• 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.
It's anatomically upwards, but it's downward based on the position of JFK's head at the time of the head shot.

Manifesto disagrees with you about the deflection. He says bullets can deflect 'to a considerable degree'.



Can I explain why you two disagree?

Your conspiracy theory has the bullet entering at the EOP. If a bullet could deflect upward, you don't have an argument for what the Z-film shows. So you argue bullets can't deflect.

Manifesto has a different theory he's pushing. In his theory, the bullet enters JFK's head above and to the right of the right ear, at approximately a 90 degree angle to the head. But he needs it to blow out the back of the head where you claim an entry wound was, so he needs it to deflect about 90 degrees to exit the back of the head. So he argues bullets can deflect to a considerable degree.

Neither of you has cited anything from a ballistics source to support your mutually exclusive claims. As a CT, you don't need that. All you need is to be able to support your own conspiracy claims, and you each do that by making up whatever argument you need to support your conspiracy theory.

So you end up with 'bullets can't deflect' to keep your theory alive and Manifesto ends up 'bullets can deflect considerably' to keep his alive.

Not because any evidence led you to those conclusions. Because you need those conclusions to be true to keep your two different conspiracy theories alive.

Hank
Hank. Why are you trying to conflate me with someone else? Are you getting all this desperat not knowing it yourself?

Getting old?

Or is it that since you belong to a Mighty Church (holy) where everybody acts and thinks like One hive mind, this is so everywhere else?

Well, I’ve got news for you.
 
Haha, already noticed and read, but thanks anyways. Yes, this Nalli guy is buying Alvarez fraudelent jet recoil-effect adorning it with lots of fancy matemathicuolusly scientific shill equations.

Junk science built upon junk science = Mighty Church.

Cite your qualifications. Argue. Provide evidence.

You ;) should have plenty to keep you ;) busy providing citations for all of the zero-thought proclamations you've made.
 
It's a 2 inch difference, on a decimated head and a shattered skull, in the middle of a rushed autopsy where none of the pathologists took an actual measurement of the head wound. It means nothing.
No, it is not. ”Slightly above EOP” is on the edge of EOP which is ca 11 cm below the (new) entrance wound ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

If true, the old half blind janitor would be a better choice for high profile autopsies.

But, go ahead, cling along. It is at least entertaining in a non intended way.
 
No, it is not. ”Slightly above EOP” is on the edge of EOP which is ca 11 cm below the (new) entrance wound ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

If true, the old half blind janitor would be a better choice for high profile autopsies.

But, go ahead, cling along. It is at least entertaining in a non intended way.

But which is wrong? You ;) or MicahJava? You ;) can't both be right but you ;) can both be wrong.
 
Why are you trying to conflate me with someone else?

Nobody is trying to conflate you with anyone else. We realize that you and MicahJava are two distinct persons. What you're being asked to do is reconcile your theories.

The assassination conspiracy hypotheses are purported to be better, more factual interpretations of available evidence than the conventional narrative (generally based on the Warren Commission Report and other findings). If you take two such hypotheses, one thing that should be common to both -- if the premise of superiority is true -- is that they should converge. There is only one set of true facts, and any two hypotheses that purport to be closer to that set must necessarily converge toward one interpretation. If the hypotheses do not converge, then one or both of them is necessarily wrong.

Therefore it's reasonable to ask that the hypotheses converge if they are postured as better explanations than some other.
 
”Either”? Lol. The Cranor article is a devastating review of exactly your ”latest real scientific work on the subject matter”.

This is like, getting crazy.

It is therefore found that the observed motions of President Kennedy in the film are physically consistent with a high-speed projectile impact from the rear of the motorcade, these resulting from an instantaneous forward impulse force, followed by delayed rearward recoil and neuromuscular forces.
What a horrible day for CTists ;) everywhere.
 
OK, here are the Regulations

https://pe.usps.com/Archive/PDF/DMMArchive20041209/S020.pdf

2.0 CASHING MONEY ORDERS
Validity and Value
2.1
Domestic money orders are paid regardless of the time passed since their issue.
Money orders are not interest-bearing instruments; they are paid only in the exact amount imprinted up to the authorized maximum amount. USPS records serve as the basis for adjudicating claims for payment of money orders.

Redemption
2.2
All U.S. money orders, including military, may be cashed at any U.S. post office or bank. Subject to funds availability, money orders may be cashed by rural carriers.

Identification
2.3
When presenting a money order for payment, the customer seeking payment must sign in the presence of a USPS employee. If the customer is not known to the employee, suitable identification can be required. The USPS may refuse payment on any money order when the identity of the customer seeking payment is not proved to the satisfaction of the employee.


No stamp is required at the time of paying (you can check the rest of the regulation if you like, but a word search does not reveal "stamp" anywhere else except in reference to "stamped signatures" and "postage stamps").


Acceptable Signature
2.4
The paying post office may accept any signature of the payee, purchaser, or
endorsee that is not different from the name shown on the money order, subject to
these conditions:

b. All money orders payable to a business firm, an organization, society,
institution, or government agency must be signed in the name of the
organization by an authorized representative (who must also sign with his or
her own name and organizational title). Evidence of the representative’s
authority may be required.

e. A stamped signature is an acceptable endorsement on a money order drawn
in favor of a firm, corporation, association, society, or individual, when the
money order is presented to a bank for payment. A post office accepts a
stamped signature only if an agreement is on file specifying the individual
responsible for the correctness of such payments.


This makes perfect sense. When the Payee is a business, they would not take cheques and money orders to the post office or bank and cash them and then bank the cash, they would bank them directly into their own bank account. They are listed on a deposit slip and bundled with it. The bank would then clear the whole bundle as a batch, which is where the key punch operator would come in (remember, this is 1963 and MICR encoding of cheques was only just being introduced). Klein's Sporting Goods was a fairly large business, advertising all over the USA, they would likely have banked hundreds of cheques and money orders each day.
This looks like regulations from 2004? Correct?

Do you have regulations from 1963?
 
Nobody is trying to conflate you with anyone else. We realize that you and MicahJava are two distinct persons. What you're being asked to do is reconcile your theories.
Why on earth are we supposed to do that. We do not even know eachother?

The assassination conspiracy hypotheses are purported to be better, more factual interpretations of available evidence than the conventional narrative (generally based on the Warren Commission Report and other findings). If you take two such hypotheses, one thing that should be common to both -- if the premise of superiority is true -- is that they should converge. There is only one set of true facts, and any two hypotheses that purport to be closer to that set must necessarily converge toward one interpretation. If the hypotheses do not converge, then one or both of them is necessarily wrong.

Therefore it's reasonable to ask that the hypotheses converge if they are postured as better explanations than some other.
Baloney. Just because two individuals agree on one thing there is nothing that says they have to agree on everything. In fact, there is nothing that says they should agree on anything else.

Your ’logic’ is getting more and more, contrived. Time to leave the Mighty Church?
 
Last edited:
”Either”? Lol. The Cranor article is a devastating review of exactly your ”latest real scientific work on the subject matter”.

This is like, getting crazy.

Really, cool, explain the physics in the Hellion paper, and how they are inaccurate.

Show us why the equations should look like.

Then explain exactly what model of round available in 1963 that could be fired from a hunting rifle explodes in contact.
 
Nobody is trying to conflate you with anyone else. We realize that you and MicahJava are two distinct persons. What you're being asked to do is reconcile your theories.Why on earth are we supposed to do that. We do not even know eachother?

Baloney. Just because two individuals agree on one thing there is nothing that says they have to agree on everything. In fact, there is nothing that says they should agree on anything else.

Your ’logic’ is getting more and more, contrived. Time to leave the Mighty Church?

So which of you ;) is wrong?
 
Nobody is trying to conflate you with anyone else. We realize that you and MicahJava are two distinct persons. What you're being asked to do is reconcile your theories.Why on earth are we supposed to do that. We do not even know eachother?

Baloney. Just because two individuals agree on one thing there is nothing that says they have to agree on everything. In fact, there is nothing that says they should agree on anything else.

Your ’logic’ is getting more and more, contrived. Time to leave the Mighty Church?

Weird, there are a lot of people posting in this thread who believe Oswald acted alone based on the complete set of facts.

So what's the problem on your side of the fence?
 
It sure is. What are you up to now, 40 unsupported bare assertions from which you run away when asked to supply evidence for them?
Everything I claim is supported with good evidence. I present it in due qourse.

You are a quite numerous congregation. Be patient. One at the time. Nobody left behind.
 
Baloney. Just because two individuals agree on one thing there is nothing that says they have to agree on everything.

There is if you want to both be right.

If you both disagree on vital aspects such as Terminal Ballistics as it relates to the movement of JFK at the time of impact, then at least one of you MUST bne wrong... you cannot both be right.
 
Baloney. Just because two individuals agree on one thing there is nothing that says they have to agree on everything.

But there is. I explained this. There is only one set of true facts. Someone who claims to have a better explanation for evidence than someone else must necessarily be getting closer to that one set of true facts. If two people both claim to have better explanation than some third party, and they really do, then they must both be getting closer to that one true set of facts.

In fact, there is nothing that says they should agree on anything else.

If two theories contradict, one or both must necessarily be false. Something can't be both true and false. This isn't even complicated logic.

Your ’logic’ is getting more and more, contrived.

Explain how. You didn't address the logic. You simply made a bare assertion that contradicted the conclusion. If you're going to question my logic you have to do more than just gainsay the result. You have to show where the logic went wrong.

Here is an example of where I did just such a thing in one of your arguments.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12311179#post12311179
You never addressed it, so I don't think you really understand how logical analysis is supposed to go.

Time to leave the Mighty Church?

I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be trying to lump all your critics together so you can more effectively call them names. I don't see how that helps your argument.
 
Everything I claim is supported with good evidence. I present it in due qourse.

Rubbish.

You are months, and even years behind.

When to make an assertion, provide evidence at the time you make it, or wait until you have the evidence ready before making the assertion.

We are keeping track of your lies bare assertions now, and you will be held to backing them up.... with evidence.
 
There is if you want to both be right.

If you both disagree on vital aspects such as Terminal Ballistics as it relates to the movement of JFK at the time of impact, then at least one of you MUST bne wrong... you cannot both be right.
THAT is an almost geniously contrived truism.

I’m impressed.

I read your postal regulations but they seem to be from 2004? Correct?

How about 1963?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom