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

[HSienzant]

Everything you posted in your reply is classic, and sadly outdated JFK-CT noise.

You should have a heyday refuting it point by point like a real boss, shouldn’t you?

No. Shifting the Burden of Proof.

No one has to disprove or rebut your assertions. It's sufficient to point out the entire post is a Gish Gallop of unproven allegations.

Your assertions, your burden of proof. You need to cite the evidence for each assertion and establish by evidence, not allegation or suspicion or your 'beliefs', that the assertions are true.

You never will, of course. You will simply invoke yet another logical fallacy (perhaps a red herring, or perhaps another lengthy response with no substance) to divert the attention from the fact you never prove any of your claims. None of them.

I think this post sums it up well:

Once a mindless fool, always a mindless fool.

Can you explain how making the same logical fallacy over and over and over is not indicative of a mindless fool?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Nope.
Null Hypothesis remains that the evidence presented by the WC and HSCA is accurate and LHO was the lone gunman.
If you want to claim "At least one shooter" then you need to present a theory of there being more shooters, that better fits the evidence.

1. HSCA made the conclusion it was a conspiracy with at least two gunmen. So, what to do here? Assert both conclusions as ”Null”?

2. Good. If you claim the WC’s and HSCA’s investigation with conclusions are the ”Null” (lol), feel free to quote their evidence and arguments for this and that and PRESENT it in the thread.

Be my guest.

 

[HSienzant]

Read my posts. Submit critique if you have any. But be specific.

No one has to critigue and rebut your assertions.

It's just another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

No one has to critigue and rebut your assertions.

It's just another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Hank

1. I am making an assertion.

2. You do not agree and demand evidence.

How can I know what assetions of mine you are questioning if you are not telling me (2)?

Mind reading? Again?

 

[manifesto]

You agreed the null hypothesis was that there was one shooter, because JFK was shot to death, which means a minimum of one shooter. Yes, the null is that there is at least one shooter, exactly as you state above (bolded).

You agreed additional shooters must be proven, as I quoted above and as anyone can see at the link below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12253485&postcount=842

You then when back to shifting the burden of proof, claiming the minimum of one (1) shooter must be proven. No, additional shooters beyond one (1) must be proven.

Ball in your court. Stop invoking logical fallacies. Stop with the fringe resets.

To state that the ”Null” (lol) is ”ONLY one shooter” demands proof of no other shooters. Du you have such proof, Hank? To state thet the ”Null” (lol) is ”AT LEAST one shooter” is the correct choice of wording, since it leaves the door open for new developments and findings possibly leading to more than one shooter.

Do you understand what I’m saying, Hank?

Evidence: J.C.Day testimony quoted here.
- You? No response.

Evidence of what, Hank?

Evidence: Roger Craig testimony quoted here.
- You? No response.

Evidence of what, Hank?

Evidence: William Waldman testimony quoted here.
- You? No response.

Evidence of what, Hank?

I'm posting evidence every day, and giving you the opportunity to cite the counter evidence, which you said you would do.

You've punted every time.

Evidence of what, Hank?

Hank

Are you feeling well, Hank?

 

[manifesto]

And not now.

I've worked alongside hundreds of people over the course of my career, and not once did I ever inquire about the religion of the person I was working with. It simply didn't matter to me. Nor did anyone ever ask me my religion.

It's clearly a crock and a desperate ploy, because they have nothing on Greer whatsoever, and they need to have something on him to make him a part of the conspiracy and find some reason to question his actions.

Are you desperate, Hank?

1. There were centuries old tensions and intense hatred between the two ethnic groups.

2. Greer’s son alluded to this when asked if his father liked JFK.

3. The original driver died mysteriously on duty a couple of weeks before the visit to Dallas.

4. It was a status reversal probably difficult for Greer to handle, given that the president belonged to the ethnic group at the very bottom of the Brittish society for a thousand years, the Irish catolics.

5. Greers behavior during the shooting.

6. Greers lying to the Commission of same behavior.

This is, put together, not a far flung suspicion, Hank. It’s a plausible scenario IF one are of the opinion that it was a conspiracy behind the assassination.

MANIFESTO: I'm still awaiting that evidence of Shipman being bumped off so as to get Greer - who had been driving JFK since he took office - into the driver's seat on the Dallas trip.

