• 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?
Click to expand...

We've tried reason
We've tried logic
We've tried science
We've tried detailed explanations
We've tried detailed critiques
We've tried evidence

Your response almost every case has been to ignore, handwave, dismiss, obfuscate, side-track or feign failure to understand.

On the few occasions you have actually responded with evidence, it has in no way supported the case you are trying to make, or you have wilfully and dishonestly selected parts of the evidence, while excluding anything that refutes your case - your presentation of the blood splatter tests are prime examples of this.

You have debated very dishonestly in this thread.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then go to your local library and find the full published paper. Or spring for the subscription payment. The information from a peer-reviewed science journal has been presented. You're pretending your layman's conclusions reached from a YouTube video takes precedence over the tests conducted and published in a peer-reviewed science journal. I'm saying, "No, they don't".


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...

And the point you quoted from Sherry Fiester was exposed as taken out of context and misleading (perhaps deliberately so - it's hard to image how she could think a weight falling into some blood would replicate a bullet hitting a skull concerning the velocity of the blood spatter), but she presented those test results as pertinent when they were not.


manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

She could have quoted the findings from the original author directly. She didn't, she paraphrased them and presented the findings as representing something they were not. She took the results out of context and presented them as confirming a conspiracy when they did nothing of the sort.

That is why I insist on asking for direct quotes from the original - non-conspiracy - sources, and not quotes from published conspiracy authors. Conspiracy authors don't exactly have a sterling reputation for honesty, as far as my own research into the subject goes.


manifesto said:
Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

I'm not disappointed. You're doing exactly as I've seen hundreds of other CT posters do since I started debating this subject online. Cite stuff you really don't understand, claim CT authors are unbiased sources when they are not, and then get angry when people question your claims and present contrary evidence. None of this is new to me. I've seen it happen to many people who try to argue for a conspiracy in this case, when they don't realize most of what they read on the conspiracy side are claims taken out of context or claims that are contradicted by the evidence (like calling witnesses who named the Depository as the source of the shots "Knoll" witnesses). I keep pointing out how your cited source was less than honest there, and yet you keep citing it. Why is that?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
You make claims and then refuse to back them up.
Click to expand...
Name one.

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.
Click to expand...
An abstract saying that some of the driplets are ”different” is not ”scientific evidence” of anything and certainly not against my claim that backspatter initially travels faster than the incoming bullet.

You cite or link only to CT websites, and not to academic, or anything legitimate.
Click to expand...
The sponge video is made by academics and experts in the field of blood spatter analysis. It is used in teaching all over the world.

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

ONE.

You are certainly exposing the CT mindset.;)
Click to expand...
Do you want me to list ALL your failed claims since I began posting in the thread, Axxman300?

Let me know and I’ll do it. It’ll take some time considering the vast amount, but it would certainly be worth it.

As a cautionary tale.
 
manifesto said:
I asked RoboTimbo, Hank.

RoboTimbo ≠ Hank.
Click to expand...

What possible difference does it make to someone truly interested in resolving the supposed issues in this case who presents them with the counter-argument?

I can see no legitimate reason to claim RoboTimbo needs to present this, if you are truly interested in resolving the issues you think exist here that make Oswald's killing of Tippit questionable.

So it appears from here that you're not interested in the evidence or in discussing the case. You're interested in scoring points at the expense of the case.

Hank
 
RoboTimbo said:
You ;) claim that Oswald didn't murder Officer Tippitt. You ;) know that you ;) have no way to back that up.
Click to expand...
No, you are making two claims, RoboTimbo:

1. Oswald killed Tippit.

2. Oswald killed Tippit = ”Null”.

I’m still waiting for you to present a comprehensive explanation of how you came to these two conclusions.

Should I hold my breath?
 
manifesto said:
Good. Present ONE example of this ”90%”.

One example.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that you ;) are going to stay answering questions and providing evidence for your claims?

What is your ;) comprehensive hypothesis for how JFK was assassinated? Note that it must address ALL of the evidence with NO anomolies. The same standard you ;) demand of the null hypothesis.
 
HSienzant said:
What possible difference does it make to someone truly interested in resolving the supposed issues in this case who presents them with the counter-argument?

I can see no legitimate reason to claim RoboTimbo needs to present this, if you are truly interested in resolving the issues you think exist here that make Oswald's killing of Tippit questionable.

