Bare assertions. Citations please.You don't get to tell me how to respond. I have asked you multiple times to provide citations for many assertions, but you have hand waved them away or ignored them. Until you start associating assertions with citations, then all you have are bare assertions.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
tell me what the WCR had to say about it?bknight
Master Poster
There are no assertions, if you want to find where I have asked, then do a search on my name and find them. I'll not do your research for you.
.
ETA: it took about 10 seconds to search and the 9th result contained a request, that you ignore or don't have any citations, the latter I suspect.
Last edited:
Slightly = the opposite side of the back of the head?
HSCA positioned it on the midline in the cowlick area pointing it out in an alleged autopsy photo.
Ca 11 cm above and ca 4 cm to the right of where the autopsy doctors positioned it.
Scaled up it’s like living in Tokyo saying you are living in the neighborhood of Melbourne. That is a lot of realaste.
A lot.
No. You are comparing two completely different phenomena. Compare the violent thrust backward to the left with the movement forward, and the comparison gives a ”minute” vs. ”violent thrust” distinction.
No. You embarrassing yourself in public doesn’t equal me contradicting myself.
But please continue exposing yourself for who you are. Of what you are made of.
That's my prime purpose of being here.
Last edited:
Bare assertions. Citations needed.There are no assertions, if you want to find where I have asked, then do a search on my name and find them. I'll not do your research for you.
.
ETA: it took about 10 seconds to search and the 9th result contained a request, that you ignore or don't have any citations, the latter I suspect.
Here is testimony from Alfred Oliver on behalf of the Rockefeller Commission on how the backward motion was due to a neuromuscular reaction or jet effect.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
It wasn't from a bullet. Bullets don't do that. Find me one ballistics expert that believes otherwise.
For everyone. Even you, Hank.
He was aqcuitted because Garrison couldn’t show his guilt without reasonable doubt. That said, if Shaw had not perjured himself before the court. Yes, his alias was Clay/Clem Bertrand and yes, he was a highly paid asset for the CIA.
If the jury had known this, Shaw had been convicted of taking part in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
Not convicted of anything to my knowledge. Suspect of having some kind of connection to the conspiracy and/or the cover up? Of course she is.
Convicted? No. Suspect? Lol.
Convicted? No. Suspect? Lol.
Convicted? No. Suspect? Maybe.
Convicted? No. Suspect of carrying the water for officialdom in Dallas and in Washington DC/Langley? Lol.
Suspect ≠ guilty.
Yes Hank, you too are a suspect.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Begging the question. Abraham Zapruder, who filmed the assassination and who owned the rights to his personal property (the Zapruder film showing the assassination) sold the print rights to LIFE Magazine, but not the film rights. It could NOT be shown as a film. See, in this country, there's such a thing as personal property, and property rights (not everything is owned by the state) and Zapruder deliberately withheld the movie rights to the film because he thought it was too gruesome to show in movie theatres.
But grainy bootleg copies of the film became available in the late 1960's after the Garrison trial of Clay Shaw and then one of those copies was shown on national television (March 6th 1975). Zapruder was deceased by that time (died August 30, 1970) and the family declined to sue for infringement.
To my knowledge, Humes never said anything like that. I'd ask for a quote, but you don't have one.
They owned the print rights. Why would they comment on the alleged movement? LIFE magazine wasn't a ballistics expert. Nor a physicist.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Oh, my god! That old canard? You butchered it completely. I haven't seen that issue raised in at least ten years. I thought it was good and buried.
Yeah, two frames were printed out of order in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence, but because of the nature of the way they were printed, that was readily apparent that the images had been switched.
Here's the film as published frame by frame in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0008a.htm
Note the way it's published, earlier frame on top (frame 173 proceeding to the next frame, 174, below), then the next two top-to-bottom on the next page.
But also note they also showed in those exhibits more than the numbered frame - they included the bottom portion of the prior frame and the top portion of the following frame. Because of that additional information, it's easy to tell two frames had been switched in the printed exhibit.
If the intent was to deceive, why print the additional information that makes it obvious the frames were switched?
Now for the 'switcheroo' that is patently obvious and would fool no one:
Here's the frames labelled 313-314: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0042b.htm
And 315-316: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0043a.htm
Note that frame 313 (with the head explosion) is seen at the top of the frame labelled in the exhibit frame 315. Thus, it's clear that exhibit labelled frame 315 actually shows frame 314 in the middle of the exhibit, as it's the the frame following frame 313. The Government Printing Office actually printed those two frames in reverse order, making the backward movement appear GREATER, not less: (look at these two images again: matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0042b.htm
By jumping directly from 313 to 315, JFK appears to move back more quickly than in reality).
A little more background: Slides were made from the film frames by LIFE magazine at the request of the Warren Commission and labelled so the individual frames could be examined without melting the film in the projector. Those slides are properly labelled. The film itself is of course in the proper order. The only problem is frames 314 and 315 are switched in the printed exhibits by the GPO. The FBI had nothing to do with these exhibits, and you should be blaming the GPO, not the FBI.
And by the way, frames 283 and 284 are also incorrect in the Warren Commission printed volumes (but not in the film and not in the slides). Those two frames in the printed exhibit are actually the same frame printed twice. But to my knowledge, no one has ever complained about that.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0035a.htm
Next for Manifesto to complain about: The images of the sign showed bullet strikes, thus those images were removed from the exhibit as well.
Hank
Last edited:
I didn’t request known nerve reflexes from goats, I requested such from humans, since JFK was, a human.
Do you have any?
HSienzant
Philosopher
They never said he was standing. You butchered that as well. You really need to check your conspiracy addict sources for veracity. They don't have much. Veracity, that is.
In the same issue one writer wrote that, LIFE Magazine published the frames showing JFK facing forward. Even as a kid, I realized the writer was wrong to suggest JFK turned around. Again, if the intent was to deceive, why publish the frames?
I'd ask you to document this but I doubt if you have an actual non-conspiracy source. We've already seen your conspiracy addict sources aren't exactly concerned with accuracy, only conspiracy.
Well, because you're a conspiracy addict, and you don't check your sources for their veracity. The disinformation is mostly coming from you - as explained above.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Dr Werner Spitz, forensic pathologist, Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Michigan: "It is impossible to conclude from the motion of the President's head and body following the head shot, from which direction the shots came. There is no doubt that as soon as the President was struck in the head, death occurred. The President's body was thus limp, devoid of control and stability normally exerted by the cerebral centers. Nothing would keep the body up at this stage and a forward drop is likely to occur. The subsequent backward movement of the President's head can be explained by sudden decerebration. This position is well known as "decerebrate posture" and is characterized by opisthotonos, a tetanic spasm -- or seizure-like condition."
Dr. Fred Hodges, Professor of Radiology (Neuroradiology), The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine: "The motion of the President's head as shown in the Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion, but the visible blow-out of tissue and bony fragments in frame 313 and subsequent frames do conclusively indicate the bullet came from behind. The head motion subsequently is interpreted as due to involuntary muscle extension and not due to the direction of the injury."[/I]
Richard Lindenberg, M.D., Director of Neuropathology and Legal Medicine, State of Maryland: "Immediately after the shot through the head the President took rather abruptly an almost erect position before slumping over to the left. This straightening is to be considered a sudden opisthotonic reflex movement due to decerebration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opisthotonus
"Opisthotonus or opisthotonos, from Greek roots, ὄπισθεν, opisthen meaning "behind" and τόνος tonos meaning "tension", is a state of severe hyperextension and spasticity in which an individual's head, neck and spinal column enter into a complete "bridging" or "arching" position.[1][2] This abnormal posturing is an extrapyramidal effect and is caused by spasm of the axial muscles along the spinal column."
"It is seen in some cases of severe cerebral palsy and traumatic brain injury or as a result of the severe muscular spasms associated with tetanus. It can be a feature of severe acute hydrocephalus."
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003299.htm
Decerebrate posture is an abnormal body posture that involves the arms and legs being held straight out, the toes being pointed downward, and the head and neck being arched backward. The muscles are tightened and held rigidly. This type of posturing usually means there has been severe damage to the brain.
Considerations
A severe injury to the brain is the usual cause of decerebrate posture.
Opisthotonos (a severe muscle spasm of the neck and back) may occur in severe cases of decerebrate posture.
Decerebrate posture can occur on one side, on both sides, or in just the arms. It may alternate with another type of abnormal posture called decorticate posture. A person can also have decorticate posture on one side of the body and decerebrate posture on the other side.
Decerebrate posture is an abnormal body posture that involves the arms and legs being held straight out, the toes being pointed downward, and the head and neck being arched backward. The muscles are tightened and held rigidly. This type of posturing usually means there has been severe damage to the brain.
Considerations
A severe injury to the brain is the usual cause of decerebrate posture.
Opisthotonos (a severe muscle spasm of the neck and back) may occur in severe cases of decerebrate posture.
Decerebrate posture can occur on one side, on both sides, or in just the arms. It may alternate with another type of abnormal posture called decorticate posture. A person can also have decorticate posture on one side of the body and decerebrate posture on the other side.
HSienzant
Philosopher
That's what you're apparently attempting to do. Meanwhile, we're critiquing your critique, and you're failing - badly.
Hence your concentration on the *supposed* errors and *supposed* fabrications. But when we examine them more closely, we find they are built up out of quotes out of context, logical fallacies, and misinterpretations (like your grainy photo of supposed smoke on the knoll. Remember being challenged to exclude other possibilities and to post a better image than the grainy one that apparently showed even more smoke on the overpass?)
We tried the judicial procedure way with you not too long ago. Don't you remember?
I cited the testimony from J.C.Day, William Waldman and Harry Holmes to establish the rifle found on the sixth floor was shipped to Oswald's PO box. I did it as if this was a court. After each witness, I turned the witness over to you, exactly as if you were the defense attorney, and said "Your witness", leaving each witness on the stand for you to cross examine them. I asked you repeatedly if you had any questions for those three men. You ignored the multiple requests to follow up.
You don't get to pretend that's a better way to get to the truth now when you had your opportunity to do exactly that and wouldn't go near it.
You had no questions for these men. The jury would hear their testimony, and then "no questions" from the defense counsel. They would conclude the evidence indicated Oswald's rifle was the one found in the Depository shortly after the shooting.
J.C.Day's testimony: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12256386&postcount=1021
William Waldman's testimony: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12257354&postcount=1078
Harry Holmes testimony: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12257552&postcount=1087
Do you buy your straw by the ton or the half-ton?
I ask because that's another straw man argument you're suggesting. This is not a court inquiry, but a discussion group.
Oswald is dead. So are most of the witnesses, all of the Warren Commissioners, and most if not all of the junior counsel. This isn't a court inquiry, and there's no danger of Oswald being convicted and put in jail.
The fact that you can't put the evidence together in any way that makes sense even after a lapse of 54 years without contradicting yourself and common sense is clear to everyone here. In this discussion group.
Your putting Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder at the time of the Tippit murder is classic in that regard (something critics have been arguing was impossible for 54 years), as was your suggestion he ran from the killer while the woman you denigrated (Mrs. Helen Markham) ran to the shooting victim. So mostly conspiracy addicts don't try to advance a scenario, because they crush their own arguments elsewhere (like your three inches is a 'minute' amount, but four inches is 'a lot of real estate!').
Still a straw man argument. In historical inquiry, we can compare and contrast alternative scenarios against the evidence. There is one scenario on the table that fits most of the known evidence and leaves the fewest unexplained gaps. So far you automatically lose, because you haven't advanced a competitive scenario.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hilarious. It's going to be awfully hard to get human subjects to test.
I'd ask you to volunteer to be the subject of the test, but we both know you won't.
So you set up impossible conditions everyone knows won't be met, and then say you won't be satisfied until those impossible conditions are met.
Nope. Nobody cares about your feelings about this.
If you have a problem with the goat experiment, tell us in what way goats' nervous systems are significantly different than humans, and why the test with goats wasn't a valid test.
Of course, you can't, so you just pretend the test is inadequate.
And we both know that if we got such a test (say a prisoner scheduled for execution choosing that method of execution instead of lethal injection), you would complain that the prisoner wasn't a president, or the same size and weight, the rifle was only ten feet away instead 265 feet, or anything else you could find that was different to invalidate said test.
Hank
Last edited:
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
It seems very likely to me that there were railroad tracks on the railroad bridge.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Funny that you don't require evidence or a conviction or even a trial for anyone other than Oswald.
Shaw was tried and found Not Guilty. That is what you want for Oswald, but for anyone else, it's still not sufficient? Your arguments are a joke. You want Oswald to be innocent, and somebody else, anyone else, it doesn't matter who, to be guilty. It is so apparent in the way you complain that Oswald didn't get a trial, was denied his day in court, but then dismiss the verdict in an actual trial that found the actual defendant not guilty.
It's so good you're that excellent at mind-reading, and the mind-reading of twelve now mostly deceased individuals. You must teach us your skill at this.
It's also good that you make unproven assertions without evidence. I'd ask for your evidence, but you don't have any. Everyone here reading this knows that.
So everyone's a suspect, including me, but the only one you're concerned about being convicted in the minds of the populace is Oswald? Why is that? Who speaks for Ruth Paine or LBJ or Hoover? Or me?
Why the double-standard here?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
In fact, there are photos!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8NRnvjDWZ...f-Dealey-Plaza-In-Dallas-Texas-Circa-1967.jpg
Of course, there's no telling if the photos are doctored. Maybe Manifesto can explain whether that's the case or not.
Hank
Last edited:
- Status