HSienzant
Philosopher
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Obliged
HSienzant
Philosopher
As I said in January of 2016, give a conspiracy theorist an answer and he just asks more questions. There is never any resolution because there is always another question to ask.
And for a person who is supposedly 'well-read' on the subject matter, to be asking these questions is an absurdity. He should be able to make an argument about how the evidence doesn't indict Oswald, not just ask for additional information that he should be already know, if he's as well-read as he stated.
For these and other reasons, I don't take Manifesto seriously.
Hank
Name ONE claim I can’t defend. ONE.
Wrong. I state the question again: Do you have any EVIDENCE supporting your CLAIM that Oswald killed JFK?
How many times do I need to ask you this before I get an answer?
This is a LIE, Hank. Are you trying to evade the demand of providing EVIDENCE for your claim by resorting to telling LIES about your opponents earlier statements?
A new low, even coming from you, Hank?
I found no reason trying to continue a debate with you at that point in time, Hank. And you know why.
So, back to now. Do you have any EVIDENCE to support your bald claim that Oswald killed JFK?
Yes or no?
If no, will you retract your statement?
If yes, show me the EVIDENCE.
I suspected that you, Hank, belive it to be silly demanding EVIDENCE for bald claims. Now I know.
The question then arises of what on earth you are doing in a forum for Scientific Scepticism. Why are you here?
Ah, this is some kind of idol you worship? Interesting indeed.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.
HSienzant
Philosopher
So, admittedly wrong in some particulars, right?
Not questioning the original statements of Boone or Weitzman yet.
Okay, how much time must progress before a change becomes suspicious? Are all changes suspicious? You initially suggested this change was suspicious, did you not?
I asked you when he first identified the rifle as a Mauser. You changed the subject and avoided answering.
He didn't mention a Mauser in either his own statement or the one he gave to the FBI on the weekend of the assassination in 1963. He didn't mention one in his testimony to the Commission in 1964. He didn't mention one at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
Why can't you answer my simple question - When did Craig first mention seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor? Sometime after the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, right?
Yes, you did.
You claimed THREE (3) officers signed written affidavits attesting to the Mauser. Asked for those names, you named Boone, Weitzman, and Craig.
I really should stop posting and hit the gym more, yes. But that doesn't excuse your errors, and going on the offensive and telling me to 'shape up' when I'm pointing out your errors and you're making excuses for them ('figure of speech', 'casual summary') doesn't appear to be the most effective use of your time.
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Except that we have pictures of the Carcano. Please show your pictures of the Mauser. And we have the actual Carcano. Please show your actual Mauser that was found there.
Pretty much everyone who isn't buried to their eyebrows in CT looniness.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Ah, then you're retracting your allegation that a Mauser was the murder weapon and admitting your mistake?
That's showing growth. Well done!
Again, try to avoid pointless attempts to seize the moral high ground rhetorically. You are not on a divine mission.
Last edited:
The date of the photos was literally contained in the post that he quoted.
Good thinking.
Attachments
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Here's the original 12 from December of 2015: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503
I hammered the point home on one of those points here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=580
You responded by asking two additional questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=581
I pointed out those were part of your original fifth point and already rebutted here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=587
You then threw a Gish Gallop up against the wall here, hoping to change the subject:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=588
Then after I pointed out that out, you told me you were researching it further and for me to be patient. 28 Months later, I'm still waiting.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=590
What's a lie? I posted the above pointing out the facts, and you never responded to those points to try to defend them.
Your response was you were reading further and you'd get back to me. You never did.
Yes. Because you were wrong and didn't want to admit it. So you stopped posting here for roughly 28 months.
Your desperation is showing. I pointed out some 'fellow' told you over two years ago to read the thread. Clearly you ignored his advice back then. Just as clearly, you're ignoring the same advice given to you now. You can choose to be willfully ignorant of what's transpired here. But you can't blame us then for your refusal to read it, or to repost stuff just because you're back. Read the thread.
Hank
Last edited:
Yes, i see that now, which make it even more bizarre, if possible.
You stated your ”Null” as follows:
”In short, in this case, JFK was shot to death.
That means the null hypothesis here is one shooter, since, given the preceding fact in evidence, the possibility of "no shooter" is eliminated.
Thus, any additional shooter must be established,
but we know there was at least one, because he died by gunfire.
