What? Do you assert that ”the thread” is a sufficient reference when asked to provide a specific source for a specific argument?
Yes or no.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Yes or no.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
You still misunderstand. i’ll assume I wasn’t clear enough for yo.
The specific source is the WC and HASCA as have been repeatedly cited.
The thread is the argument being cited.
Sorry for any confusion.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Been there, done that. See the thread. Quote anything I wrote and tell me what I got wrong. Back it up with citations to *evidence*, not hearsay, not logical fallacies, not presumptions, not argument about what the witness meant, not links to conspiracy articles, not conjecture or speculation, *evidence*.
Anything short of that will be ignored.
You haven't shown I need to retract anything.
They've been defended ad nauseum. See the thread. I am not responsible for your willful ignorance of my points and the evidence in support.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
They've been addressed. And they are too repetitive. It's been done to death.
You're simply bringing up old canards like, "Boss, the Mauser! the Mauser!" while tugging at my pant leg. At some point the little person gets a bit annoying, you know?
But unless you bring some evidence to the table, not the same old tired conspiracy arguments that are based on supposition and hearsay and logical fallacies, et. al., I don't need to respond to them in detail other than point you to the thread that you're avoiding.
There's a search function, you know.
Hank
Last edited:
Yes, since I’m opposing the claim that Oswald killed JFK, that makes me an opponent to anyone making that claim, yes. And?
Wrong. I do not oppose any dialouge, I oppose the claim that Oswald killed JFK.
If you are not shure, ask me. But, be specific.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Still waiting...
You owe me citations on what affidavit Weitzman actually signed, what affidavit Boone actually signed, and the source of the claim that Roger Craig saw a Mauser, and how many years after the assassination he first made that claim.
You come on here asking for evidence, ignore the thread history, and you can't support the claims you make the first time you are challenged for your sources. Don't you find that ironic? I do.
Hank
PS: This is my third of five requests for this information. After that, if you can't support the FIRST random claim you're challenged on, why should we presume you can support any of them?
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Ok Manifesto, if you are not opposed to reading the discussion... why not start on page one, of the first thread, and just read the various cases made for or against Oswald?
Explain to me why others have to search out, link to, or restate the argument that has become the null?
Explain to me why others have to search out, link to, or restate the argument that has become the null?
In your dreams, maybe. Where is your presented evidence supporting your bald asertions? So far you are only producing the asertions. Still no evidence.
Why is that? Don’t you have any?
Well, you can rant all year around, but if you are not presenting evidence it is still just that, random rants.
Do you have any EVIDENCE supporting your claim of Oswald killing JFK?
Yes, Hank, it is really that simple. Present your EVIDENCE.
Axxman300
Philosopher
I used to think that was the case too, then I went to Dallas and stood in front of the fence. Suddenly those "grainy pictures" reveal a lot more detail than CTists think.
It's also a lousy place to make a shot from...you know, if you're a professional.
Zapruder AND HIS ASSISATANT were the two closest people to the fence. There's no way neither of them could not have heard a rifle being fired, and no way neither wouldn't have looked to their right to see the shooter.
For a theory to be believable is has to be grounded in reality.
Oh good, we're back to ear-testimony again. The echo problem has been addressed multiple times already.
What did the other 300+ people see and hear?
Sure it is. First, it assumes the witness is truthful. Second, it assumes the witness is clear headed.
There are a lot of innocent people doing hard time and or are sitting on death row thanks to faulty, inaccurate sworn testimony.
What, do you mean like the small problem of the 6.5x52mm round made for the Carcano? You've never wondered why it says "Carcano" on the box of cartridges? Why doesn't it say "Carcano and Mauser"?
Your lack of firearms knowledge is what is hanging you here.
Gosh, you know, when a couple of pathologists cut open a dead body to determine the cause of death.
In this case they found an entry wound in the upper thorax that exited through the throat, and they found a SINGLE entrance wound in the back of the skull which exited out the side front.
