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

[manifesto]

This is an oddly specific thing to quibble over.

In both versions, Oswald struck a cop in the face and pulled a gun on him. Who cares about the specific reason it misfired? Both versions make Oswald look guilty as hell.

Well spoken.

 

[manifesto]

The supporting evidence has been laid out in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission for 54 years and the House Select Committee investigation for 39 years. Both of these resources are freely available on multiple websites online.

Forgive the users here if they don't feel like wasting the time cutting it up into bite-sized morsels and spoon feeding it to you.

It doesn’t matter where you store your evidence, you have to provide the source, cite the evidence and argue for its veracity.

Or, shall I do this for you? Really?

 

[manifesto]

There doesn't need to be anything white. Sunny day, glass windshield, chrome trim. Do the math.

Nothing in that clip looks remotely like a motorcycle or a helmet. A vehicle was easily the right height to appear in that spot, and several of them were rolling through that area at that time.

It’s too low and have no shiny white anything on top of the windshield.

Get it?

 

[manifesto]

Why would my opinion effect the evidence you can supply for your narrative of what you believe happened differently?

Do you have something to actually state, at all?

Because it is YOU WHO MAKE THE CLAIM.

 

[manifesto]

They have already been substantiated in the discussion and by the investigations of the WC.

You claim you are familiar with the evidence. Why does it need to be restated?

We have a null hypothesis, why state it again? Why not just supply evidence of what YOU believe happened differently?

So, according to YOU, what is the ”Null” regarding the murder weapon/s used to kill Tippit?

 

[traxy]

It’s too low

Prove it.

What height is your white blob in inches?

Oh...you can't, can you? "Resolution is too low" and all that. You really have no idea what height your object is, therefore you can't rule out anything that would have been a reasonable height moving through that area.

"Process of elimination" only works if you can...you know...eliminate stuff. Without knowing the exact height of your blob, you haven't eliminated anything.

 

[heymatto70]

That I am fairly up do date on the current developments in the research of said topic.

I’m not stating this as an argument for or against anything in particular, I’m stating it when accused of not knowing anything about said topic, since I insist that my opponent/s provide their sources and cite what they find convincing evidence supporting their claim/s.

I’m not here to provide supporting evidence to my opponents bald claims but in spite of this rather self evident state of affairs, I’m time and again requested to do just that.

Yes I know, it is pure madness, but do not forget where we are, inside the Mighty Curch of the Lone Assassin, where up is down, black is white, wrong is right, evil is goodness.

I’m doing my best exposing this, telling the truth.

Just showing that for the record, you aren't even willing to provide where you get your information from. Exposing indeed.

Carry on all. I'll continue to lurk in this convo.

 

[Steve]

To others you say:

It doesn’t matter where you store your evidence, you have to provide the source, cite the evidence and argue for its veracity.

Or, shall I do this for you? Really?

And when asked for your sources you say:

That I am fairly up do date on the current developments in the research of said topic.

I’m not stating this as an argument for or against anything in particular, I’m stating it when accused of not knowing anything about said topic, since I insist that my opponent/s provide their sources and cite what they find convincing evidence supporting their claim/s.

I’m not here to provide supporting evidence to my opponents bald claims but in spite of this rather self evident state of affairs, I’m time and again requested to do just that.

Yes I know, it is pure madness, but do not forget where we are, inside the Mighty Curch of the Lone Assassin, where up is down, black is white, wrong is right, evil is goodness.

I’m doing my best exposing this, telling the truth.

There is a word for this. Can you say *hypocrite*?

 

[manifesto]

Prove it.

What height is your white blob in inches?

Oh...you can't, can you? "Resolution is too low" and all that. You really have no idea what height your object is, therefore you can't rule out anything that would have been a reasonable height moving through that area.

"Process of elimination" only works if you can...you know...eliminate stuff. Without knowing the exact height of your blob, you haven't eliminated anything.

Look at the Hughes film. The top of the car-6 windshield is waist high compared to the bystanders.

The white blob is ca a half head lower than the men standing on the west side of Houston.

You do the math.

 

[manifesto]

To others you say:




And when asked for your sources you say:




There is a word for this. Can you say *hypocrite*?

I’m not stating my understanding of the current developments of the research in any specific topic as an excuse for not providing sources and evidence when requested to do so. I do that in order to counter accusations of not knowing anything of said topic, when I ask for evidence supporting my opponents claims.

Night and day difference.

 

[traxy]

Look at the Hughes film. The top of the car-6 windshield is waist high compared to the bystanders.
The white blob is ca a half head lower than the men standing on the west side of Houston.

You do the math.

What. Height. Is. The. White. Blob?

Without having that figure, you can't rule out anything.

 

[HSienzant]

This is an oddly specific thing to quibble over.

In both versions, Oswald struck a cop in the face and pulled a gun on him. Who cares about the specific reason it misfired? Both versions make Oswald look guilty as hell.

Bear in mind the goal of CTs isn't to solve the crime - that was done 55 years ago.

The goal here is to find some reason to discard all the evidence against Oswald. The discrepancies in witness accounts are to be expected, as you note. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and any discrepancy by witnesses is iblown up out of proportion to be used to question all the evidence, and to argue, in effect, "Well, if they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? We can't trust any of this evidence!"

I know you know this is specious argument. This is more for the benefit of the lurkers who might be new to the discussion.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

What. Height. Is. The. White. Blob?

Without having that figure, you can't rule out anything.

Hight. Is. Relative. To. The. Hight. Of. The. Bystanders.

- Car-6 top of windshield = waist high, average male bystander.

- White blob = half a head lower than hight of average male bystander.


White blob too high to be the top of the car-6 windshield.

 

[Steve]

I’m not stating my understanding of the current developments of the research in any specific topic as an excuse for not providing sources and evidence when requested to do so. I do that in order to counter accusations of not knowing anything of said topic, when I ask for evidence supporting my opponents claims.

Night and day difference.

I was going to respond to this but Hank did it for me:

Bear in mind the goal of CTs isn't to solve the crime - that was done 55 years ago.

The goal here is to find some reason to discard all the evidence against Oswald. The discrepancies in witness accounts are to be expected, as you note. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and any discrepancy by witnesses is iblown up out of proportion to be used to question all the evidence, and to argue, in effect, "Well, if they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? We can't trust any of this evidence!"

I know you know this is specious argument. This is more for the benefit of the lurkers who might be new to the discussion.

Hank

 

[traxy]

Hight. Is. Relative. To. The. Hight. Of. The. Bystanders.

- Car-6 top of windshield = waist high, average male bystander.

- White blob = half a head lower than hight of average male bystander.


White blob too high to be the top of the car-6 windshield.

What. Height. Is. The. White. Blob?

No, the top of the car 6 windshield was not "waist high". You're embarrassing yourself. The top of my windshield is shoulder height on me and I'm 6'5. If the top of the windshield was waist high, that would put the top of the door at your knees, and the bottom of the door in the pavement.

Come on man. Do better.

 

[manifesto]

Bear in mind the goal of CTs isn't to solve the crime - that was done 55 years ago.

Lol.

The goal here is to find some reason to discard all the evidence against Oswald.

No. The goal is to expose the so called evidence for what it is.

The discrepancies in witness accounts are to be expected, as you note.

Is it? Do you have a magic limit here? How much contradictions are to be expected before a member of the Mighty Church starts to wonder? An infinite amount?

What kind of contradictions are to be expected? Trivial? Critical for the case?

But desperate times call for desperate measures,

Yes, Hank. The reckoning has come.

and any discrepancy by witnesses is iblown up out of proportion to be used to question all the evidence, and to argue, in effect, "Well, if they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? We can't trust any of this evidence!"

Every case has to be evaluated on its own terms, but I can say this, if an individual change critical parts of the story x times, the same individuals credibility diminishes in proportion to x times.

Of course.

I know you know this is specious argument. This is more for the benefit of the lurkers who might be new to the discussion.

Hank

Lol.

 

[manifesto]

I was going to respond to this but Hank did it for me:

Whatever dude.

 

[traxy]

Bear in mind the goal of CTs isn't to solve the crime - that was done 55 years ago.

The goal here is to find some reason to discard all the evidence against Oswald. The discrepancies in witness accounts are to be expected, as you note. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and any discrepancy by witnesses is iblown up out of proportion to be used to question all the evidence, and to argue, in effect, "Well, if they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? We can't trust any of this evidence!"

I know you know this is specious argument. This is more for the benefit of the lurkers who might be new to the discussion.

Hank

I just don't get the mentality. These people have obviously never worked around law enforcement before.

What does he expect? That we'll throw away 2 entire sets of witness testimony because they disagree on one innocuous item? Of course it doesn't work that way. No crimes would EVER get solved if you only accepted witness statements that were the same, letter for letter.

 

[manifesto]

I just don't get the mentality. These people have obviously never worked around law enforcement before.

What does he expect? That we'll throw away 2 entire sets of witness testimony

What ”two sets”?

because they disagree on one innocuous item?

What ”innocuous item”?

Of course it doesn't work that way. No crimes would EVER get solved if you only accepted witness statements that were the same, letter for letter.

Who on earth have suggested otherwise?

 

[Steve]

Whatever dude.

Good response. Now please provide some evidence for your wild speculations.