Now, this says nothing about who fired the shots.”
This is your ”Null” and as you state it yourself:That means the null hypothesis here is one shooter, since, given the preceding fact in evidence, the possibility of "no shooter" is eliminated.
Thus, any additional shooter must be established,
but we know there was at least one, because he died by gunfire.
Now, this says nothing about who fired the shots.”
- ... this says nothing about who fired the shots.
How can you evoke a ”Null hypothesis” claiming Oswalds guilt in the assassination of JFK, when it ”says nothing about WHO fired the shots”?Explain.
HSienzant
Philosopher
So you're admitting your original claim was false.
This is a straw man argument you're invoking. I never said the null establishes Oswald's guilt. Quote me saying that. You can't. You're attacking a bogus point to deflect from your original error.
Hank
So, Hank, what did you say?
Rifle confusion.
The reported confusion on the part of some of the officers observing the recovery of the rifle at the TSBD has never much impressed me. The first picture here is a Mannlicher-Carcano, the second is a Mauser 1891. It's not surprising to me that someone who saw the rifle briefly, did not handle it and examine the markings could mistake the relatively rare Italian rifle for the similar appearing and much more common Mauser.
The reported confusion on the part of some of the officers observing the recovery of the rifle at the TSBD has never much impressed me. The first picture here is a Mannlicher-Carcano, the second is a Mauser 1891. It's not surprising to me that someone who saw the rifle briefly, did not handle it and examine the markings could mistake the relatively rare Italian rifle for the similar appearing and much more common Mauser.
Attachments
No. It’s not a rhetorically moral high ground to tell the truth. It’s the very definition of moral high ground, the truth.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Nope. You were making an issue of the null hypothesis, and thought you caught me misstating something. You didn't.
I pointed out your rebuttal was a straw man argument, and challenged you to find the statement you were claiming I said. Clearly you couldn't, as you're asking me.
It's okay to admit you were wrong. We can all see that anyway.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Absolutely. And if you study the critical arguments against the Warren Commission conclusions, you will find they likewise go up in smoke. It's always something taken out of context, or misunderstood, or a logical fallacy, or a conjecture, or an assumption, etc. at the root of the argument for a conspiracy.
There is no evidence for conspiracy.
None.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
And there you go trying to seize the moral high ground once more, claiming you're telling the truth (and by extension, the rest of us must be liars).
Sorry, no, now you're just begging the question. I pointed out 12 places you were making erroneous claims in your 12 points from December of 2015. You never did address those, a strange response indeed from someone with the supposed moral high ground.
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Since you are claiming that the null hypothesis is incorrect, you will be required to submit your evidence for an alternative hypothesis here for scrutiny. Note that your CT hypothesis must account for every detail with no anomalies.
I'm glad you realize that the CT loons have been presenting a vast field of crap.
You'll need compelling evidence for these "other" assassins. Who are they? Where did they go? What was their motivation? With what weapons? From where did they shoot? How did they time it so that their shots occurred at exactly the same time as Oswald's three? How did they coordinate it so that their shots struck Kennedy in exactly the same places Oswald's shots did and yet left zero evidence behind?
You will need to answer those questions before asking any more of your repetitive ones that have already been answered.
CTists get so angry when they are asked for evidence for their crackpot claims.
And yet people are laughing at the CTists.
Only in the minds of the CTists.
JFK being assassinated by a lone assassin - Oswald - is a matter of historical record and fact. If you are claiming that it is incorrect then you'll need to provide evidence for your alternative reality.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
manifesto.. you are ignoring questions that are being put to you (just like your pal micahjava... he was afraid of the hard questions too!)
I repeat, if you do not believe that Oswald shot JFK, then you must think that someone else did...
Who do you think shot JFK?
Who do you think owned the Carcano found in the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?
Who do you think ordered the Carcano from Kleins Sporting Goods and had it delivered to his PO Box?
Who do you think the witnesses saw shooting from the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?
You need to answer these questions... they are not going to go away!
I repeat, if you do not believe that Oswald shot JFK, then you must think that someone else did...
Who do you think shot JFK?
Who do you think owned the Carcano found in the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?
Who do you think ordered the Carcano from Kleins Sporting Goods and had it delivered to his PO Box?
Who do you think the witnesses saw shooting from the 6th floor SE corner room of the TSBD?
You need to answer these questions... they are not going to go away!
- Status