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

[RoboTimbo]

”Ah, I found a rifle hid behind some stuff here. Could it be the murder weapon? Check if it has been newly fired. No, not necessary, I know that the technical ballistic guys will prove that this is the murder weapon in a couple of months. I am clairvoyant, you see.

Ah.”​

Citation required. Explain. Argue. Be specific without running away.

Yes indeed, why on earth did he do that?

Sucks to be a CTist without an answer, doesn't it?

There is at least between seven and ten different stories of these murder attempts of Oswald trying to kill severeal of the officers belonging to one of the most corrupt police forces in the history of the world?

You have made several unsubstantiated claims here. Where do you want to begin to provide evidence for any of them.

In the meantime, I will allow you to answer the question. Why did he go on to attempt to murder more officers in the theater?

Which one of the conflicting stories do you find the most convincing?

Explain. Argue. Cite.

little blue idiot smileys

As you wish.

 

[RoboTimbo]

”Put the finger in the pipe and chamber to see if it has NOT been newly fired”-test.

First sentence first page first book in the crime investigation manual.

Common CT sence 101.

FTFY

Do you think it's the same finger CTists use to plug their ears?

 

[MicahJava]

Okay, I think so far in this thread I have proven beyond all doubt that the open-cranium photographs could not show a beveled entry hole 4-5 inches above the EOP without the back of the skull being repaired or placed back. It is impossible to fit a brain through a 5-inch skull cavity, and remember the skull photographs show a lot of the left side of the skull INTACT.

 

[manifesto]

No, it isn't any such thing; the essence of a Gish gallop is throwing out a series of irrelevancies, lies, half-truths and misleading questions so fast that the opponent can't reply within the context of a time-limited discussion. Asking a series of relevant questions that all require long answers on a discussion forum, where there is no particular time limitation on replying, is called "debating".

You mean like you all do in your collective barrage of crap thrown at everyone trying to have a civilized discussion on the assassination of JFK?

The crap you call, ”the null”?

What relevance does that statement have, given that we're talking about manifesto?

Dave

”We’re” = The Mighty Church of the Looney Nutters.

Holy.

 

[HSienzant]

Do you have any idea why the most important alleged murder weapon in the history of the USA, was not checked right away (or later) for signs of having been fired that day?

What's the name of the test that shows it's been fired within the last 24 hours? As opposed to two weeks ago and not cleaned since?

”Put the finger in the pipe and chamber to see if it has NOT been newly fired”-test.

First sentence first page first book in the crime investigation manual.

Common sence 101.

So an admission that there's no such test that can tell you if a rifle was fired that day.

That's exactly what I thought.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

”Put the finger in the pipe and chamber to see if it has NOT been newly fired”-test.

That wasn't what you were asked. Do you think residue from firing just goes away on its own after a while? The test you propose tests merely if a rifle has been cleaned sometime after it was last fired. The test you were supposed to describe is one that determines whether a rifle was fired, say, an hour ago as opposed to two weeks ago.

First sentence first page first book in the crime investigation manual.

Common sence 101.

You were asked for documentation for this alleged test that you insist law enforcement should have known to perform but didn't, and you clearly don't have any. So we're back to "It's this way because I say it's this way," which would implicate your personal experience -- if you actually had any.

 

[HSienzant]

Okay, I think so far in this thread I have proven beyond all doubt that the open-cranium photographs could not show a beveled entry hole 4-5 inches above the EOP without the back of the skull being repaired or placed back. It is impossible to fit a brain through a 5-inch skull cavity, and remember the skull photographs show a lot of the left side of the skull INTACT.

You posted a bunch of recollections from 33 years after the fact, argued from a schematic drawing done to illustrate the wounds by a man who never saw the wounds or the photos, cherry-picked evidence, used a drawing meant as a aide-memoire not as a precise placement, jumbled it together with misconceptions and logical fallacies, and then summarize this as proving something beyond all doubt.

You're funny.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That wasn't what you were asked. Do you think residue from firing just goes away on its own after a while? The test you propose tests merely if a rifle has been cleaned sometime after it was last fired. The test you were supposed to describe is one that determines whether a rifle was fired, say, an hour ago as opposed to two weeks ago.



You were asked for documentation for this alleged test that you insist law enforcement should have known to perform but didn't, and you clearly don't have any. So we're back to "It's this way because I say it's this way," which would implicate your personal experience -- if you actually had any.

The "If I ran the zoo" Fallacy?

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

The crap you call, ”the null”?

That and "consilience" and "burden of proof" are what really irk you , aren't they? Those are the ones that give you nightmares.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up

Here's one that MicahJava just made up, so you have each other for company.

