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

[smartcooky]

Because he can't!!

manifesto has been caught with his pants down making a claim he cannot defend or support, and CT's cannot ever admit to being wrong, so, right out of CT SOPs, he dodges, denies, deflects and obfuscates.

See what I mean folks?

What claim are you specifically refering to here?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, why doing that while quoting my post about the little nick forward, that had nothing to do with Alverez commiting fraud trying to fool US to believe his jet-effect theory?

Isn’t that a bit weired?

To show which larger post was being referred to when I highlighted the relevant passage. Sorry if you find that odd, but I don’t see why it is preventing you addressing the single issue I have been discussing for a while now.

Anybody can now find the post, and the context within it, to find the specific claim I am trying to query.

They can also see how long those queries have gone unanswered by you apparently hoping to appear you said something else instead, despite obviously having said something else *as well as* as the queried contention.

 

[smartcooky]

manifesto, I think you are not understanding the relationship here. Perhaps you are under the misapprehension that we are debating you in the hope that we can convince you that you are wrong.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I can't speak directly for others here, but certainly, I am aware that you are a lost cause; fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you are irretrievable. I have long since lost any hope (indeed, if there ever was any hope anyway) that you could be convinced that you are wrong, and to let go of your nincompoopery.

I also can't speak to the motives of others here (although I don't feel I am alone in this) but I, for one, only debate you to show the lurkers (some of whom are members here and some who are not) who read these threads without ever posting, how wrong the believers of the "second gunman on the grassy knoll" are. In fact I take great delight in it, probably because I used to be down that particular rabbit hole myself; I still feel somewhat ashamed and embarrassed about that.

The more you flail around, dodging, diverting, denying, obfuscating and refusing to defend claims and answer the hard questions, the deeper you dig yourself into the hole, and the easier it makes my job.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I’m stating my personal very strong suspicion of guilt.

You are stating Oswalds guilt as a historical fact, and demands proof of innocense instead of presenting proof of guilt.

That's because Oswald's guilt is an historical fact because of the consilience of evidence. That seems to be beyond some people's ability to reason so they engage in hypocrisy.

Night and day, it is.

Yes, you () engage in hypocrisy about it, we know. You were asked to explain and defend your hypocrisy. Do so now.

 

[manifesto]

See what I mean folks?

What claim are you specifically refering to here?

 

[manifesto]

See what I mean folks?

That's because Oswald's guilt is an historical fact because of the consilience of evidence. That seems to be beyond some people's ability to reason so they engage in hypocrisy.

To state something doesn’t magically make it so. If there is ”consilience” of evidence against Oswald, I’m still waiting for any of you to present al least some of it.

And no, fabricated evidence is not evidence of his guilt, on the contrary, it is evidence of his innocense being framed as a patsy.

Yes, you () engage in hypocrisy about it, we know. You were asked to explain and defend your hypocrisy. Do so now.

Since I know that you belong to the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, I also know that ”we” need only to post little blue idiot smileys in order to support your weired claims.

A travesty on Scientific Skepticism.

Reclaim the concept.

 

[Tomtomkent]

To state something doesn’t magically make it so. If there is ”consilience” of evidence against Oswald, I’m still waiting for any of you to present al least some of it.

And no, fabricated evidence is not evidence of his guilt, on the contrary, it is evidence of his innocense being framed as a patsy.

Since I know that you belong to the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, I also know that ”we” need only to post little blue idiot smileys in order to support your weired claims.

A travesty on Scientific Skepticism.

Reclaim the concept.

Then convince us: post a theory, show it matches more evidence points, and see if it surpasses the null and withstands scrutiny.
Show us evidence of fabrication.
Show us your theory stands without assumptions or unproven conditions.

 

[manifesto]

To show which larger post was being referred to when I highlighted the relevant passage. Sorry if you find that odd, but I don’t see why it is preventing you addressing the single issue I have been discussing for a while now.

To quote my post while discussing something completely different, THEN claiming that after this, was quoting the part you responded to is not just weired, it’s more than that. Beyond weired.

Anybody can now find the post, and the context within it, to find the specific claim I am trying to query.

They can also see how long those queries have gone unanswered by you apparently hoping to appear you said something else instead, despite obviously having said something else *as well as* as the queried contention.

I have asked you repetedly to point out exactly which of my listed claims I make against Alvarez and his scientific fraud connected to his infamous ”jet-effect theory, that you take issue with. I list them again:

1. He explitely stated that he had NOT used Edisonian ’tweak it until something works”-method, that he had used the scientific method, while in fact done just that, used the Edisonian method. That is fraud.

2. He used taped water melon as substitutes for human heads in order to present empirical support to his flawed theory.

3. He used frangible bullets beacause the original copper-jacketted ammo didn’t deliver his pre concived results.

Do you have any issue with this?

State it.

 

[manifesto]

Then convince us: post a theory, show it matches more evidence points, and see if it surpasses the null and withstands scrutiny.
Show us evidence of fabrication.
Show us your theory stands without assumptions or unproven conditions.

I have already repetedly explained that there is no need for creating a better theory in order to point out flaws in a theory. It is enough to point out the flaws in order to refute it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have already repetedly explained that there is no need for creating a better theory in order to point out flaws in a theory. It is enough to point out the flaws to in order to refute it.

You () haven't refuted the fact that Oswald assassinated JFK. That's an historical fact.

Did you have some other hypothesis to put forward that better fits the consilience of evidence which points to Oswald's guilt alone?

Also, the matter of your hypocrisy in absolving the guilty Oswald and condemning the innocent others is still an outstanding issue that you will need to address.

 

[Tomtomkent]

To quote my post while discussing something completely different, THEN claiming that after this, was quoting the part you responded to is not just weired, it’s more than that. Beyond weired.

I have asked you repetedly to point out exactly which of my listed claims I make against Alvarez and his scientific fraud connected to his infamous ”jet-effect theory. I list them again:

1. He explitely stated that he had NOT used Edisonian ’tweak it until something works”-method, that he had used the scientific method, while in fact done just that, used the Edisonian method. That is fraud.

2. He used taped water melon as substitutes for human heads in order to present empirical support to his flawed theory.

3. He used frangible bullets beacause the original copper-jacketted ammo didn’t deliver his pre concived results.

Do you have any issue with this?

State it.

I highlighted the passage I take issue with. I have since quoted it in isolation.
Why are you pretending that I have any obligation to talk about any other point you raised?
Why are you asking me to address something else?
You stated in your post something was fraudulent for not finding that the shot came from the front.
Whatever else your issues within the same post, that is the only one I want to discuss.

I will assume you are doing this because you now see you can not defend the statement or show a shot came from the knoll.

 

[smartcooky]

I have already repetedly explained that there is no need for creating a better theory in order to point out flaws in a theory. It is enough to point out the flaws to in order to refute it.

And you have the gall to accuse others of lacking substance... you're the one who's transparent here.

You have utterly failed to make a dent in the null, again.

 

[manifesto]

manifesto, I think you are not understanding the relationship here. Perhaps you are under the misapprehension that we are debating you in the hope that we can convince you that you are wrong.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I can't speak directly for others here, but certainly, I am aware that you are a lost cause; fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you are irretrievable. I have long since lost any hope (indeed, if there ever was any hope anyway) that you could be convinced that you are wrong, and to let go of your nincompoopery.

I also can't speak to the motives of others here (although I don't feel I am alone in this) but I, for one, only debate you to show the lurkers (some of whom are members here and some who are not) who read these threads without ever posting, how wrong the believers of the "second gunman on the grassy knoll" are. In fact I take great delight in it, probably because I used to be down that particular rabbit hole myself; I still feel somewhat ashamed and embarrassed about that.

The more you flail around, dodging, diverting, denying, obfuscating and refusing to defend claims and answer the hard questions, the deeper you dig yourself into the hole, and the easier it makes my job.

Certainly you can talk for all the other members of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut in the thread. It is like a hive mind. It is common within your denomination that you once was lost and now have found the light, accepting everything that point at Lone Nut Oswald as the Lone Nut assassin of JFK, on faith alone.

I’m here to tell you the truth. Nothing else.

 

[manifesto]

And you have the gall to accuse others of lacking substance... you're the one who's transparent here.

You have utterly failed to make a dent in the null, again.

If you construct a ”null” out of thin air and religious proclamations of faith it is impossible to make a ”dent” in it. It is nothing there do make a dent in.

That’s the point, isn’t it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Certainly you can talk for all the other members of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut in the thread. It is like a hive mind. It is common within your denomination that you once was lost and now have found the light, accepting everything that point at Lone Nut Oswald as the Lone Nut assassin of JFK, on faith alone.

I’m here to tell you the truth. Nothing else.

, which CT website told you to think that?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have already repetedly explained that there is no need for creating a better theory in order to point out flaws in a theory. It is enough to point out the flaws in order to refute it.

Even though you definitely could?

No, you are willfully misrepresenting my statement.

- You are stating as a fact that Oswald was/is guilty of the assassination of JFK.

- I am stating that I highly suspect that LBJ, JEH and AD was guilty as co conspirators behind the assassination of JFK.

Could I prove it in court? Maybe, maybe not. Could I present a plausible scenario for the historical record?
Definitely, yes.

Even though that would be the easiest and best way to convince many posters here?

Why?

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you construct a ”null” out of thin air and religious proclamations of faith it is impossible to make a ”dent” in it. It is nothing there do make a dent in.

That’s the point, isn’t it.

, your braggadocio about how well-read you were on the assassination now rings hollow, doesn't it? You don't really seem to know much of anything about it.

In your own words, describe the null hypothesis.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you construct a ”null” out of thin air and religious proclamations of faith it is impossible to make a ”dent” in it. It is nothing there do make a dent in.

That’s the point, isn’t it.

The irony being those you call a church are the ones telling you how to convince them they are wrong, and explaining how to overturn their views.

Just to make this painfully obvious, I just spent several days showing you what would be required to validate the best evidence you have proposed.

Instead you have argued and dodged and misrepresented the acoustic analysis, convincing me only of how little you understand.

Just for the record, despite the obvious flaws in your approach, people are taking the time to explain why they are unconvinced, so you can present a better case.

Hardly fitting of your view of them, is it?

 

[bknight]

Ganging up with like minded to suppress and trash every trace of a civilized discussion of the JFK assassination taking root in the thread.

It is a barrage and you are part of it. Content being so.

Why? Who knows.

If you have any evidence that hasn't been debunked hundreds of times, bring it on. All you do is post nonsense in defense of a non existent conspiracy, why should we step up and trash those comments. And why do you comment on a conspiracy, what benefit do you get out of it?

 

[bknight]

I have no such qualifications, no. Better yet, YOU name a known nerve reflex from trauma that can account for JFK’s head movement’s when hit by a bullet in Z-312.

No since I'm not an expert in GSW to the head, I'll not name a nerve reflex, but what I would do is to search for same like you should, instead of playing "professional". From what I've read there are many possibilities to the head movement described, and none of them begin with a head shot from the front.