Here's a photo from May of 1963 from the JFK library.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHP-ST-278-3-63.aspx

It shows JFK standing, and note the driver, according to the text to the right of the photo: William Greer.

Description:
President John F. Kennedy (standing in the Lincoln-Mercury Continental convertible) waves to the crowd gathered along the motorcade route from Nashville Municipal Airport to Vanderbilt University. Also riding in the Presidential limousine are: White House Secret Service agent Bill Greer (driving); Senators Estes Kefauver (jump seat) and Albert Gore, Sr. (back seat) of Tennessee; and Governor of Tennessee Frank G. Clement (back seat). President Kennedy traveled to Nashville, Tennessee, to attend Founder's Day ceremonies at Vanderbilt University.

Is the JFK Library part of the conspiracy too?

I didn’t say that Greer never drove JFK’s limo, I’m saying that he was not scheduled to drive it in Dallas 22 nov, 1963.

Hank

His family were certain he were to be the driver in Dallas. We will of course never know for sure since the Secret Service destroyed all logs and documents from the time period. After being requested repetedly to send it over to ARRB according to the JFK Records Act.

Willful destruction of evidence is a felony, and most certainly knowledge of quilt.

Were the culprits identified and brought to court for breaking the law? Of course not.

 

[HSienzant]

How can I know what assetions of mine you are questioning if you are not telling me (2)?

All of them. Your Gish Gallops are not evidence. Your Gish Gallops are assertions, backed by nothing at all.

Meanwhile, where I have asked specifically for evidence, you go blind to those posts and ignore them completely.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

To state that the ”Null” (lol) is ”ONLY one shooter” demands proof of no other shooters.

You don't understand the point, or are pretending not to. Your claim is false. If JFK was stabbed to death, then the null would be no shooters, and then anyone asserting one or more shooters would have to establish one or more. No one would have to prove no shooters. You are now asking me to prove a negative (demanding proof of no other shooters). That's nonsense, and you admitted previously you needed to prove more than one shooter.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12257336&postcount=1077

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

Originally Posted by manifesto
Agree.

Du you have such proof, Hank?

Since JFK was shot to death, then the minimum number of shooters is one, and any more than one shooter must be established. No one must prove one shooter, because that's the absolute minimum. And hence, the null hypothesis.

To state thet the ”Null” (lol) is ”AT LEAST one shooter” is the correct choice of wording, since it leaves the door open for new developments and findings possibly leading to more than one shooter.

So you're admitting you don't have any such evidence at this time for multiple shooters and are simply holding out hope that something will turn up in perhaps the next 55 years?

Evidence of what, Hank?
Are you feeling well, Hank?

Ignore it all you want. Everyone else here who isn't a die-hard conspiracy theorist understands the evidence I've presented so far. At this point we've all seen some of the evidence that ties Oswald to the rifle found in the Depository after the shooting... The fact that the rifle recovered in the Depository bore the serial number C2766, and the fact that rifle with that unique serial number was shipped to PO Box 2915 and the fact that PO Box 2915 was opened by and rented by Oswald. We've also presented evidence that Oswald used the name A.J.Hidell on the PO Box he opened in New Orleans, thereby associating Oswald with the name on the order form.

I'll be calling other witnesses in the near future. You can pretend they are meaningless too.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Not according to Greers own son who in an interview insinuated exactly that when asked if his father liked JFK: ”Well, JFK was a catholic and we are Irish protestants, so no, not really” (quoting from memory).

You have to familiarize with Irish History to really grasp the hatred and how deep it went.

I am Irish American, and you, sir, are a racist.

 

[HSienzant]

Are you desperate, Hank?

No, you are. Really, Greer and Kennedy were at odds over religion? Why didn't Kennedy have Greer transferred away from the White House detail then? Your claims are an absurdity.

1. There were centuries old tensions and intense hatred between the two ethnic groups.

So JFK was going to kill Greer, but Greer got him first?

2. Greer’s son alluded to this when asked if his father liked JFK.

So, hearsay, not evidence - at best. You haven't cited anything Greer's son said. You've asserted it. Assertions are not evidence.

3. The original driver died mysteriously on duty a couple of weeks before the visit to Dallas.

Yes, you said that. I want to see the first person accounts of this. Your assertions are not evidence. No matter how many times you repeat them.

4. It was a status reversal probably difficult for Greer to handle

So now guesses substitute for evidence. Whoopee!

given that the president belonged to the ethnic group at the very bottom of the Brittish society for a thousand years, the Irish catolics.

Another assertion, no evidence.

5. Greers behavior during the shooting.

More assertions, no evidence.

6. Greers lying to the Commission of same behavior.

More assertions, no evidence.

This is, put together, not a far flung suspicion, Hank. It’s a plausible scenario IF one are of the opinion that it was a conspiracy behind the assassination.

It's still unproven twaddle.

I didn’t say that Greer never drove JFK’s limo, I’m saying that he was not scheduled to drive it in Dallas 22 nov, 1963.

And it's still just unproven twaddle until you prove it. It doesn't become more true the more you repeat it. You seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding that's the case.

His family were certain he were to be the driver in Dallas.

Do you understand what unproven twaddle is? A perfect example is above.
Pretty much everything you post is unproven twaddle, though, so it might be difficult for you to differentiate or understand.

We will of course never know for sure since the Secret Service destroyed all logs and documents from the time period. After being requested repetedly to send it over to ARRB according to the JFK Records Act.

So these allegations are all just unproven twaddle, exactly as I've been suggesting? I thought as much.

Willful destruction of evidence is a felony, and most certainly knowledge of quilt.

Again, the rifle was stored in a blanket. Not a quilt. This is just more (c'mon, say it with me, Manifesto), unproven twaddle!

Were the culprits identified and brought to court for breaking the law? Of course not.

Uh, first you have to establish - not just assert - that there were culprits and that anyone broke the law.

Your entire post is just unproven twaddle.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

You don’t get it do you? If most of the evidence can be proved to be fabrications they seize to be evidence of Oswalds guilt and transforms to equally strong evidence of his innocence and most important, that the guilty party can be found among those who framed him and orchestrated the cover up.

Why else fabricate evidence and cover it up?

Weird, because DPD Detective Fitz tried to frame Buell Wesley Frazier by trying to force him to sign a confession that he was part of a CONSPIRACY to kill JFK.

Weird, because at most recently released documents from the National Archive detail that the CIA HQ requested three separate times that the Mexico City Station check with their sources inside the Cuban and Soviet Embassies hoping to link Oswald to one or both of them.

Weird, because in the recently released documents from the National Archives detail that the FBI director ordered field offices throughout the Gulf States, and NY, and Chicago to shake down all of their CI's to see who Oswald was working with hoping to link him to Cubans, Soviet sympathizers, or the Mafia.

How can you make the claim that they framed Oswald as the lone shooter when the state and federal governments were actively trying to link him to a larger conspiracy?

The FBI was still aggressively chasing down leads until the mid-1970's.

The CIA was circulating internal white papers asking what they had missed, and if it was possible Oswald had been working with Cuba.

Those are facts waiting for you online in the National Archives.

 

[HSienzant]

As I was saying:

He's popped in and out previously. Hasn't hung around, can't debate the evidence.

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

Uh, first you have to establish - not just assert - that there were culprits and that anyone broke the law.

Your entire post is just unproven twaddle.

Hank

NOW we're starting to see what his angle is!

NOW we're starting to see just how deep down the rabbit hole he has fallen!

 

[HSienzant]

And of course, I'm still waiting for him to defend his claims from December of 2015, during his last visit to this forum.

I dismantled them back then, and reminded him of said dismantling here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12256321&postcount=1010

He issued the initial challenge here:
== QUOTE ==

Name ONE claim I can’t defend. ONE.

I didn't give him one, I gave him twelve, from the thread he refuses to read:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11029667&postcount=503

I pointed out I went into greater detail on one of the points here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11044963&postcount=580

He asked two questions that were already answered and I pointed that out here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11045829&postcount=587

After he threw a Gish Gallop up against the wall hoping something would stick, I pointed out his logical fallacy, and he bailed on the argument here, never responding to the points I made:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11045866&postcount=590

I reminded him of this a couple of time in the recent past. Of course, he ignored it every time. Conspiracy Theorists always ignore points they can't answer. They like to pretend if they ignore it, it will just go away.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

1. HSCA made the conclusion it was a conspiracy with at least two gunmen. So, what to do here? Assert both conclusions as ”Null”?

2. Good. If you claim the WC’s and HSCA’s investigation with conclusions are the ”Null” (lol), feel free to quote their evidence and arguments for this and that and PRESENT it in the thread.

Be my guest.

Assuming you aren’t a troll, from the context of previous posts you should be able to read that as the conclusions of the WC and additional evidence of the HSCA.

Assuming you are not a troll, you can stop asking for me to present you the entire thread as evidence.
The arguments have been made, at length.
Why not read them?
As you claimed to be well read, on this subject, why do you need the null presented? Do you need to b told the fundamentals of the subject?
If you DO and you are NOT a troll, we could offer you suggestions for reading material that would give you a broader picture than a brief summary anybody would have ththought time to post here.

Let’s be honest: your posts keep suggesting two options. Either you are a troll, trying to be annoying, or you were wrong about being well read, have no idea what the case against Oswald was, and can’t be bothered to read the many hundreds of pages of the thread so far, so expect others to produce many hundreds of pages more explaining all the many points of evidence that convinced them. All of which is shifting the burden of proof away from YOU for no good reason.

So here’s the deal: admit you don’t know the case and I will recommend an audiobook you can consider the “approachable guide to established history “, complete with showing there is never a perfect anomaly free case, because there is always a noise to signal ratio. It is not hard going, and takes less than three hours to cover the fundamentals in relatively good detail.

 

[bknight]

1. HSCA made the conclusion it was a conspiracy with at least two gunmen. So, what to do here? Assert both conclusions as ”Null”?

2. Good. If you claim the WC’s and HSCA’s investigation with conclusions are the ”Null” (lol), feel free to quote their evidence and arguments for this and that and PRESENT it in the thread.

Be my guest.

The conclusion that two gunmen were "involved" has been debunked with newer acoustical work as I posted to you earlier. Therefore any/all conclusions of a second gunman conspiracy by HSCA is null and void.

 

[SpitfireIX]

4. It was a status reversal probably difficult for Greer to handle, given that the president belonged to the ethnic group at the very bottom of the Brittish society for a thousand years, the Irish catolics.

England and Wales were overwhelmingly Roman Catholic until Henry VIII broke with Rome over the Pope's failure to grant an annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. That was in 1534, 429 years before JFK was assassinated. And Scotland didn't break with Rome until 1560. Additionally, England didn't complete the conquest of Ireland until 1607. Fail.

 

[HSienzant]

Let’s be honest: your posts keep suggesting two options. Either you are a troll, trying to be annoying, or you were wrong about being well read, have no idea what the case against Oswald was, and can’t be bothered to read the many hundreds of pages of the thread so far, so expect others to produce many hundreds of pages more explaining all the many points of evidence that convinced them. All of which is shifting the burden of proof away from YOU for no good reason.

There is no way to tell the difference between a troll and a well-read conspiracy theorist.

* Either can ignore any evidence.

* Either can invent an off-the-cuff dismissal of any given piece of evidence.

* Either can respond to a answer with another question.

* Either can Google a CT talking point and appear to be knowledgeable - at least on the surface.

* Either can use logical fallacies to 'rebut' evidence.

* Neither can cite any evidence that supports their argument. All they can do is attempt to tear down the known explanation by pretending estimates taken precedence over measurements (Frazier's estimate of the bag length vs. the known length of the bag found in the TSBD); A casual glance and a guess (the model of the rifle) becomes a fact; any suggestion, conjecture, or speculation by any CT anywhere likewise becomes a fact in the retelling, and they don't need to support their claims with evidence of any sort.

* Neither can provide a scenario that explains the known facts of the case better than the existing explanation already on the table - the troll because he doesn't know the facts of the case well enough to mount one, the CT because he knows them well enough to understand that those quibbles over each piece of evidence don't point anywhere specific.

So, what's the difference between a troll and a well-read conspiracy theorist?

I can't see any.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

The conclusion that two gunmen were "involved" has been debunked with newer acoustical work as I posted to you earlier. Therefore any/all conclusions of a second gunman conspiracy by HSCA is null and void.

Who have ”debunked” HSCA’s acoustical investigations?

 

[manifesto]

I am Irish American, and you, sir, are a racist.

No, I’m a fervent anti-racist, interested in the History of racism. To argue historical facts of racism, imperialism and kolonialism doesn’t make me a racist. On the contrary.