smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Wait, what? You claim to be a ballistics expert, yet you don't know what a "round" is? Seriously?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Wait, what? You claim to be a ballistics expert, yet you don't know what a "round" is? Seriously?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I find it quite amusing that you call those who know that there was only one shooter in Dealey Plaza, members of a "Church".
Well, "Churches" and their religions are faith-based, but we are members of that group, not because we have faith, but because we have read and understood ALL of the available physical evidence. ALL of it unquestionably, and irrefutably, points to a single shooter by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, who used a 6x52 Mannlicher-Carcano (that he owned), to shoot three (and only three) bullets at JFK, fatally wounding him with the third.
On the other side you have...
1. Belief that some unknown person shot JFK from in front, on or near the Grassy Knoll.
2. Belief that some unknown persons were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK.
3. Belief that some unknown persons were involved in a cover up to hide that conspiracy.
4. Belief that the evidence implicating LHO was faked, altered or manipulated
All of the above are beliefs with no evidence. Such belief is known as "faith: strong belief based on conviction rather than proof."; you have faith that all these things are true, but you cannot prove any of it is true;
- you have no documentary evidence that the paper trail of LHO's ownership of the murder weapon was fabricated, you just have faith that it was.
- you have no documentary evidence that the there was a shooter in front of JFK, you just have faith that there was.
- you have no documentary evidence of a conspiracy or a cover up, you just have blind faith that there was.
You fit the very definition of a faithful follower of a church or religion... I shall call it "The Holy Church of the Second Shooter" Being a member of a "Mighty Church" fits you a lot more closely than it fits us.
Did you not come on here, Hank?
A guy who comes on here
I did not ”proclaim” anything, I answered politely that yes, I have read a lot of the material on the JFK assassination, when asked if knew anything on the subject.
I know what a round is. I did not know what Axxman300 meant with it in the context.
As long as I when requested provide sources for my contentions my ”knowledge” or ”expertise” is not important. Facts beats everything, Hank.
You should know this, coming on here, Hank.
Last edited:
Where did I claim to be a ”ballistics expert”?
Cite. Explain. Argue.
I do know what a round is. I did not know what Axxman300 meant in context.
The critical community is not a Mighty Church, RoboTimbo, it is like the opposite. I have debated both individuals that are convinced of that ’Lone Nut Oswald’ did it and individuals that believe he didn’t and everything in between.Are yousaying that you just have different opinions? Or different facts? You
My only ally is the truth, a tremendous force of nature. And justice.
Do you know what truth and justice are, RoboTimbo? Ask your little blue idiot smileys, they are wise and know abslolutelyatletly everything.
Ask them, RoboTimbo, and report back here.
Last edited:
Where have I claimed to be a ”ballistics expert”?Round: Bullet, Missile.
Quite the ballistics expert you are.
Cite. Explain. Argue.
bknight
Master Poster
I doubt you would know truth if it bit you in the rear, unless that "truth" came from a CT site, then you know it well. No critical thinking required, just accept "truth" without question and hand wave away all/any critique of that "truth".
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How so? Explain. Argue.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Why do you
get so angry at it then and refuse to use it? So which one of you
is wrong? You can't both be right but you can both be wrong.Lol.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
So far you have been blathering exessively about ”concillience” and ”the null” but very little if any of real evidence.
Is this ”inquestionably, and irrefutably” the way to do it? Not outside your Mighty Church it isn’t. No way.
- On the knoll behind the white picket fence within a square yard and with a probality of P = 1/100 000 for being random static/noice.
- The majority of the asked witnesses (51 individuals) on and around Dealey Plaza stating that shot/s came from (direction of) the knoll.
- Multiple witnesses saw and smelled gunsmoke on and down Hill from the knoll.
- Almost all of the witnesses observing JFK’s headwounds close up, ca 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and officers from two federal police agencies, saw a big gaping wound in the right back of the head - typical exit wound.
- The doctors in Parkland observing JFK’s throat before the tracheotomy seeing a small round punctuated entrance wound.
- Both the chief of DPD and Sheriffs Department radioed all of their men up behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting. They were both in the lead car on Elm Street when the shooting took place.
- All the bystanders who ran up the knoll to see if they could help catch the assassin/s.
- An unknown man identifying himself with Secret Service credentials to the two first officers coming up behind the fence, never to be seen again. No real Secret Service agents was on and around the Dealey Plaza until ca 20 minutes after the shooting.
- Multiple witnesses saw suspect individuals with suspect weapons behind the fence on the knoll.
- The Zapruder film showing JFK’s head violently snap back and to the left when hit by the fatal shot = shot from in front to the right = the knoll.
- Harpers fragment identified as a fresh 7x5 cm big cranial fragment of occipital bone by three forensic pathologists at Methodist Hospital = lower part of the back of the head = big gaping wound = exit wound = shot from in front.
- Multiple reports of intimidation of witnesses and editing of their testimonies.
- At least three instances of willfull disinformation from MSM regarding possible directions of shots.
- Surpression of the content of the Zapruder film showing JFK’s head snapping violently back and to the left. The ”gruesome-argument” is mute because accuratly explaining the head movement doesn’t equal showing it in public.
- Shall I continue? There are more.
You call this ”belief”?
The latest official investigation, HSCA’s, came to the conclusion that it was a conspiracy. I agree with that conclusion.
Oh, no, not unknown. Exeptionally well known. I have listed the three most important by name and position several times. I do it again:
- President Lyndon Johnson.
- Former chief of the CIA Allen Dulles.
- Chief of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover.
The chief organizers of the assassination was also well known as members of the CIA ”old boys network” all loyal to the fired Allen Dulles. They in turn used the same network used in the assassination plots against Castro. CIA/Mafia/Cuban-exiles/Right wingers.
Do you want names? I have a few.
Wrong. Knowledge of most of it being fabricated.
Outside the Mighty Church it is exactly that. Evidence.
Turning around accusing me of YOUR MO is just stupid and a good sign of desperation.
Yes I have.
Lets begin. Why are all the bank stamps missing on the monyorder?
Well, that is a bold lie. See above.
The evidence of a cover up is in the fabricated, ignored and destroyed evidence.
I fit the description IF the description is based on facts. Well, it isn’t.
You are the one ranting along on blind faith only. As a member of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, that is what you are supposed to do.
And you are doing what you are told, don’t you.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Yeah, now you do.
Hilarious. You just learned what 'in context' means, so now you're trying to use it in sentences?
Difficulty keeping your story straight?
It wasn't Axxman300 you questioned. It was BKnight that you got hung up on the point of the 'round'.
But you don't provide sources for at least 95% of your claims. And that's the low estimate. Everyone who's read even five pages can see that. When I asked you to cite for your claims, you quibbled over the manner I asked, and never provided any sources.
You ignored it when SmartCookie posted the request for evidence in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12313728&postcount=4188
You ignored my request when I asked for the evidence for just one claim of those above in this post (going to the trouble of telling you what I was looking for and what I was not looking for):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12313548&postcount=4155
You beg off providing the evidence and the sources with excuses like 'there's some many of you and only one of me', but what you don't do is provide the evidence or the sources of the evidence.
You make a lot of assertions and fail to back them up. Almost like you don't need evidence. Almost like it's a faith-based concept with you -- that it's a given that there was a conspiracy, and you don't need no stinking evidence.
Which fits in nicely with your argument - advanced more than once - that most of the evidence that indicates Oswald was the assassin should be discarded as invalid for whatever reason you can find rummaging around in your car trunk that day. You discard and ignore the legit evidence and then substitute your unproven conspiracy assertions in their stead. And ignore any requests to support those assertions.
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
For the grown-ups in the room, there is light at the end of the tunnel for historians ans history buffs. Microsoft is developing AI, or a cognitive search program. They just tested it on the recently released JFK documents from the National Archives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFdF-Z7ypQo
The video is more of a commercial for the program, but I did learn that in the documents that the CIA's code name for Oswald is GPFLOOR (something I didn't know), which will make my searches a little faster.
This program is going to make life much more easy for historians, and those of us who poke around online databases,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFdF-Z7ypQo
The video is more of a commercial for the program, but I did learn that in the documents that the CIA's code name for Oswald is GPFLOOR (something I didn't know), which will make my searches a little faster.
This program is going to make life much more easy for historians, and those of us who poke around online databases,
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Your whole interpretation of the movement of JFK's head in frames 312 to 321 of the Zapruder film, and the way material exploded out of the right side of his head is a claim of expertise in ballistics. You claim that your interpretation of this movement being indicative of a shot from the front is correct, and that the interpretation of actual ballistics experts that this indicates a shot from behind is wrong, therefore, you are claiming superior expertise to them, therefore, you are claiming to be a ballistics expert.
Same applies to acoustics (as in the dictabelt), where you claim you are correct, and that a whole panel of experts in ballistics, acoustics, physics, engineering and signal processing are wrong. You are claiming superior knowledge, therefore, you are claiming to be an acoustics expert. And yet, you are still unable to explain the methodology behind the analysis of the sounds on the dictabelt (those that were claimed to be gunfire) and why the microphone has to be in certain places at certain times for the analysis to mean anything.
Nice backpedal
HSienzant
Philosopher
See, you're doing it again! Listing your beliefs but failing to provide the evidence for these claims.
You listed a GISH GALLOP of assertions, none of them supported by any evidence. Those are your beliefs. None of those are established. Most are based on logical fallacies, quotes out of context, suspicion, innuendo, hearsay, and recollections from decades after the fact. And none of them are your own discoveries. You've gleaned them all from a few books or a few websites, and simply echoed them here.
A few posts after stating you always provide the sources and the evidence when requested, you post another long litany of unsourced, unevidenced claims. I count 15 claims I am questioning above. You made more, but I didn't bother to quote and question those. Let's see how many of those claims I question you actually cite any source for, and evidence of. There's 15 in this post, and another ten in the post where SmartCookie asked for your evidence.
How many have you provided evidence and sources for?
Zero (0).
Hank
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
YES!
You listed a GISH GALLOP of assertions, none of them supported by any evidence. Those are your beliefs. None of those are established. Most are based on logical fallacies, quotes out of context, suspicion, innuendo, hearsay, and recollections from decades after the fact. And none of them are your own discoveries. You've gleaned them all from a few books or a few websites, and simply echoed them here.
A few posts after stating you always provide the sources and the evidence when requested, you post another long litany of unsourced, unevidenced claims. I count 15 claims I am questioning above. You made more, but I didn't bother to quote and question those. Let's see how many of those claims I question you actually cite any source for, and evidence of. There's 15 in this post, and another ten in the post where SmartCookie asked for your evidence.
How many have you provided evidence and sources for?
Zero (0).
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So you
were just engaging in the CTists favorite hobby of hypocrisy when you said "guilty until proven innocent"?And you
don't mind using that level of hypocrisy after MicahJava proved you to be wrong?bknight
Master Poster
HSienzant
Philosopher
Your answer was quicker than mine, but I had the same basic thoughts.
Next time you can go first. I only have two rounds left.
Hank
Once again. Where is evidence for the exit wound for this frontal shot.
Where is the exit for the back wound?
For your supposed frontal knoll headshot. Where is the evidence for an exit wound on the left side of JFK'S head?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Refuted and debunked by the CBA, and the acoustics experts that were used by the HSCA agree with the CBA's findings
You have failed to show any evidence that this is the truth. All you have is copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites, not evidence
Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
How do you know they were running to get out of the line of fire from the TSBD. Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Except of course for the SS agents on the running boards of the cars in the presidential motorcade, and in the white SS follow up car.
Cite those witness' original statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
You claim expertise in ballistics for this interpretation, yet you say you have never claimed expertise in ballistics.
Well, which is it?
Cite documentary evidence for this, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Cite their original witness statements, not copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites
Cite documentary evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered.
Well, I don't. The Warren Commission came to the conclusion that LHO acted alone. Just because the HSCA later came to a different conclusion does not make them automatically right. Their conclusions were largely based on the dictabelt acoustic evidence, which has been repeatedly shown to be deeply flawed and repeatedly debunked.
Personally, I find the Warren Report and the scientific work of the Dale Myers and the CBA to be more scholarly and therefore I agree with their conclusions, not those of the HSCA.
You have cited NO documentary evidence to support these accusations. Cite this documentary evidence; argue for its veracity (and no copy-pasta from conspiraloon sites)
Name anyone you like but you still have to support your accusations with documentary evidence, otherwise your accusations are meaningless..
So you have knowledge of this? OK, then won't have any trouble showing us documentary evidence to support this claim.
No copy-pasta from conspiraloon site, no delays, no obfuscation, no procrastination; do it NOW or shut up!
- Status