistics, and fiber evidence all prove this to be true.

I listed a few indications of a shooter from the knoll. I do it again:

- The majority of witnesses said that they herd shots from the knoll.

- A few witnesses reported smell of gun powder behind the fence as well as while passing the knoll in the motorcade.

- A few witnesses reported white smoke gliding down the knoll while hearing shots coming from the same place.

- There is a photography showing white smoke over the knoll seconds after the shooting.

- An unknown man is showing Secret Service credentials to the first policeman arriving behind the fence. No Secret Service were on or around the Dealey Plaza shortly after the shooting.

- JFK’s head is snapping backwards to the left when hit in the head, indicating a shot from the right in front of him —-> the knoll.

- Muddy fotprints on the ground and on car bumpers, and lots of fresh cigarette buts, behind the fence.

- HSCA’s acoustical investigation found five rifle shots on the DPD’s dictabeltrecording from a stuck microphone on a police motorcycle. Four from behind the limo and one from the picket fence on the knoll. P for random noise = 1/100 000.

- HSCA acoustical investigation found no evidence of echos that could be misstaken for the source of the sound = echos can not explain (away) the majority pointing to (and running up to) the picket fence as the source of shot/s.

- The MC police driving behind to the left of the presidents limo says he got splattered from the head shot and given the very low speed, indicating the splatter flying in high speed backwards from the limo ——> headshot from in front to the right —-> the knoll.

- A few witnesses on the Dealey Plaza reporting seeing the back of JFK’s head being blown away, indicating a shot from in front of him.

- Almost everyone who saw JFK’s head wound close up are reporting a big gaping wound in the right back of the head, indicating a shot from the front. Surgeons, forensic pathologists, nurses, forensic photographers, x-ray physichians, agents from Secret Service and the FBI, almost 50 witnesses. A big gaping wound in the right back of the head.

- The team in Parklands trauma room one, who tried to save JFK’s life reported a small round ”punctuated entrance wound” just below JFK’s Adams apple = shot from the front (visible before the tracheotomi).

You disagree?

This is lie.

Three cops thought it was a Mauser, and they were wrong. Cops make mistakes under oath all the time. The Carcano's discovery was captured on film as it happened. No photographs exist of a Mauser, nor were any taken because no Mauser was found.

No, it’s not a lie that different rifles was reported by the same- and different officers at different times. That the written records from finding the alleged murder weapon on the 6th floor still, 55 years later, says it was a Mauser.

Hence, there is no clear cut provinience or chain of custody even when it comes to the finding of the alleged murder weapon allegedly found at the alleged crime scene.

Except for the fact that 6.5x52mm bullets are proprietary to the Carcano

That is a different arugument.

Claims that have been debunked decades ago.

Good. Show me.

Nope. Doesn't matter what a FEW people THINK they saw, it only matters what the evidence shows. There was no gunman on the Grassy Knoll. This is 1980's nonsense.

Wrong. The argument was that witnesses saw a shooter only in the TSBD. A faulty argument because there are witnesses reporting seeing a shooter on the knoll. The veracity of any individual witness and testimony is a different argument.

No, you've listen hearsay, and no bullet stuck the car from the front.

Good. Argue one point at a time (above).

Unless Oswald was having a 4-foot long submarine sandwich for lunch with gun oil as a condiment instead of mustard, the weight of the evidence leans toward him carrying a rifle in the bag.

Weight of what evidence? Be specific.

That's just your flawed opinion. You don't believe Oswald shot JFK, and none of the mountains of evidence, nor the lack of exonerating evidence will sway your cynicism.

Sweeping arguments and hand waiving. Let me know when you are ready for the specifics.

No, when you read the Warren Commission, look at the thousand of documents online, and use common sense you don't have to produce a better story to make trolls happy. The truth is the truth, and the truth is Oswald killed JFK.

I have really looked. No show of evidence of Oswald killing JFK so far. Good to know that you have found a lot of them.

Show me.

 

[manifesto]

Since when is it anyone else's responsibility to spoon feed you answers to the questions you can easily find with the directions you've already been give?

The ”thread”?

Are you foolish?

The ”thread”?

 

[CORed]

Since when is it anyone else's responsibility to spoon feed you answers to the questions you can easily find with the directions you've already been give?


Are you foolish?

Apparently, we are supposed to be impressed that someone who appears to lack the intelligence and/or ambition to make even a minimal effort to look at either the Warren Commission report or this thread and its predecessors finds the evidence that he hasn't been spoon fed unconvincing. I'm not quite sure how manifesto imagines that will convince anybody other than himself.

And, speaking strictly for myself, I really don't give a damn what he thinks.

 

[bknight]

No, it is called ”submitting your sources”. Am I rellay in a forum for Scientific Skepticism?

Really?

The references and sources have been quoted extensively al you need to do is to search as RoboTimbo and I suggest, then read the thread associated with JFK's assassination.

Another question asked already and you avoided, post a citation to your claims and/or questions.

 

[manifesto]

The references and sources have been quoted extensively al you need to do is to search as RoboTimbo and I suggest, then read the thread associated with JFK's assassination.

Is ”the thread” a specific source and a specific quote? Really? Like ”the holy Bible”? A, long, quote?

Another question asked already and you avoided, post a citation to your claims and/or questions.

Absolutely. What claim do you want me to provide a source to? One at a time.

 

[manifesto]

Apparently, we are supposed to be impressed that someone who appears to lack the intelligence and/or ambition to make even a minimal effort to look at either the Warren Commission report or this thread and its predecessors finds the evidence that he hasn't been spoon fed unconvincing. I'm not quite sure how manifesto imagines that will convince anybody other than himself.

And, speaking strictly for myself, I really don't give a damn what he thinks.

Cite/provide sources = spoon feeding?

Really?

 

[bknight]

Is ”the thread” a specific source and a specific quote? Really? Like ”the holy Bible”? A, long, quote?

Absolutely. What claim do you want me to provide a source to? One at a time.

Not playing your game here are your claims, supply sources and referencs.

...

- The majority of witnesses said that they herd shots from the knoll.

- A few witnesses reported smell of gun powder behind the fence as well as while passing the knoll in the motorcade.

- A few witnesses reported white smoke gliding down the knoll while hearing shots coming from the same place.

- There is a photography showing white smoke over the knoll seconds after the shooting.

- An unknown man is showing Secret Service credentials to the first policeman arriving behind the fence. No Secret Service were on or around the Dealey Plaza shortly after the shooting.

- JFK’s head is snapping backwards to the left when hit in the head, indicating a shot from the right in front of him —-> the knoll.

- Muddy fotprints on the ground and on car bumpers, and lots of fresh cigarette buts, behind the fence.

- HSCA’s acoustical investigation found five rifle shots on the DPD’s dictabeltrecording from a stuck microphone on a police motorcycle. Four from behind the limo and one from the picket fence on the knoll. P for random noise = 1/100 000.

This has already been debunked by newer forensic measures so don't bother

- HSCA acoustical investigation found no evidence of echos that could be misstaken for the source of the sound = echos can not explain (away) the majority pointing to (and running up to) the picket fence as the source of shot/s.

This has already been debunked by newer forensic measures so don't bother

- The MC police driving behind to the left of the presidents limo says he got splattered from the head shot and given the very low speed, indicating the splatter flying in high speed backwards from the limo ——> headshot from in front to the right —-> the knoll.

Citation required that indicates that blood splatter required a high speed to splatter the policeman.

- A few witnesses on the Dealey Plaza reporting seeing the back of JFK’s head being blown away, indicating a shot from in front of him.

Citation required that a shot from the front was the only manner in which these witnesses could have reported the head "being blown away".
BTW it wasn't blown away just a portion, the majority of the head was intact.

- Almost everyone who saw JFK’s head wound close up are reporting a big gaping wound in the right back of the head, indicating a shot from the front. Surgeons, forensic pathologists, nurses, forensic photographers, x-ray physichians, agents from Secret Service and the FBI, almost 50 witnesses. A big gaping wound in the right back of the head.

- The team in Parklands trauma room one, who tried to save JFK’s life reported a small round ”punctuated entrance wound” just below JFK’s Adams apple = shot from the front (visible before the tracheotomi).

...

Hence, there is no clear cut provinience or chain of custody even when it comes to the finding of the alleged murder weapon allegedly found at the alleged crime scene.

Citation required that no chain of custody existed.
And do not bother posting quotes from CT sources, the WC is acceptable.

 

[manifesto]

I would have said dog's bollocks, but fair call.

There were also numerous photos and films taken of and from the grassy knoll at the time of, and just after the shooting... NO SHOOTER

Good. Do you have a film/photo where the area around the picket fence are not too grainy or too dark/shadowed for any meaningful statement to be made?

Show me.

Abraham Zapruder was himself standing on a plinth at the top of the grassy knoll. He would have seen any shooter and heard the shots VERY LOUDLY

He heard shots ”behind” him. He was busy shooting the motorcade with his 16mm camera and saw what he pointed it at. Not the fence on the knoll.

CTs lie all the time... what's new?

Calling names and fabricate false accusations. What do you call that?

manifesto has been asked several times to provide evidence of what the three cops are supposed to have said... so far... crickets. He's either ignoring the requests, or knows he cannot provide the evidence.

Another false statement and false accusation.

Proof: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12252687&postcount=772

You might have to explain to him what "proprietary" means. Big words confuse CTs (poor little souls)

Calling names and NOT addressing the argument. What are you ”calling” that kind of behavior?

Its never stopped CTs from repeating the claims before.

Calling names without a hint of a substantiated argument. What are you ”calling” that kind of behavior?

An overwhelming number of witnesses heard three shots come from the TSBD..

Nobody is claiming that no witness reported hearing shots from the TSBD.

even some of those close to the grassy knoll....NO WITNESSES CLOSE TO THE TSBD POINTED TO THE GRASSY KNOLL AS THE SOURCE OF THE GUNSHOTS!

This is a blatant lie.

Buell Wesley Frazier: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#wesley-frazier

Billy Lovelady: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#billy-lovelady

Otis Williams: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#otis-williams

Victoria Adams: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#victoria-adams

Danny Garcia Arce: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#danny-arce

Virginia Baker: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#virgie-rackley

Jane Berry: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#jane-berry

Ochus Campbell: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#ochus-campbell

Ronald Fischer: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#ronald-fischer

Dorothy Garner: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#dorothy-garner

Dolores Kounas: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#dolores-kounas

Roberta Parker: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#roberta-parker

Edgar Smith: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#edgar-smith

Joe Marshall Smith: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#joe-marshall-smith

Roy Truly: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses#roy-truly

So, why are you telling blatant lies, when so easy checked?

100%.

Wrong. Citing sworn testimonies are not ”hearsay”.

ALL of the evidence; ballistics,

What ballistics? Explain.

forensics,

What forensics? Explain.

fibre,

What fibre? Explain.

points to the gunshots coming from above and behind the motorcade.

Another blatant lie. The ovewelming majority av interviewed witnesses and who was asked of where they heard shots, pointed out the area around the picket fence on the knoll as the source of the shots.

Question. How do you combine blatant lying with Scientific Skepticism?

Either that or he was given to lubricating curtain rails with gun oil.

Oswald said that he had his lunch in his lunchbag, when questioned by the police. Are you saying he was lying?

This is typical of CTs;

You love to calling names. Correct?

manifesto, micahjava and the other usual suspects are no different... they ask for evidence, and when you give it to them, they ignore it if it doesn't fit with the Stupidati world view.

I can only speak for my self. What evidence ”given” to me have I ignored?

And, you love to call people names. Correct?

There's nothing new to see here.

Well then. Good bye.

Manifesto's claims are boring, old-hat, unoriginal, repeatedly debunked rubbish from the 1980's and 1990's

Nice to know. Show me.

Yup, and even all the newly released documents are leading to the same conclusions.. that Oswald murdered JFK with a 6.5 x 52mm Carcano, from his sniper's nest in the SE corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD. Nothing in this case is more certain than that!

Could you cite relevant parts in one or more of said documents that allow you to honestly make your claim?

Or is it just random babbleing rants combined with blatant lies? If you don’t mind me asking?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Lol. Since when is it the opponents responsibility to find sources and good arguments supporting YOUR thesis?

Are you nuts?

You call yourself an opponent, but refuse to read and understand the dialogue you wish to oppose?

Are we to guess which parts of the conversation you are interested in and may wish to critique?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Can we keep in mind that people in this thread have pointed out why it is too unweildly to expect a full argument, made over the course of a long conversation, to be quoted or linked to.
The documents containing all evidence have been stated.
The threads containing the long conversation have been stated.
And it has been stated plainly which approaches will illicit the best response and be most likely to sway most posters by convincing them.

And all of this is being ignored.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The ”thread”?

The ”thread”?

Parts 1 to 5 of this subject thread, in the forum.
That is a citation by the way.
If you want to know what various users believe, and why, in detail you can critique, that is what you read for the answers.

 

[manifesto]

You call yourself an opponent, but refuse to read and understand the dialogue you wish to oppose?

Are we to guess which parts of the conversation you are interested in and may wish to critique?

Yes, as stated a lot of times. Evidence of the claim that Oswald killed JFK.

Are you too making that claim? If so, show me some evidence of this.

 

[Axxman300]

No I have not read the thread. If there is said information somewhere in it, feel free to cite it and paste it. No need to do it twice.

You do know how to cite/copy and paste?

I thought you were well read. Read some more.

When I first signed onto this board I spent a few weeks reading many of the longer threads in the 911 Conspiracy sub-forum so that I had knowledge of the arguments made.

I did this because I didn't want to look like an idiot who comes in asking questions that have already been answered a few hundred times.

Do your homework. If you are a legitimate researcher this should be second nature.