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

[Axxman300]

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.

You left out the part where she wrote a CT book complete with a forward by Jim Mars:

http://www.sherryfiester.com/forensics.html

She claims the shot came directly from the Triple Overpass:

By applying modern forensic techniques that weren't available in 1963 to details related to blood spatter and bullet trajectories, Fiester rejects commonly held notions in the U.S. government's Warren Commission Report. The 889-page 1964 tome concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman responsible for Kennedy's death. She further rejects alternative theories that a gunshot fired from the fabled “grassy knoll” in Dealey Plaza ended Kennedy's life.

Rather, she concludes the fatal shot came directly from the front of the president's motorcade, in the direction of the “triple freeway overpass,” where three city streets converge under a railroad bridge. The unidentified gunmen did what he set out to do, then escaped undetected, calmly driving out of a concealed parking lot.

http://portlandtribune.com/bvt/15-news/150417-old-story-new-science-in-jfk-killing


The problem is that it was hardly concealed. The problem is that there were plenty of witnesses on the Triple Overpass who never saw a gunman mixed in with them.

You can read her bio here:

http://www.sherryfiester.com/about.html

Looking forward to this one:

Her next book, "Demystifying Mind Control" is slated for release in late 2013.

You sure know how to pick them.

 

[HSienzant]

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?

Yes, I get it. You're pretending the abstract doesn't destroy the entire basis for the conclusions you drew from YouTube video of a bullet hitting a sponge.

You're pretending the data should be spoon-fed to you ('I'm still waiting for details') instead of cited for you to research further.

You're pretending I need to disprove ('what way this is supposed to refute anything I propose') your non-scientific layman's conclusions about what a YouTube video shows, when that's simply a shifting of the burden of proof.

You're pretending you don't have to prove your claims.

You're pretending the abstract I cited doesn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of the YouTube video of a bullet striking a sponge that you drew your conclusions from, when the abstract does bear directly on that video.

Yeah, I get it. Everyone else here gets it too. Except you.*

Hank
_________

* And maybe fellow conspiracy monger MicahJava. He's been rather silent of late.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

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

Have you CTs ever heard of the "Warren Commission"? What did your CT website tell you to think about it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So that satisfies the requirement for Oswald to be proved guilty.

 

[HSienzant]

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

And I've told you I will do that at times to point out your double-standard.

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

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

Well, how about some evidence?

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

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.

All the best,

Hank

PS: By quibbling over the manner in which I make my point about your double-standard, you deflected from the point of the post that you made a lot of claims but supported none of them. When do you intend to support your claims with citations to the evidence?

Here's the original post link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12307452&postcount=3754

 

[manifesto]

Yes, I get it. You're pretending the abstract doesn't destroy the entire basis for the conclusions you drew from YouTube video of a bullet hitting a sponge.

You're pretending the data should be spoon-fed to you instead of cited for you to research further.

You're pretending I need to disprove your non-scientific layman's conclusions about what a YouTube video shows, when that's simply a shifting of the burden of proof.

You're pretending you don't have to prove your claims.

You're pretending the abstract I cited doesn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of the YouTube video of a bullet striking a sponge that you drew your conclusions from, when the abstract does bear directly on that video.

Yeah, I get it. Everyone else here gets it too. Except you.*

Hank
_________

* And maybe fellow conspiracy monger MicahJava. He's been rather silent of late.

No. YOU are claiming that the science in a published paper refutes my contention that the sponge-video proves:

1. Backspatter from a human head travels faster (initially) than the incoming bullet.

2. Backspatter develops instantly when the bullet hits the head (i.e. 0.0004 seconds).

This is NOT possible to deduce from the content in the abstract and even if that would be the case, there is still a need for YOU making your case showing exactly how the science in the article refutes my contention in 1 and 2.

Until this happens, the sponge video is sufficent support of my claims.

 

[manifesto]

And I've told you I will do that at times to point out your double-standard.

​

​

​

All the best,

Hank

PS: By quibbling over the manner in which I make my point about your double-standard, you deflected from the point of the post that you made a lot of claims but supported none of them. When do you intend to support your claims with citations to the evidence?

Here's the original post link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12307452&postcount=3754

I’m always showing my sources when properly requested to do so, Hank.

Your silly little quote games doesn’t add any substance to your propfile.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Manifesto, now that you have to admit that you have the burden of proof, why did Oswald murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK?

 

[HSienzant]

No. YOU are claiming that the science in a published paper refutes my contention...

No, the paper I cited says that. I'm not saying that or claiming that. I'm citing the peer-reviewed published paper that says that and pointing out what it says to you. Do you understand the difference?

... the sponge-video proves:
1. Backspatter from a human head travels faster (initially) than the incoming bullet.

2. Backspatter develops instantly when the bullet hits the head (i.e. 0.0004 seconds).

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

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

This is NOT possible to deduce from the content in the abstract and even if that would be the case, there is still a need for YOU making your case showing exactly how the science in the article refutes my contention in 1 and 2.

… And we're back to you Begging the Question and Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Nobody has to disprove or refute your claims. It's enough to ask you to prove them. I did that - in spades. You ignored my request, quibbled over the manner I made it, and invoked logical fallacies instead.

… And I also did more: I provided a link to a peer-reviewed article in a science journal that disputes the validity of the sponge video as an adequate representation of a bullet striking a human skull. You ignore that and pretend I need to disprove your claims.

I don't have that burden. You have the burden to prove your claims. And without invoking logical fallacies like Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning.

Until this happens, the sponge video is sufficent support of my claims.

Wait, what?

You looked at a video. You're a layman. You drew some non-scientific layman's conclusions from that video. You're claiming the video is support for your claims? No, it's not. That's the logical fallacy of a circular argument! The video doesn't prove your conclusions are correct.

But it's truly HILARIOUS that you would think so!

Here's an example you might understand: I look at the Z-film. I see the large explosion out the top front of the head. I conclude the bullet hit the back of the head and blew out the right top. If you ask me to support that, I claim the Z-film is sufficient support for my conclusion.

If your argument works for you, then my argument works for you too, and we're done here.

One bullet, from behind, exiting the right top of the head.

We don't need to discuss this further. We're done here. The Z-film is sufficient support to prove my claim.

Or you can give me a detailed critique of what's wrong with my argument, and hence, with yours.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I’m always showing my sources when properly requested to do so, Hank.

Your silly little quote games doesn’t add any substance to your propfile.

Your quibbling over the manner I point out your double-standard doesn't prove your claims. When do you intend to do that?

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.

Hank

 

[Steve]

Would you?

No, but then I would not ask that question. You did. You have my answer, what is yours?

 

[HSienzant]

Manifesto,

Reminder:

You owe me a detailed critique of the points in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12307427&postcount=3747

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Removed duplicate posting

 

[traxy]

Apply your data on JFK’s movements in between Z312 and Z321.

Cite. Explain. Argue your case.

Decerebate posture and Opisthotonos both have the same characteristics as JFKs movement (body arching backwards), both occur due to violent brain trauma, and they would explain why the rearward motion doesn't even begin until 1/9th of a second after the headshot.

Multiple experts in brain trauma and wound ballistics have looked at JFKs motion after the headshot and found that it was likely due to Decerebate posture, Opisthotonos or some other severe neurological reaction.

Conversely, no ballistic expert believes the rearward motion was caused by a half ounce bullet, because outside of Hollywood action movies, half ounce bullets fired from a hundred yards away do not possess the kinetic energy to throw around a 200 pound human being.

The initial snap forward, the path of the debris field, the intact rear of the head in every available image, the neurological explanation for JFKs rearward movement, the authenticated x-rays, the authenticated autopsy photos, the autopsy report and the findings of multiple panels of forensic pathologists all lead to one inescapable conclusion. The grassy knoll shot is a work of fiction.

 

[Axxman300]

No. YOU are claiming that the science in a published paper refutes my contention that the sponge-video proves:

Well...it does...

1. Backspatter from a human head travels faster (initially) than the incoming bullet.

No. Never has.

2. Backspatter develops instantly when the bullet hits the head (i.e. 0.0004 seconds).

ALMOST instantly. Blood vessels have to rupture first. They can't do that until the bullet has passed.

This is NOT possible to deduce from the content in the abstract and even if that would be the case, there is still a need for YOU making your case showing exactly how the science in the article refutes my contention in 1 and 2.

You're the guy who demanded science, and now you're telling us you don't understand science.

Until this happens, the sponge video is sufficent support of my claims.

I watched that video, I changed the Youtube player settings to the slowest playback, and it doesn't show that at all. The bullet is on the other side before any back splatter. Also, a sponge is not a skull, nor does it represent the complexity of the different tissues involved.

 

[Wolrab]

Good. Present ONE example of this ”90%”.

One example.

The debunking of the HSCA dicta-belt findings. End thread.

 

[manifesto]

The debunking of the HSCA dicta-belt findings. End thread.

No such debunking has happened, no. But please, convince us otherwise.

Who? How?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Good. Present ONE example of this ”90%”.

One example.

The above. Are there any honest CTs (s)?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Manifesto, you've run away from answering the question of why Oswald went on to murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK. When will you stop dishonestly running away?

 

[traxy]

Manifesto, you've run away from answering the question of why Oswald went on to murder Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK. When will you stop dishonestly running away?

That's right.

When we last addressed this topic, Manifesto was going to try and explain away how 8 witnesses positively identified Oswald as the gunman that shot Tippitt or the man running from the scene, along with explaining why Oswald was arrested with the pistol positively linked to every shell casing and one of the slugs recovered from Tippitt's body.