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

[RoboTimbo]

<snipped table pounding >

Are you mad at your fellow CTist MicahJava for proving you wrong?

 

[HSienzant]

No. If the bullet from the knoll hits the right temple there is enough angle for it to exit the right side of the back of the head. That said, bullets often deflect (change trajectory) to a considerable degree after hitting the target, in this case human skin, hard cranial bone and brain under high pressure.

Rebuttal:

Denial is often associated with failure.

[IMGw=500]https://i.imgur.com/IogtQIu.jpg[/IMGw]

Could you guys put your heads together and come up with the Unified Conspiracy Theory?

Hank

 

[Wolrab]

That’s not the primary issue. The primary issue is why it got covered up.

That sums it up nicely. Evidence be damned. Who needs evidence when you can go straight for a coverup.

 

[HSienzant]

That’s not the primary issue. The primary issue is why it got covered up.

That sums it up nicely. Evidence be damned. Who needs evidence when you can go straight for a coverup.

Good point. I pointed out the CHANGE OF SUBJECT (logical fallacy #1 - where he failed to answer the question asked and starting talking about the points he wanted to make instead), but I missed the BEGGING THE QUESTION (logical fallacy #2 - where he assumed the cover-up he needs to prove).

The new and improved Manifesto has gotten much better at bunching his logical fallacies. Former CT poster Bob Harris was a master of this. He could squeeze three or more into one sentence.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No. If the bullet from the knoll hits the right temple there is enough angle for it to exit the right side of the back of the head. That said, bullets often deflect (change trajectory) to a considerable degree after hitting the target, in this case human skin, hard cranial bone and brain under high pressure.

Okay, this is the 32nd point you've made since I've been counting (there made be some duplicates) that you've made without supplying supporting evidence.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, I don't know if you've seen this one. This is the CIA Mexico City Station Chronology, the timeline of events beginning 27, September, 1963, and endong 3, October, 1967:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10014-10046.pdf

Just spent 40 minutes reading half of the 124 pages.

It's a gold mine.

Not only do you have Oswald's actions in Mexico City detailed, but you can see their investigation unfold. There are reports that come in from informants, and from operatives of neighboring counties' intelligence services; some are pretty wild, some are fascinating (Oswald being paid $6,200 by the Cubans to kill JFK etc).

What is fascinating to me is that all of the seeds of every JFK-CT are in this report as the station lists conversations with other agencies, and dignitaries who all had their own theories. There is even mention that the White House suspected Oswald had an accomplice, and the FBI doubting that Oswald was the lone shooter...that's right, the FBI. It's all gossip, mind you, but it lends credence to my pet theory that all of the JFK-CT's were started and spread by employees of the various relevent government agencies.

Anyway, I've added this one to my files.

I have not seen this one, which is really troubling to me, because being a super-sekrit shill, I should have.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

That sums it up nicely. Evidence be damned. Who needs evidence when you can go straight for a coverup.

1. The Parkland doctors claimed that it looked just as a classic entrance wound. Until investigating it further this is not proof of an entrance wound, just inconclusive (but strong) evidence.

2. The efforts to litterally cover up this typical but not proved entrance wound, is proof of covering up shots from in front = conspiracy.

Do you understand?

 

[abaddon]

Your fissure seems to have a pot.

Wow. You really do not understand spoken language. OK then.

 

[HSienzant]

1. The Parkland doctors claimed that it looked just as a classic entrance wound. Until investigating it further this is not proof of an entrance wound, just inconclusive (but strong) evidence.

2. The efforts to litterally cover up this typical but not proved entrance wound, is proof of covering up shots from in front = conspiracy.

Do you understand?

Now up to 34 points you have yet to supply supporting evidence.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. The Parkland doctors claimed that it looked just as a classic entrance wound. Until investigating it further this is not proof of an entrance wound, just inconclusive (but strong) evidence.

2. The efforts to litterally cover up this typical but not proved entrance wound, is proof of covering up shots from in front = conspiracy.

Do you understand?

Obviously your word won't be taken for any of this. You know so little about the autopsy and have been proven wrong so much.

Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity

 

[HSienzant]

Manifesto,

These 33 claims you have yet to support in any fashion are delineated here:

First nine (I miscounted and claimed ten originally):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12313728&postcount=4188

Next fifteen:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314514&postcount=4235

Additional six:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314640&postcount=4247

This one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314990&postcount=4265

And these two:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12315006&postcount=4269

When will you stop adding additional claims to the pile and start supporting the heaping pile you've already supplied with evidence and citations to sources?

You claim that you will support with evidence and sources the claims you make. When do you intend to start? Remember, your participation here goes back over a year, and I just started counting.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

I would have loved to have seen the CT's 'plotter's Headquarters' with blackboards covered with hundreds of details that needed to be fixed and assignments being given out to do all this. The lists of hundreds if not thousands of people to be told their 'lies'. How you would orchestra this would have been an amazing thing to see.

Your imagination is boiling up to a frenzy, Hans. Ever heard of the phrase ”National Security”? ”Do not embarrass the Bureau”? ”Omerta”? ”Oaths of silence”? ”Compartmentalization and need to know”?

It was a very small number of individuals who knew the whole picture. At the very top of the conspiracy. They knew how to keep their mouths shut.

That said, a lot of people have talked over the years. Lots of people have died suspicious deaths. The cover up is still in operation and have unlimited resources at its disposal. Unlimited.

The JFK assassination is at the very heart of the US National Security State. Its defining event. Unspeakable.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Manifesto,

These 33 claims you have yet to support in any fashion are delineated here:

First nine (I miscounted and claimed ten originally):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12313728&postcount=4188

Next fifteen:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314514&postcount=4235

Additional six:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314640&postcount=4247

This one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314990&postcount=4265

And these two:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12315006&postcount=4269

When will you stop adding additional claims to the pile and start supporting the heaping pile you've already supplied with evidence and citations to sources?

You claim that you will support with evidence and sources the claims you make. When do you intend to start? Remember, your participation here goes back over a year, and I just started counting.

Hank

It seems he's in full on retreat based on his evidence free gibbering of late. I was hoping his hero worship of you would have some influence on him but no such luck.

Just a typical CT.

 

[JayUtah]

Your imagination is boiling up to a frenzy, Hans.

No, he's the one bringing up practical details and actual requirements. In response, you offer up the plot of an amateur spy novel. "Oh, it was just really that secret." Sweeping all the important details -- for which you have no evidence -- under the carpet of Big Scary Police State fantasies doesn't really make your argument the stronger one.

Have you ever held a U.S. security clearance? Have you ever worked in a field that required operational security of the type practiced in the United States? I'm asking these questions to assess your ability to determine what's plausible or not within the framework of U.S. security protocols.

 

[manifesto]

Manifesto,

These 33 claims you have yet to support in any fashion are delineated here:

First nine (I miscounted and claimed ten originally):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12313728&postcount=4188

Next fifteen:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314514&postcount=4235

Additional six:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314640&postcount=4247

This one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12314990&postcount=4265

And these two:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12315006&postcount=4269

When will you stop adding additional claims to the pile and start supporting the heaping pile you've already supplied with evidence and citations to sources?

You claim that you will support with evidence and sources the claims you make. When do you intend to start? Remember, your participation here goes back over a year, and I just started counting.

Hank

Well, thank you, Hank, for listing it so neatly and orderly. I’ll answer your points one at a time as time permits. No worries.

Thats the reason for me being here, Hank. Providing the evidence that points to the Truth. What’s your reason for coming on here, Hank?

 

[HSienzant]

Your imagination is boiling up to a frenzy, Hans. Ever heard of the phrase ”National Security”? ”Do not embarrass the Bureau”? ”Omerta”? ”Oaths of silence”? ”Compartmentalization and need to know”?

Asking questions is not the same as supplying evidence.

#34 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

It was a very small number of individuals who knew the whole picture. At the very top of the conspiracy. They knew how to keep their mouths shut.

#35 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

That said, a lot of people have talked over the years.

#36 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Lots of people have died suspicious deaths.

#37 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

The cover up is still in operation and have unlimited resources at its disposal. Unlimited.

#38 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

The JFK assassination is at the very heart of the US National Security State. Its defining event.

#39 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Unspeakable.

That's a the best explanation I've heard yet for your inability to provide evidence and a coherent theory.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Well, thank you, Hank, for listing it so neatly and orderly. I’ll answer your points one at a time as time permits. No worries.

You've said that before. As I've pointed out, you always seem to have sufficient time to make more unproven assertions, but never enough time in the day to post the evidence. At some point your credibility falls through the floor and crashes into the basement when you keep issuing the same excuse for your failure to support your claims. That happened long ago. Now we're just keeping track.

Thats the reason for me being here, Hank. Providing the evidence that points to the Truth.

Could have fooled me, being as how you're so frequently begging off on supplying the evidence for your claims. One would think that your reason for being here is to post a lot of unsupported conspiracy claims and issuing a host of logical fallacies, at least, going by your posting history. Your priority does appear to be to cram as much nonsense into each post without supporting any of it, rather than to support any of it with evidence as you proclaim here. Case in point: I added six more unsupported claims to your list of unsupported claims since you claimed you were here to post the evidence. One need only compare your posts to your claims to see that your claim (of being here to provide the evidence) isn't supported by the evidence (of your actual posting history).

Why don't you try something different, like putting the evidence for your claim in the very post you make the claim? That way you won't fall behind on what you claim is your primary goal, "Providing the evidence that points to the Truth".

Here's an example of one such instance, where I make my point and support it with quotes from the two witnesses. You will note I also supply the links to the witnesses testimony so you can verify I'm not taking anything out of context.

But I agree, Davis and Kounas should be removed from the ”knoll” category.

Ok. We agree, I think, that puts the knoll witnesses at 50, not 52. The Depository witnesses are still at 48.

Let's look at James Crawford's testimony, now, shall we?

He is counted as a knoll witness in your listing:

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

Crawford, James _________ KNOLL​

But here's his actual testimony. He names the Depository as the source of the shots and even pointed that out within seconds to his co-worker. He was diagonally across the street from the Depository, at the SE corner of the Elm & Houston intersection when he described what happened thereafter:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/crawford.htm

Mr. BALL - Did you have a good view at that point of the south exposure of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. CRAWFORD - I had a very good angle.
Mr. BALL - Did you see the Presidents car pass?
Mr. CRAWFORD - I did.
Mr. BALL - And just tell me in your own words what you observed after that?
Mr. CRAWFORD - As I observed the parade, I believe there was a car leading the President's car, followed by the President's car and followed, I suppose, by the Vice Presiden't car and, in turn, by the secret Service in a yellow closed sedan. The doors of the Sedan were open. It was after the Secret Service Sedan had gone around the corner that I heard the first report and at that time I thought it was a backfire of a car but, in analyzing the situation, it could not have been a backfire of a car because it would have had to have been the President's car or some car in the cavalcade there. The second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one. I could not see the President's car -
Mr. BALL - At that time?
Mr. CRAWFORD - That's right; I couldn't even see the secret Service car, at least wasn't looking for it. As the report from the third shot sounded, I looked up. I had previously looked around to see if there was somebody shooting firecrackers to see if I could see a puff of smoke, and after I decided it wasn't a backfire from an automobile and as the third report sounded, I looked up and from the far east corner of the sixth floor I saw a movement. It was just barely a glimpse.
Mr. BALL - Which window?
Mr. CRAWFORD - That would be the far east window -
Mr. BALL - On the -
Mr. CRAWFORD - On the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. I turned to Miss Mitchell and made the statement that if those were shots they came from that window. That was based mainly on the fact of the quick movement observed in the window right at the conclusion of the report.
Mr. BALL - Could you give me any better description than just a movement? Could you use any other words to describe what you saw by way of color or size of what you saw moving?
Mr. CRAWFORD - If I were asked to describe it, I would say that it was a profile, somewhat from the waist up, but it was very quick movement and rather indistinct and it was very light colored. It was either light colored or it was a reflection from the sun. When the gun was found, or when a gun was found, I asked the question if it was white, simply because if it was a gun I saw, then it was either white or it was reflecting the sn so it would appear white or light colored.
...
Mr. BALL - Before I ask you about your [FBI] report, did you have any impression as to the source of the sound, from what direction the sound came, the sound of the explosions?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes; I do. As I mentioned before, the sound, I thought it was a backfire in the cavalcade from down the hill, down the hill toward the underpass.
Mr. BALL - You mean west on Elm?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes, and that was a little confusing and in analyzing it later, evidently the report I heard, and probably a lot of other people, the officers or the FBI, it evidently was a sound that was reflected by the underpass and therefore came back. It did not sound to me, ever, as I remember, the high-powered rifle sounding. It was not a sharp crack.
Mr. BALL - What caused you to look up at the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CRAWFORD - The sound had to be coming from somewhere; the noise was being made at some place, so I didn't see anyone shooting firecrackers or anything else and I thought "this idiot surely shouldn't do such a thing," but if they were, where were they, and if they were shots, where were they coming from, and that caused me to search the whole area on Houston Street and in front of the Texas Depository on Elm Street and then up and that's how I happened to be looking up at the time, rather than observing things in the street, probably.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see any smoke?
Mr. CRAWFORD - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - In your remark to Mary Ann Mitchell, did you say "If those were shots, they came from that window"?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That is what you reported to the FBI agent, also?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes, I suppose; at the time, I was still not absolutely sure they were shots and that's why I said if they were shots. I was basing that, I am sure I was basing that mainly on the fact of this quick movement that I observed. In other words, If I were firing the shots, I would have jumped back immediately at the conclusion of them.
Mr. BALL - Later on, did you go back in the street and talk to someone?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to a deputy sheriff?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Allen Swett [sic - Allan Sweatt].
Mr. BALL - What did you tell him?
Mr. CRAWFORD - I told him to have the men search the boxes directly behind this window that was open on the sixth floor - the window in the far east corner. ​

Mary Ann Mitchell affirmed his statement about what he said in her presence:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/mitchell.htm

Mr. BALL - Tell me in your own words what you noticed and what you heard after the President's car passed; what did you see and what did you hear?
Miss MITCHELL - Well, The President's car passed and, of course I watched it as long as I could see it but, as I remember, immediately behind it was a car full of men with the top down and quite a few of them were standing and I assumed they were Secret Service men, so after the car turned the corner and started down the hill, I couldn't see over the heads of the standing men for very long, so then I turned back to watch the other people in the caravan, whatever you call it, and probably about the time the car in which Senator Yarborough was riding had just passed, I heard some reports. The first one - there were three - the second and the third being closer together than the first and second and probably on the first one my thought was that it was a firecracker and I thought on the second one I thought that some police officer was after somebody that wasn't doing right and by the third report Jim Crawford had said the shots came from the building and as I looked up there then we realized that if the sots were coming from that building there was bound to have been somebody shooting at the people in the cars.
Mr. BALL - You heard Jim Crawford say something about if they were shots - what were his words exactly?
Miss MITCHELL - Well, I'm not sure that he said - I think he just said, "Those shots came from that building," just assuming that everybody could have figured out by then that they were shots.
Mr. BALL - Did you look at the building?
Miss MITCHELL - Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody in any of the windows?
Miss MITCHELL - I don't remember. I understand there were some porters that were leaning out of the fifth floor windows but I don't remember whether I saw them or not. I know where I thought he was pointing and where I was looking I couldn't see anybody so I never was sure which window he thought he was pointing to.​

I submit James Crawford is about as far from a knoll witness as you can possibly get. His first impression was a backfire from the motorcade, but by the third report, he had isolated the sounds as coming from the Depository across the street, and specifically from the sixth floor southeast corner window. He was confident enough in this at that time that he reported this immediately to his coworker, Mary Ann Mitchell, standing beside him. He then reported the TSBD's sixth floor SE corner window as the source of the shots to Deputy Sheriff Allan Sweatt.

I will tell you I am very comfortable calling him a Depository witness, not a knoll witness. Your source claims he's a knoll witness. Why? Apparently because he heard hoofbeats and thought horses, not zebras. Or actually, thought "backfire" at the first report and not "assassination attempt".

And I will point out that if he's a Depository witness, not a knoll witness, then we need to increase the Depository witnesses by one to 49, and decrease the knoll witnesses by one to 49 (we previously agreed Davis and Kounos were not knoll witnesses).

So that makes the count 49 to 49. Right?

Hank

You will note I provided not just the assertion (that your list is inflating the knoll witness count) but I supported it by supplying an example, a witness who said the shots came from the Depository and I didn't just claim that was the case, I provided the evidence that was the case by supplying excerpts from his testimony, and his co-worker's testimony, that he pointed to the DEPOSITORY as the source of the shots while the motorcade was still in Dealey Plaza. Your source called him a Knoll witness. As it did with Potter, Davis, and Kounas (all three you conceded were not knoll witnesses based on the statements I provided).

Why can't you do that instead of putting the supporting evidence separately (i.e. - never) so we don't have to hear any more of your excuse that "I’ll answer your points one at a time as time permits"?

What’s your reason for coming on here, Hank?

To set the record straight from all that conspiracy bunk you spew. I've done that. Right now, I'm asking you to support your claims. We're up to 39 claims on the JFK assassination since I started counting just *yesterday* that you have made but have failed to support with evidence and citations to the evidence.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Asking questions is not the same as supplying evidence.

#34 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

#35 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

#36 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

#37 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

#38 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

#39 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

That's a the best explanation I've heard yet for your inability to provide evidence and a coherent theory.

Hank

Hank. I have told you not to post quotes from me answered with quotes from me. Yes I know, you feel very clever by doing this. Like being on top of things. But, no, this is not clever, it is just plain silly, revealing a certain kind of intellectual delincuency prominent in the Mighty Church.

Quote me and respond in an orderly fasion with your own words and I will provide within reasonable time.

I will not promote your silly personality disorder by responding to your quote games. This is the last time I say this, Hank.

Behave.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank. I have told you to not post quote posts from me with quotes from me. Yes I know, you feel very clever by doing this. Like being on top of things. But, no, this is not clever, it is just plain silly, revealing a certain kind of intellectual delincuency prominent in the Mighty Church.

Quote me and respond in an orderly fasion with your own words and I will provide within reasonable time.

I will not promote your silly personality disorder by responding to your quote games. This is the last time I say this, Hank.

Behave.

Hilarious!

Just a few minutes ago, you had no problem with the manner in which I posted. You even thanked me for providing a list of 33 points you made but failed to support and said you'd post the evidence:

Well, thank you, Hank, for listing it so neatly and orderly. I’ll answer your points one at a time as time permits. No worries.

Now after I add six more to the list in the same manner, suddenly you want to quibble over how I asked and say you won't be responding to the 39 requests for evidence and citations to your sources.

Those are my words. There are no quotes around them. Everyone here sees right through this. You are now claiming - after stating you're here to provide the evidence, and after stating you'll always provide the evidence and citations to sources when asked - that you won't provide the evidence because you don't like the manner in which I asked.

Everyone here can see right through this. You apparently don't have the supporting evidence. You apparently never intended to supply the supporting evidence. You apparently are quibbling over the manner in which I ask as an excuse to:

• fail to support your claims of conspiracy
• fail to support your claims you'll provide the evidence
• fail to support your claims you're here to provide the evidence

If you had evidence, you'd rub my nose in it, not play the silly game that 'I don't like how you ask, so I won't be supplying the requested evidence'.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Everyone here can see right through this.

Indeed; it's pure bluster. And looking back over the past few pages, I would say that Manifesto is probably not the best person to be complaining about the manner of posting.