So it appears from here that you're not interested in the evidence or in discussing the case. You're interested in scoring points at the expense of the case.

Hank
Click to expand...
Since RoboTimbo has stalked and harassed me from day one, without making a detailed critique of anything I have put forward, I’m interested in what RoboTimbro, not Hank, has to say in this matter.

Do you think I should hold my breath?
 
manifesto said:
No, you are making two claims, RoboTimbo:

1. Oswald killed Tippit.

2. Oswald killed Tippit = ”Null”.

I’m still waiting for you to present a comprehensive explanation of how you came to these two conclusions.

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

If you're claiming Oswald didn't murder Officer Tippitt and then didn't attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same gun, you ;) will need to provide evidence.

You ;) are welcome to hold your breath until you ;) do that if you ;) wish but I don't think it will be any more productive.
 
manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

The jury is still out on that one, and I'll be posting yes/no when I have enough evidence either way.

Sneak Preview: She has no listings as an author or as a cited expert in the National Criminal Justice Reference Service database:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/whatsncjrs.html

Established in 1972, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) is a federally funded resource offering justice and drug-related information to support research, policy, and program development worldwide.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Se...s&topicID=119&txtKeywordSearch=Sherry+Fiester

Home / Justice System / Science/Technology / Forensic Sciences / Search Results
Justice System
Science/Technology > Forensic Sciences
Keyword Search
Sherry Fiester
Try searching on ?
Search results for: Sherry Fiester in Forensic Sciences

No Results Found.

Highly unusual for someone claiming to be a published expert and instructor in the forensic sciences related to criminal investigation to not leave footprints through NCJRS.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Does this mean that you ;) are going to stay answering questions and providing evidence for your claims?

What is your ;) comprehensive hypothesis for how JFK was assassinated? Note that it must address ALL of the evidence with NO anomolies. The same standard you ;) demand of the null hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Why do you never respond to my questions, RoboTimbo? Always changing the subject, never following through with substance.

Why flaunting your intellectual misery in this obvious fashion? You do not even try to hide it anymore?

Why is that?
 
manifesto said:
Since RoboTimbo has stalked and harassed me from day one, without making a detailed critique of anything I have put forward, I’m interested in what RoboTimbro, not Hank, has to say in this matter.

Do you think I should hold my breath?
Click to expand...

If you ;) are asking, it's ok with me. It will be a change from you ;) pounding the table and stamping your feet.

Why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippitt? You ;) can start with that.
 
RoboTimbo said:
If you're claiming Oswald didn't murder Officer Tippitt and then didn't attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same gun, you ;) will need to provide evidence.

You ;) are welcome to hold your breath until you ;) do that if you ;) wish but I don't think it will be any more productive.
Click to expand...
No, YOU are the one claiming:

1. Oswald killed Tippit.

2. Oswald killed Tippit = ”Null”.

Is this your fantasy, RoboTimbo? Or, do you have a comprehensive explanation of how you came to these two conclusions?

Should I hold my breath, RoboTimbo?
 
manifesto said:
What question, RoboTimbo?

Are there any moderators in this forum?
Click to expand...

If you ;) are unable to substantiate your claim, the null hypothesis will stand.

Your CT websites didn't tell you ;) anything about how to answer? They just left you ;) out to dry like that on your own without the knowledge to answer?
 
BStrong said:
The jury is still out on that one, and I'll be posting yes/no when I have enough evidence either way.

Sneak Preview: She has no listings as an author or as a cited expert in the National Criminal Justice Reference Service database:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/whatsncjrs.html

Established in 1972, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) is a federally funded resource offering justice and drug-related information to support research, policy, and program development worldwide.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Se...s&topicID=119&txtKeywordSearch=Sherry+Fiester

Home / Justice System / Science/Technology / Forensic Sciences / Search Results
Justice System
Science/Technology > Forensic Sciences
Keyword Search
Sherry Fiester
Try searching on ?
Search results for: Sherry Fiester in Forensic Sciences

No Results Found.

Highly unusual for someone claiming to be a published expert and instructor in the forensic sciences related to criminal investigation to not leave footprints through NCJRS.
Click to expand...
She was consulted as an expert crime scene forensics witness in different Texas county jurisdictions.

You do not need to be a publishing academic in order to be a recognized expert in this and that. It was her profession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom