• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
manifesto said:
Is it your odd way of promoting stalking and harassments instead of detailed critique based on science and good arguments?

Or is this a ’privilege’ only reserved for ”RoboTimbo” and if so, why is that?
Click to expand...

You're attempting to deflect from your cite of a YouTube video that isn't at all pertinent to the JFK assassination, but you posted it - and drew conclusions from it - as if it was pertinent. It wasn't. It still isn't. You ignored my points and claimed you needed more data to evaluate the claims from the peer-reviewed science journal - but contrary to that, you posted a whole slew of conclusions you drew from a YouTube video of bullets hitting bloody sponges, of all things.

So now, instead of dealing with the problems with your posts and your arguments, instead you're attacking me for pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

That's funny.

You're still just pounding the table.

Go for it. I have no need to retaliate. I have the facts on my side.

All the best,

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
I had to question why you were citing the results of a bullet hitting a bloody sponge, which has nothing to do with what happened in the JFK assassination (JFK was struck in the head, not in the sponge), so I researched it a bit and found this abstract:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.13713

Journal of Forensic Sciences
Cranial Backspatter Pattern Production Utilizing Human Cadavers
"The backspatter pattern produced by shooting an actual human head was found to be different than those of blood‐soaked sponges in the number of stains produced, the size and size range of the stains, and the stain dispersion patterns."

So I understand EXACTLY why you're citing videos of bullets striking bloody sponges - They have nothing to do with what happened to JFK during the assassination but they allow you to keep your argument alive while pretending you're citing something meaningful.

You're not. The above establishes that. The results from a bullet striking a sponge is different than the results of the bullet striking a human head. Citing what you did proves nothing, and is meaningless to the JFK assassination.

Your link: YouTube.
My link: A peer-reviewed science publication.

You lose.

Hank
Click to expand...


Now that is what I call a botty-smacking* !!

* US translation... ass whooping!
 
manifesto said:
I dare you to find ONE post from ”RoboTimbo” containing detailed and substantiated critique.

One post.
Click to expand...

I dare you ;) to find one that you've answered. For example, why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater when they had him cornered?
 
HSienzant said:
Well, you know where to find it, don't you? Or you can repeat the test for yourself. Report back with your findings.

Curiously, you didn't need any data to derive a whole lot of conclusions from a youtube video, did you?

But when a science journal publishes something contrary to your beliefs, then you suddenly need to 'evaluate' all that, right?
Click to expand...
No. It is YOU who need to substantiate YOUR claim and to explain in what way these alleged studies refute my claim based on the sponge video.

My primary claim is that backspatter initially travels faster than the incoming bullet = appear at the instant of the bullet hitting the head = bullet from in front.

My secondary claim is that the chape and form of the blood spatter visible in Z313 is typical of backspatter = bullet from in front

The logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

You're obviously presenting us with only one real choice, because the other one isn't reprehensible at all.

You should know by now I would spot this logical fallacy and point it out.

I can reach a logical conclusion from your action here - you're desperate to continue the conversation on this point and thus see no recourse but to resort to logical fallacies to do so.

Hank
Click to expand...
It is YOU who are categoricing all who are convinced that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy being ”CT’s”, not me.

A more resent development is an almost full circle inversion of the positions in the debate, calling all who are convinced of a conspiracy for ”conspiracists” and ”conspiracy mongers”.

Why is that, Hank? Is it another sign of you living in an inverted universe where up is down, black is white and good is evil?

Tell me, Hank.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
No. It is YOU who need to substantiate YOUR claim and to explain in what way these alleged studies refute my claim based on the sponge video.

My primary claim is that backspatter initially travels faster than the incoming bullet = appear at the instant of the bullet hitting the head = bullet from in front.

My secondary claim is that the chape and form of the blood spatter visible in Z313 is typical of backspatter = bullet from in front
Click to expand...
Now you ;) just need to back up your claims.

It is YOU who are categoricing all who are convinced that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy being ”CT’s”, not me.

A more resent development is an almost full circle inversion of the positions in the debate, calling all who are convinced of a conspiracy for ”conspiracists” and ”conspiracy mongers”.

Why is that, Hank? Is it another sign of you living in an inverted universe where up is down, black is white and good is evil?

Tell me, Hank.
Click to expand...
Table banging.
 
RoboTimbo said:
I dare you ;) to find one that you've answered. For example, why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater when they had him cornered?
Click to expand...
A good starting point would be if you make an effort of substantiate your claim of Oswald killing Tippit.

I’m not holding my breath.
 
manifesto said:
Yes I understand what is said in the abstact, but in order to evaluate said ”differences” relevance for the blood spatter visible in Z313 I need more data.
Click to expand...

Blood spatter, yes. Back spatter, you still need to establish.

We got here because you tried to cite as an expert a known conspiracy theorist (Sherry Fiester) whose sister-in-law (Debra Conway) runs a well-known JFK conspiracy site (http://www.jfklancer.com/).

The fact that Fiester falsely cited out of context a test utilizing a metal rod dropping in blood proved anything about the velocity of back spatter or forward spatter from a bullet wound was pointed out to you.

To attempt to salvage that argument, you tried to cite a YouTube video showing a bloody sponge being shot with a bullet, but the problems with that was likewise pointed out to you.

So your claims are still unproven. Anytime you want to get back on point, we'll be here.

Hank
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
A good starting point would be if you make an effort of substantiate your claim of Oswald killing Tippit.

I’m not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

Here's a starting point:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#tippit

If you don't like that one, try this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GDTYR3S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Tell us your theory about who shot Tippit and why. Support with evidence. Make it reasonable. Show us how it fits the evidence better than the above. Be prepared to actually discuss the evidence and advance your argument, not just try to pick holes in the existing case while withholding your own theory.

We'll wait, but we won't hold our breath.

Hank

PS: I suppose we're not supposed to notice you're now arguing about whether Tippit was shot by Oswald and no longer arguing about the supposed backspatter whatsoever. I noticed. That's the logical fallacy of a Red Herring - changing the subject

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring
Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Blood spatter, yes. Back spatter, you still need to establish.

We got here because you tried to cite as an expert a known conspiracy theorist (Sherry Fiester) whose sister-in-law (Debra Conway) runs a well-known JFK conspiracy site (http://www.jfklancer.com/).

The fact that Fiester falsely cited out of context a test utilizing a metal rod dropping in blood proved anything about the velocity of back spatter or forward spatter from a bullet wound was pointed out to you.

To attempt to salvage that argument, you tried to cite a YouTube video showing a bloody sponge being shot with a bullet, but the problems with that was likewise pointed out to you.

So your claims are still unproven. Anytime you want to get back on point, we'll be here.

Hank
Click to expand...
The sponge tests is standard for the scientific field of blood spatter analysis. If you have other info, present it in full. Abstracts will not suffice.

Sherry Fiester was (deceased) a recognized expert in blood spatter analysis and her book is full of foot notes to published science by leading international experts in the field.

It would be impossible to find any research confirming a conspiracy without citing ”CT’s” since their findings per definition make them such in your universe, Hank.

Sorry to disappoint you.
 
manifesto said:
Sherry Fiester was (deceased) a recognized expert in blood spatter analysis and her book is full of foot notes to published science by leading international experts in the field.
Click to expand...

How many of Oswald's shots hit JFK? Have you ;) backed off of your claim that Oswald didn't murder Officer Tippitt since you ;) can't back it up?
 
manifesto said:
Well, why are you stalking me with your blue little idiot smileys from day one, if not for trying to harass me and make a mockery of everything I put forward.

You haven’t responded ONCE with a detailed critique of anything I have written so far. Only stalking, harassing and making a mockery.

I call this EXPOSING, yes.
Click to expand...

You make claims and then refuse to back them up.

You demand scientific evidence yet when it is presented to you the reaction is to wave it away in favor of long ago debunked experiments, or the science is simply ignored.

You cite or link only to CT websites, and not to academic, or anything legitimate.

You drift from one failed claim to the next, and then back as if it hasn't been discussed.

You are certainly exposing the CT mindset.;)
 
manifesto said:
No need to thank me, just spell it out in a comprehensive fashion, easy to follow.

Should I hold my breath?
Click to expand...

Thank you ;) for your further admission to knowing so little about the assassination that you ;) apparently don't know where to find info beyond what your CT websites tell you ;) to think.

Why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom