• 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.
MicahJava said:
If a person involved in the investigation is made to feel personally responsible for an error in procedure, or paranoid that the assassin might not get a conviction, then some of the framing and cover-up would be a case of a "naturally forming" conspiracy that doesn't necessarily involve one evil entity bossing everybody around and ordering them to be liars for life. Just think of how paranoid some of the authorities may have been in the following HOURS that their "evil communist" accused assassin didn't leave behind enough evidence for a conviction. Evidence could have been fabricated and substituted without even having to be part of the original homicidal conspiracy.
Click to expand...

You could have also described certain actions without assuming that any conspiracy even exists. Just natural human tendencies.

As in a person involved in the investigation actually feels responsible, all on his own, for an error in procedure or a mistake that was made. They could then act in a way that could be interpreted by a rational person as covering their own ass. No conspiracy necessary. Example: Dr. Malcolm Perry.

There could also be instances of comments made that could be interpreted as covering up a conspiracy that could also be interpreted by a rational person as someone acting on there own trying to head off any speculation of conspiracy with good intentions. No conspiracy necessary. Examples: Katzenbach, Hoover

There could also be instances of what looks like a conspiracy to cover up a conspiracy that are actually instances of trying to cover up something else like personal information of JFK's other medical conditions or to keep the presidents body from becoming a spectacle for public display. Examples: Robert Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy.

There are also instances of someone acting in a way that they may initially feel to be heroic. Then later after they hear that there actions actually make them look like a participant in a conspiracy. They then try very hard to clear their name and this is used again out of context to make it look like they are definitely part of a conspiracy. No conspiracy necessary. Example: Jack Ruby
 
JayUtah said:
Hank complained about waiting 30 months for an answer from Manifesto. Some of us have been waiting twice that long for answers from Jabba.
Click to expand...

Jabba a moonie?

I think one year should be the statute of limitations on Internet replies. Aster that, it's pretty clear the person has no interest in providing the evidence. Like in the case of the issues Manifesto raised 30 months ago. Once it became clear he was losing the argument, he started changing the subject at every turn and ignoring requests to return to the original points he raised.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
No, he regularly posts to say that he hasn't got time to give a simple answer to the question. It's a different approach to posting regularly to say "I'm going to answer all your questions" but not actually doing so, but no less irritating.

Dave
Click to expand...

Strange behavior, both of them.
 
manifesto said:
According to...
Click to expand...

None of this answers my question. I asked about your personal experience handling fragmentary human skulls. Below I explain the reason behind the question.

Not even the janitor could have...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you expect this argument to work. Because you describe an autopsy populated with experts in various fields, surely you must accept that descriptive and interpretive findings coming out of that exercise require that expertise. Janitors don't routinely perform or attend autopsies or receive training in forensic anthropology, so it seems you're trying to argue the contradiction that expertise is required, yet also that it's not required. Please reconcile that contradiction if you intend to pursue this line of reasoning.

Correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong, but I'm willing to entertain an argument. You're claiming that the estimate of the wound position is outside of a reasonable margin of error for such things. You haven't cited any sources to substantiate what would be a reasonable margin of error. So absent that, I'm endeavoring to determine whether you might have any personal experience that would inform your judgment of the out-of-tolerance condition you allege.

Have you ever handled a fragmentary human skull? Depending on your answer, I will have followup questions.
 
Steve said:
I know, I know. It was the "one claim at a time" post that made the connection for me.
Click to expand...

Yes, they both use a strategy of dumping a Gish gallop of material into the thread and then insisting that we take only one point or sub-point at a time, ostensibly so that the entirety of the argument never gets addressed. There are generally two follow-up strategies to a Gish gallop. One is this one, where the progress is excruciatingly slow so as to make critics give up in frustration. Another, in contrast, is where the proponent vehemently opposes any sort of detailed examination of the individual points raised and wants to focus on "the big picture" instead.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, they both use a strategy of dumping a Gish gallop of material into the thread and then insisting that we take only one point or sub-point at a time, ostensibly so that the entirety of the argument never gets addressed. There are generally two follow-up strategies to a Gish gallop. One is this one, where the progress is excruciatingly slow so as to make critics give up in frustration. Another, in contrast, is where the proponent vehemently opposes any sort of detailed examination of the individual points raised and wants to focus on "the big picture" instead.
Click to expand...

I never did like the wall-o-text approach (manifesto et. al.), nor do I like the one level quote system of this forum. But I'm a guest and I'll play with the house rules.

You are correct in slowly drawing out one item at a time, or by questioning each point(that gets lost in the second subsequent quote. I've tried both methods with manifesto only to get another wall-o-text all without the slightest evidence.
 
bknight said:
I never did like the wall-o-text approach (manifesto et. al.), nor do I like the one level quote system of this forum. But I'm a guest and I'll play with the house rules.

You are correct in slowly drawing out one item at a time, or by questioning each point(that gets lost in the second subsequent quote. I've tried both methods with manifesto only to get another wall-o-text all without the slightest evidence.
Click to expand...

It is possible to nest quotes by using the multi-quote button and moving the tags, but it's kind of a pain.
 
manifesto said:
According to the x-rays the back of the head is almost pristine except for an (new) entrance wound ca 11 cm above the EOP.
Click to expand...

Not true. The entirety of the skull was shattered. You can see the cracks radiating out in the x-ray.

More importantly, there is no exit wound in the rear of the head in the x-ray, which puts the idea of a frontal shooter to rest.
 
carlitos said:
:dl:

ETA - When the assassin actually is an evil communist, you don't need the scare quotes.
Click to expand...
I’m so happy for you finding joy in your predicament. You will need it in the years to come, when the official mythology begin to crack open on all fronts.

Good attitude.
 
manifesto said:
I’m so happy for you finding joy in your predicament. You will need it in the years to come, when the official mythology begin to crack open on all fronts.

Good attitude.
Click to expand...


Err, I think you will find carlitos sees joy in the ineptitude of JFK conspiraloons; desperate to prove their fantasies are real, but with no evidence to do so.. oh, that's right, you ;) have the evidence, but we have to wait for it....

Funny-men-laughing-cartoon-you-want-it-when.png


Comedy Gold
Never gets Old
 
smartcooky said:
Err, I think you will find carlitos sees joy in the ineptitude of JFK conspiraloons; desperate to prove their fantasies are real, but with no evidence to do so.. oh, that's right, you ;) have the evidence, but we have to wait for it....

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/m9keaq5069rb4qo/Funny-men-laughing-cartoon-you-want-it-when.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Comedy Gold
Never gets Old
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s the holy spirit. You’ll need it, smartcooky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom