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

[HSienzant]

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?

I guess by your own definition you have 'stalked and harassed' everyone here because your definition of stalking and harassing is almost unlimited in scope. For example, you haven't provided a detailed critique of anything I put forward, and certainly not a substantial minority of it, let alone most or all of it -- unless you think ignoring the point, changing the subject, or asking for more data amounts to a "detailed critique".

I'm here to tell you it doesn't.

So stop harassing and stalking us.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

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?

You are the one claiming that:

1. Oswald killed Tippit.

2. Oswald killed Tippit = ”Null”.

Why do you not present any substance backing these two claims?

 

[manifesto]

I guess by your own definition you have 'stalked and harassed' everyone here because your definition of stalking and harassing is almost unlimited in scope. For example, you haven't provided a detailed critique of anything I put forward, and certainly not most of it -- unless you think ignoring the point, changing the subject, or asking for more data amounts to a detailed critique.

I'm here to tell you it doesn't.

So stop harassing and stalking us.

Hank

I asked RoboTimbo, Hank.

RoboTimbo ≠ Hank.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are the one claiming that:

1. Oswald killed Tippit.

2. Oswald killed Tippit = ”Null”.

Why do you not present any substance backing these two claims?

Wow, those CT websites don't prepare naive CTs like they should. You really have no clue about it? None at all? Did your CT websites tell you who you're supposed to think murdered Officer Tippitt?

 

[HSienzant]

She was consulted as an expert crime scene forensics witness in different Texas county jurisdictions.

According to whom? Her?

You do not need to be a publishing academic in order to be a recognized expert in this and that. It was her profession.

Again, according to whom?

Can you cite an independent source for this claim?

Hank

 

[Steve]

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?

If he said yes, would you?

 

[HSienzant]

I asked RoboTimbo, Hank.

RoboTimbo ≠ Hank.

I asked Manifesto, Manifesto.

Manifesto = Manifesto.

Hank = Hank

You owe me a detailed critique of all my prior points but you can start with the one you handwaved away above and work backwards.

Your response below was me, not to RoboTimbo:

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?

I am pointing out the problems with your response to me (not RoboTimbo) here:

I guess by your own definition you have 'stalked and harassed' everyone here because your definition of stalking and harassing is almost unlimited in scope. For example, you haven't provided a detailed critique of anything I put forward, and certainly not a substantial minority of it, let alone most or all of it -- unless you think ignoring the point, changing the subject, or asking for more data amounts to a "detailed critique".

I'm here to tell you it doesn't.

So stop harassing and stalking us.

So tell me (and anyone who cares to read your response here) why your argument about 'stalking and harassing' applies to RoboTimbo but not to you. As I said, it appears overly-broad and therefore meaningless.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

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

”We”? I adressed RoboTimbo.

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

That is a lie, smartcooky.

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.

I showed you a video from a high speed camera where a bullet is fired on a blood soaked sponge.

1. This video is used all over the US and the world in teaching blood spatter analysis.

2. This video is recorded by world leading researchers in the field of blood spatter analysis.

3. The visible back spatter is initially traveling faster than the incoming bullet, which was my claim.

4. The visible back spatter is instant when the tip of the bullet hit the sponge, which was my claim.

Do you have any substantiated evidence against this or are you just lying and hoping it will go away?

You have debated very dishonestly in this thread.

Name ONE example of dishonesty.

ONE.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Do not insult other members by changing their usernames.

 

[BStrong]

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.

Sherry Fiester's bio on her website:

She is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels..

Fiester claims to be published. If she has indeed been published, and further recognized as an expert and instructor in the forensic sciences at the federal level her works would be easily referenced.

So far I've come up with nothing under her names, and ni cies in other papers written by other individuals.

I invite you to use whatever resources you have at hand to come up with anything she's written that wasn't published by JFK/Lancer.

 

[manifesto]

If he said yes, would you?

Would you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Name ONE example of dishonesty.

ONE.

Your repeated attempts to switch the burden of proof.

So why did Oswald murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK?

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Yes it is

However, YOU haven't read the paper published by those academics, all YOU have done is watched their YouTube video AND THEN DRAWN YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS, and I might add, those conclusions are NOT supported by the video to presented as evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

Name one..

1. The Carcano was a Mauser.

1. 52 eye-witnesses seeing a gunman on the Grassy Knoll when it's less than thirteen, and then you claim you meant to say eye and ear witnesses.

1. Oswald didn't shoot Tippit even though he was captured with the gun in his hand trying to kill a second police officer, and he admitted the gun was his.

1. Jack Ruby was in Dealey Plaza, and may have set off firecrackers.

1.Officer McLane being on Elm Street even though the photographic and film evidence has him on Huston.

1. The HSCA Audio Evidence being legitimate in spite of a minimum or four scientific studies that prove that the recording came from an officer's radio at the Trade Mart.

1. Oswald being a CIA operative.

There, I named one.

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.

That is some flat-earth level religious belief. Sure isn't science. In the Zapruder Film, by the time you see any blood the bullet is already out of the skull.

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.

I'm not talking about Sponge Bob Square Pants, I'm talking about the most recent scientific study of the head-shot and the reaction:

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603#Declarations

You wanted real science, this is real science.

Name ONE failed claim.

ONE.

1. A hollow-point 30.08 round fired from the Knoll would do the same damage as the 6.5x52mm Carcano round. A hollow-point 30.08 bullet fired from the Knoll would have blown out the LEFT SIDE OF THE SKULL, NOT THE RIGHT.

Something you'd know if you spent any time on a firing range, or just shooting cans.,

 

[HSienzant]

I showed you a video from a high speed camera where a bullet is fired on a blood soaked sponge.

1. This video is used all over the US and the world in teaching blood spatter analysis.

YOU who need to provide YOUR evidence in support of YOUR claims. ... Provide the links...

2. This video is recorded by world leading researchers in the field of blood spatter analysis.

Name them and cite relevant parts of their testimonies.

3. The visible back spatter is initially traveling faster than the incoming bullet, which was my claim.

You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence. Do it.

4. The visible back spatter is instant when the tip of the bullet hit the sponge, which was my claim.

I’m not a mind reader AND again, it’s not my place to figure out on what ’evidence’ you are making a claim.

Only you can know that. Only you can do that.

That is your place.

Do you have any substantiated evidence against this or are you just lying and hoping it will go away?

Logical fallacy #1: Attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Logical fallacy #2: False dilemma.
Logical fallacy #3: Begging the question.

Congratulations. You've reach legendary Bob Harris status. Three logical fallacies in one sentence! Congratulations again.

Name ONE example of dishonesty. ONE.

I don't presume you're dishonest. I just establish you're wrong.

Hank

PS: I know, I know. You don't own me a detailed critique of the above because you weren't addressing me. You're funny.

 

[manifesto]

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

The only ”substance” you have presented is an abstract from an article that says that some aspects of spatter from blood soaked sponges ”differ” from human skulls filled with blood.

I’m still waiting for details and in what way this is supposed to refute anything I propose based on the content in the sponge-video.

Don’t you get it?

 

[BStrong]

”We”? I adressed RoboTimbo.

You don't hve the option of limiting who can respond to your posts

I showed you a video from a high speed camera where a bullet is fired on a blood soaked sponge.

I provided three videos of humans being struck by projectiles, including a point-blank round to the temple. Your handwaving was much in evidence

1. This video is used all over the US and the world in teaching blood spatter analysis.

No, it is not.

2. This video is recorded by world leading researchers in the field of blood spatter analysis.

Wrong again, what is it about CTists who every cite needs to be from an Olympic Sniper or the best team etc?

3. The visible back spatter is initially traveling faster than the incoming bullet, which was my claim.

Swing and a miss! What was the velocity of that "bullet" again in feet per second?

4. The visible back spatter is instant when the tip of the bullet hit the sponge, which was my claim.

What is a the difference between a blood filled sponge and a human body? Maybe the elastic skin that covers the body and the skeletal structure?

Do you have any substantiated evidence against this or are you just lying and hoping it will go away?

I'd never work your side of the street. I have self respect.

Name ONE example of dishonesty.

Somebody can't lie unless they actually know enough about the subject matter to do so

ONE.

Hope this helps

 

[manifesto]

Your repeated attempts to switch the burden of proof.

You mean when I propose that ”innocent until found guilty” also should include Oswald?

So why did Oswald murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK?

You tell me? Did he? How do you know?

 

[smartcooky]

I asked RoboTimbo, Hank.

RoboTimbo ≠ Hank.

Forum debate does not work like that... it is not a series of one-on-one debates

"A" makes a claim
"B" asks "A" to verify that claim
"C" is entitled to post a verification of the claim made by "A".

 

[BStrong]

The only ”substance” you have presented is an abstract from an article that says that some aspects of spatter from blood soaked sponges ”differ” from human skulls filled with blood.

Some skulls contain material other than blood. YMMV

I’m still waiting for details and in what way this is supposed to refute anything I propose based on the content in the sponge-video.

I strongly suspect that there is no relation between what is presented wrt forensic science and your understanding off the material. Facts in evidence, soaked sponge equals headshot on living human. There is -0- correlation in the real world but...but

Don’t you get it?

We do. You don't

 

[manifesto]

​

​

​

​

Logical fallacy #1: Attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Logical fallacy #2: False dilemma.
Logical fallacy #3: Begging the question.

Congratulations. You've reach legendary Bob Harris status. Three logical fallacies in one sentence! Congratulations again.




I don't presume you're dishonest. I just establish you're wrong.

Hank

PS: I know, I know. You don't own me a detailed critique of the above because you weren't addressing me. You're funny.

I have told you to stop quoting me and answer with another quote from me.

You may feel that this is proper, but its not.

Tell me what YOU want to know and I provide. No worries.