Fragments recovered from the brain matched the fragments recovered from the car. Coincidence? Had JFK been shot without his knowledge in WWII by a lone Italian marksman on a Japanese destroyer? And the bullet chose to continue its flight in the hot Dallas sun?
The fiber evidence from JFK's jacket, shirt, and necktie all show a single missile entering from behind and exiting the front.
What they heard was dependent on where they stood. The acoustics of Dealey Plaza have been scientifically mapped a few times
When you're a conspiracy theorists all facts not in line with your theory are lies, and all lies supporting your argument are "Science", so it becomes hard to tell what's real for CTers.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
See... here’s the thing:
A poster claims to be well read and well versed on the subject at hand. I am inclined to believe them.
But if they are familiar with the case and the evidence I don’t see what value there is in restating the Null. It is the least efficient way of getting to the good stuff.
We all apparently know the WCs conclusion.
Why then search for the posts already discussing it, or type new ones?
Why not just tell us a brief overview of what is “wrong” and cite some sources?
Even better why not just tell us what DID happen why you think it?
Nobody wants to pretend that they have to prove Oswald did anything.
Nobody cares to pretend that history has to play like Perry Mason.
There are theories. If you are familiar with, but disagree with, the theory Oswald shot alone, supply a better theory.
For the life of me I never get why people don’t see it as simple as that.
A poster claims to be well read and well versed on the subject at hand. I am inclined to believe them.
But if they are familiar with the case and the evidence I don’t see what value there is in restating the Null. It is the least efficient way of getting to the good stuff.
We all apparently know the WCs conclusion.
Why then search for the posts already discussing it, or type new ones?
Why not just tell us a brief overview of what is “wrong” and cite some sources?
Even better why not just tell us what DID happen why you think it?
Nobody wants to pretend that they have to prove Oswald did anything.
Nobody cares to pretend that history has to play like Perry Mason.
There are theories. If you are familiar with, but disagree with, the theory Oswald shot alone, supply a better theory.
For the life of me I never get why people don’t see it as simple as that.
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, that's a straw argument. In the thread. Address the arguments I actually made (you can find them in the thread) not the ones you wish to pretend I made.
In the thread.
See the thread.
I don't have any evidence you can see, because you're arduously avoiding looking where it is. Beyond that, I don't have any evidence you will accept, because you've already made up your mind and are willing to find excuses for anything pointing to Oswald's guilt in any crime. Evidence? This post, concerning photographs found in Oswald's possession after the assassination that were of General Walker's home and environs, all dated shortly before the assassination attempt on Walker:
And I suppose Rodney Alcala just happened to have the bad luck of photographing a lot of girls and young women who just happened to later wind up brutally raped and murdered.
I don't need to re-state all the argument and all the evidence because you just got here. You know where to find it if you really want to see it.
Yes.
Warren Commission Report and 26 volumes of testimony and evidence here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
HSCA Report and 12 volumes of testimony and evidence here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/contents.htm
It's been done. You can avoid looking at it all you want. It won't change anything.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
You must remember we have a history here. I'm not inclined to cut you any slack. Here's two of my last responses to you from January of 2016, the last time you made an appearance in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11061022&postcount=613
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11061022&postcount=617
As always, you made a lot of claims that you couldn't defend and simply left the forum for more than two years only to return again and make a lot of claims you can't defend.
As I noted in one of them: "Give a conspiracy theorist answers and he just changes the questions".
Here's an interesting earlier one where I went through the evidence bit by bit and exposed your TWELVE (12) arguments about the purchase of the rifle as false:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503
You even specified at one point you weren't going to debate me, asking others to repost my points and you would respond to them: "I'm not debating "Hank", I am debating YOU and if you think "Hank" has a good argument for anything, quote it and I'd be happy to respond."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11042009&postcount=545
I'm not inclined to play your silly games with you.
Hank
PS: Here's an interesting one from some fellow named "Jay Utah"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11021256&postcount=469
"As previously indicated, this and all your other points are covered at length in this thread and its three preceding ones. As a newcomer to it, you should come up to speed with that so that you don't retread old ground."
