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

[RoboTimbo]

- 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..

I snipped the rest as drivel. What is your opinion of the "back and to the left" idiocy that other CTists still march out?

 

[manifesto]

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.

Hank has already stated the ”Null” but I found lots of flaws in his data and arguments. They were flawed. Therefore the ”Null” as presented by Hank, is flawed. You can do two things here that are productive:

1. Argue against my refutation of Hanks ”Null”... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12253485&postcount=842

2. Or, state your own ”Null” and let me have a look at it.

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?

Because I want to know specifically what evidence Hank use to support his claim of Oswald killing JFK. Not the WC’s evidence. Hanks evidence.

It is really that simple.

Nobody wants to pretend that they have to prove Oswald did anything.

Hence my use of the concept of, evidence.

Nobody cares to pretend that history has to play like Perry Mason.

Me neither.

There are theories. If you are familiar with, but disagree with, the theory Oswald shot alone, supply a better theory.

I’m interested in what evidence Hank believe he have for making the claim of Oswald killing JFK.

It’s really that simple.

For the life of me I never get why people don’t see it as simple as that.

Anyone making a claim has to expect demands of evidence supporting said claim.

It’s really that simple.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

That is the null hypothesis, which you've been directed to find the definition of.

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

What claim? If you're so lacking in knowledge of the evidence then there isn't much point in having a discussion with you about it.

Come back when you have read the resources you were directed to. Then you can make whatever claims about it you like.

 

[HSienzant]

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

You didn't previously post under the name "Robert Prey", did you?

If you had read the thread, you'd know why that's funny.

On a more serious note, I've asked you four times to document the claims you made about the three police officers who supposed filed signed affidavits concerning seeing a Mauser, of which, you claimed two slept on it and changed their minds. Do you remember me asking for you to document all that?

See here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12252353&postcount=751

Thus far you haven't complied.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank has already stated the ”Null” but I found lots of flaws in his data and arguments. They were flawed. Therefore the ”Null” as presented by Hank, is flawed.

No, you agreed with everything I said about the null hypothesis.

Do not misstate my claims or your rebuttal. My claims are in bold, yours in blue.

Originally Posted by HSienzant: In short, in this case, JFK was shot to death.
Agree.

Originally Posted by HSienzant: That means the null hypothesis here is one shooter, since, given the preceding fact in evidence, the possibility of "no shooter" is eliminated.
At least one shooter, agree.

Originally Posted by HSienzant: Thus, any additional shooter must be established,
Agree.

Originally Posted by HSienzant: but we know there was at least one, because he died by gunfire.
Agree.

Originally Posted by HSienzant: Now, this says nothing about who fired the shots.
Agree.

Originally Posted by HSienzant: But separate from the null hypothesis, there was one shooter seen at the time of the shooting,
Do not agree. Yada Yada...

You started to disagree only after I stopped talking about the null hypothesis.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hank has already stated the ”Null” but I found lots of flaws in his data and arguments. They were flawed. Therefore the ”Null” as presented by Hank, is flawed. You can do two things here that are productive:

1. Argue against my refutation of Hanks ”Null”... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12253485&postcount=842

2. Or, state your own ”Null” and let me have a look at it.

Because I want to know specifically what evidence Hank use to support his claim of Oswald killing JFK. Not the WC’s evidence. Hanks evidence.

It is really that simple.

Hence my use of the concept of, evidence.

Me neither.

I’m interested in what evidence Hank believe he have for making the claim of Oswald killing JFK.

It’s really that simple.

Anyone making a claim has to expect demands of evidence supporting said claim.

It’s really that simple.

It isn’t my null, it isn’t Hank’s null. It’s just the null.
“Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter, as the historical record shows”. The evidence is summarised in the WC report, and recorded in the long form records, the autopsy, photographic records, and film footage.

You should not need this recounted if you are familiar with the case.

Do you have a theory that better fits the evidence?

 

[manifesto]

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.

So, if you make a claim, it is enough to submit WC’s report + HSCA’s report. No quote? No page number? Nothing else? Just the volumes?

Really? Like pointing at the Bible when asked for good evidence of a historical Jesus?

Really?

The thread is the argument being cited.
Sorry for any confusion.

What? The whole thread being cited everytime anyone ask for evidence of any claim?

Is this a madhouse? Old school?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hank has already stated the ”Null” but I found lots of flaws in his data and arguments. They were flawed. Therefore the ”Null” as presented by Hank, is flawed. You can do two things here that are productive:

That only works in CT world, otherwise known as fantasy land. The null hypothesis stands. Did you have some other hypothesis to put forward that accounts for all the evidence? You may present it here, hopefully before you turn tail and flee the thread again.

I snipped the rest as drivel since your post began with a dishonest untruth.

 

[HSienzant]

...I want to know specifically what evidence Hank use to support his claim of Oswald killing JFK. Not the WC’s evidence. Hanks evidence.

Dude, I was twelve at the time JFK was killed and hardly equipped to conduct my own investigation.

The Warren Commission was equipped to conduct that investigation, which is probably why you want to push the evidence they collected to the side and talk about the evidence I gathered independent of that.

Hilarious.

Hank

 

[bknight]

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?

A bit of a nit-pick, you quoted what manifesto posted and did not include my comments

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.

 

[bknight]

Dude, I was twelve at the time JFK was killed and hardly equipped to conduct my own investigation.

The Warren Commission was equipped to conduct that investigation, which is probably why you want to push the evidence they collected to the side and talk about the evidence I gathered independent of that.

Hank

You don't look that old!

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, if you make a claim, it is enough to submit WC’s report + HSCA’s report. No quote? No page number? Nothing else? Just the volumes?

Really? Like pointing at the Bible when asked for good evidence of a historical Jesus?

Really?

What? The whole thread being cited everytime anyone ask for evidence of any claim?

Is this a madhouse? Old school?

You asked for the case against Oswald and the evidence against Oswald.
The evidence is nearly gathered in two sources.
Given how many individual items are contained in twenty something volumes, and there is no reason to do so, I will not index the evidence at the request of a random internet user who won’t go and read it.

Your secondary inferred request for individual cases are cited as the threads as they have been made over hundreds of posts, over hundreds of pages, over six threads.

Because it is unwieldy to list every user and every post in which their arguments are made, I am not going to list them and index them. You can find them and read the lengthy explanations in the threads.

Or you could accept there is a consensus Null.
If you are even remotely familiar with the case, and you claim to be well read, that puts us on the same page. You know what the WC concluded, you know you need a better theory than that to convince us... everybody sings from the same choir sheet, and we can have a discussion.

 

[manifesto]

Been there, done that. See the thread.

WHERE in the thread have you done so, Hank? I’m not a mind reader.

Show me.

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 are telling me that Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon (Carcano) in the assassination of JFK.

I wonder if you have any evidence supporting this claim. Do you? Show me.

You haven't shown I need to retract anything.

I have not? Show me: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12253485&postcount=842

They've been defended ad nauseum.

No, they have so far been NOT defended ad vomit.

What are you afraid of? Being caught of guard making bald claims without sufficient evidence?

Show me the evidence, Hank.

See the thread. I am not responsible for your willful ignorance of my points and the evidence in support.

Hank

This is crazy. Where in the thread/s shall I look for specifically what?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, if you make a claim, it is enough to submit WC’s report + HSCA’s report. No quote? No page number? Nothing else? Just the volumes?

You claim to be well-read on the subject so you should be familiar with those documents. Which bit of the evidence in there are you disputing?

What? The whole thread being cited everytime anyone ask for evidence of any claim?

You participated in the thread previously so you are responsible for knowing the thread's content. If you aren't, you have permission th search for any topic you like.

 

[HSienzant]

You don't look that old!

1. Maybe it's because it's really not me.
2. Maybe I'm a intelligence asset faking my identity.
3. Maybe it's not a current photo.

Most people will choose (3). CTs always assume (1) or (2) or both.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are telling me that Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon (Carcano) in the assassination of JFK.

Are you claiming that Oswald didn't own the Carcano that he shot JFK with?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Are you claiming that Oswald didn't own the Carcano that he shot JFK with?

The one with his palm print on.
The one he was photographed holding.
The one he purchased with the fake ID he planned to escape with?
The one which fired the fatal shots to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world?
The one that left gun oil in the paper sack he made?
The one his wife knew to be his?
That rifle?

 

[HSienzant]

You are telling me that Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon (Carcano) in the assassination of JFK.

I asked you to define "own".
I asked you to tell me what evidence you would accept.

You have done neither.

I'm not cutting you any slack. I told you that already.

I am not going to bother with your demands for evidence when we both know (and everyone else reading this knows) you will find any excuse possible to ignore the evidence I do cite.

For example, do you now acknowledge, from the evidence I cited sppeifically in rebuttal to your claims in January of 2016, that Oswald ordered, paid for, and had shipped to his PO Box 2915 the rifle bearing the serial number C2766 that was later found in the Depository?

You dropped the discussion pretty much at that point and haven't revisited it. I don't see why I need to reproduce all that evidence again for you to just reject it or ignore it again. That's a waste of my time. And yours.

And you don't get to simply conjure up an innocent reason for damning evidence and pretend that's sufficient. It's nonsense.

You established you would do that for all time when you argued that the photos of Walker's home and environs found among Oswald's possessions and taken with Oswald's camera and taken shortly before the assassination attempt on Walker could have been unrelated to the assassination attempt.

... why couldn’t it have more innocent explanations, like Oswald presenting himself as a ”photographer” when looking for a job and applying for visas, etc?

Rodney Alcala had photos of many of the women and young girls that were later found murdered. That was him just trying to establish his credentials as a photographer, too, right?

All the best,
Hank

 

[bknight]

1. Maybe it's because it's really not me.
2. Maybe I'm a intelligence asset faking my identity.
3. Maybe it's not a current photo.

Most people will choose (3). CTs always assume (1) or (2) or both.

Hank

I would choose 3 of those. I was 16 at that date, taking an English exam when the Principal announced JFK was pronounced dead at Parkland.

 

[traxy]

You are telling me that Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon (Carcano) in the assassination of JFK.

I wonder if you have any evidence supporting this claim. Do you? Show me.

To start with, before even getting into the paper trail connecting Oswald to that rifle, he was photographed posing with it in his backyard. His wife testified that he owned a rifle, that the rifle he owned is in those photographs, and that she took those photographs. They were authenticated by a panel of photography experts working on behalf of the HSCA.

Gouges in the stock of the weapon in the photographs matched gouges in the stock of the weapon recovered in the depository.