And two years later, Manifesto comes back and again insists we have to cover all that old ground solely for his benefit.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You appear to consider yourself to be some sort of clever lawyer poking holes in an argument. You aren't! No lawyer would ever need the evidence continually read back to them by the court stenographer. Even in a closing statement, when the lawyer summarises the case for or against the accused, he presents the evidence already heard... the witnesses don't get back into the stand to present their evidence again.
When you join a thread it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to read the entire thread from the start so that you make yourself fully conversant with everything that has already been discussed. This is a matter of COURTESY to the existing thread participants so that you are not asking them to repeat what has already been submittied
If you were asking for something new, then you would have a valid point... but you are not asking for anything new. With reference to what I have just said above, there are five continued threads here in which ALL of the evidence you are demanding has already been presented. No-one here is going to do the work and the reading (that YOU should have already done) for you.
Who saw a shooter on the knoll?
I've heard the nebulous claims of "smoke" coming from that general area, but I am unaware of a witness that claimed to see an individual with a weapon take aim from the knoll and fire a shot at the motorcade.
The witnesses who saw a gunman in the depository window actually saw a person with a gun take aim, fire multiple shots and pause to admire his handiwork.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
For christ sake, we have friggin video! It clearly shows that the back of JFK's head is NOT blown away!
Who cares what those "few witnesses" claim? They are wrong. Obviously wrong.
This is the level of nonsense that goes on with CTs. Refer to some random statements that are completely inconsistent with 1) the vast majority of witness statements and 2) photographic evidence and pretend that we should treat them as anything but mistaken.
By the way, I see he brings up the acoustic nonsense. The ones who make the claim themselves refute it. They make it very clear: all of their analysis is contingent on the open mike being in a specific location. If there was no mike in that location, then nothing they say means anything.
You know what? There was no open mike in the location they say it needed to be. There have been attempts to put a mike at that position, but it is refuted by the officer in question, who says that
1) he did not have a mike stuck open, and
2) even if he did, he was not in that spot
Which is confirmed by photographs.
Meanwhile, another officer did admit that he have a mike stuck open, so it seems like he is the one responsible. Of course, he was no where near Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.
No one who brings up the acoustic evidence in seriousness is not worth the time. What's next? Cyril Wecht's nonsensical claims about the magic bullet based on having people sitting in the wrong positions in the car?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Jean Hill, decades after the assassination, started claiming that, but that was contradicted by her first day statements that she saw no shooter.
The names of the witnesses who saw a knoll shooter was going to be my second demand for evidence from Manifesto, after he attempted to satisfy the first one about the three policemen, two of whom supposedly changed their mind after sleeping on it.
I didn't want to bring that up until we established his argument about the supposed Mauser was nonsense, because he would then abandon trying to document the first claim entirely.
All of his claims are false, and he'll be able to back none of them up, but by chasing after him and asking him to document too much too soon, you allow him the opportunity to do another Gish Gallop and change the subject once more.
Manifesto, this is the fourth request for you to support your claims in your post about the three policemen.
Regarding the first two,
When did they say they slept on it and changed their mind?
Where did they say they handled the weapon and saw it was a Mauser?
What precisely does their supposed affidavits say?
And regarding the third man,
When did he first claim to have seen a Mauser?
Hank
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No one.
100%.
And the smoke, if it really existed, could easily have been from people smoking... this was the 1960s; a LOT more people smoked then than is the case now, and smoking in a public place was not banned.
This!
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
What do you mean? We have pictures!
Or can't you see the "Badge man" in the grainy pictures of the grassy knoll?
Don't worry, neither can I....
(btw, it was about the time when Lifton mentioned "badge man" that I realized "Best Evidence" was a work of fantasy)
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
"Ah", "good". You do "know" where to "find" the "answers" to your "questions".
HSienzant
Philosopher
Everything pointing to Oswald is obviously falsified, obviously.
Because he didn't do it. It's just that simple.
And how do we know he didn't do it?
Simple: Because everything pointing to Oswald is obviously falsified, obviously.
It's just so obvious.
Hank
Last edited:
- Status