Okay, I think so far in this thread I have proven beyond all doubt that the open-cranium photographs could not show a beveled entry hole 4-5 inches above the EOP without the back of the skull being repaired or placed back. It is impossible to fit a brain through a 5-inch skull cavity, and remember the skull photographs show a lot of the left side of the skull INTACT.

 

[HSienzant]

You mean like you all do in your collective barrage of crap thrown at everyone trying to have a civilized discussion on the assassination of JFK?

Translations required:

"in your collective barrage of crap" - by citing evidence and arguing with reason and logic.

"thrown at" - brought up as counter argument

"everyone trying to have a civilized discussion" - CTs like me who just repeat the mythology found in CT books and on CT websites.

Putting it all together: "You mean like you all do by citing evidence and arguing with reason and logic brought up as counter argument to CTs like me who just repeat the mythology found in CT books and on CT websites?"

Once translated into easy-to-understand English, I'd answer in the affirmative. But the way you begged the question, no, that's not even close to accurate.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up,

Here's the most recent.

There is at least between seven and ten different stories of these murder attempts of Oswald trying to kill severeal of the officers belonging to one of the most corrupt police forces in the history of the world?

Sorry, I was traveling and got behind in noting all of your made up nonsense. Could you repeat all of the ones from the last few pages that I missed? Be specific.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You mean like you all do in your collective barrage of crap thrown at everyone trying to have a civilized discussion on the assassination of JFK?

The crap you call, ”the null”?

”We’re” = The Mighty Church of the Looney Nutters.

Holy.

This is what you call "trying to have a civilized discussion"?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

”Ah, I found a rifle hid behind some stuff here. Could it be the murder weapon? Check if it has been newly fired. No, not necessary, I know that the technical ballistic guys will prove that this is the murder weapon in a couple of months. I am clairvoyant, you see.

Ah.”​

ITYM:

"Ah, I found a rifle here. We're investigating a shooting so this rifle could well be a significant piece of evidence. I think I'll just make sure that I contaminate it by sticking my finger in the barrel, so that if there's any significant residues there I can wipe them off and replace them with some extraneous evidence of my own. I'm sure if I'd been listening in basic training I'd have heard them tell me to do that."

Dave

 

[MicahJava]

You posted a bunch of recollections from 33 years after the fact, argued from a schematic drawing done to illustrate the wounds by a man who never saw the wounds or the photos, cherry-picked evidence, used a drawing meant as a aide-memoire not as a precise placement, jumbled it together with misconceptions and logical fallacies, and then summarize this as proving something beyond all doubt.

You're funny.

Hank

Your knowledge of the case is so outdated, you are probably the real one using 33-year-old memory

You argue that an entry wound in the parietal bone survive intact after removing the shattered skull bone fragments and some additional sawing. Some brain removal procedures can indeed happen where the occipital bone remains intact and careful maneuvering of the brain can allow it to be fit through the front. But in those cases, not only is a lot of frontal bone separated, but enough of the left side of the skull to fit your fingers under both temporal lobes of the brain. We know from the best and earliest evidence that the autopsy pathologists officially concluded the single head trajectory was anatomically upwards. Which means that if you believe the entry wound in the autopsy report was actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, then you must also believe that not a lot of frontal bone was removed, otherwise you'd have to explain the beveled exit notch on the open-cranium photographs. And also the open-cranium photographs shows a lot of the left side of the skull intact.

 

[HSienzant]

”Ah, I found a rifle hid behind some stuff here. Could it be the murder weapon? Check if it has been newly fired. No, not necessary, I know that the technical ballistic guys will prove that this is the murder weapon in a couple of months. I am clairvoyant, you see. Ah.”​

Rather than 'No, not necessary' what you really mean is 'No, there's no such test'. And rather than "in a couple of months", what you really mean is "within a day":

r. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.
Mr. EISENBERG - Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it does.
Mr. EISENBERG - The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it, which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner removed a small quantity of metal for analysis.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it had been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And what was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - When did you make the examinations?
Mr. FRAZIER - On the dates I mentioned, that is, [two of them on] November 23, 1963, and [the third one on] November 27, 1963.​

So by the day after the assassination, it was known that Oswald's rifle was the one that was used in the assassination. Not months later.

There is at least between seven and ten different stories of these murder attempts of Oswald

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

trying to kill severeal of the officers

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

belonging to one of the most corrupt police forces in the history of the world?

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

Which one of the conflicting stories do you find the most convincing?

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up,

manifesto , MicahJava is trying to catch up to your whoppers!

Your knowledge of the case is so outdated, you are probably the real one using 33-year-old memory

 

[bknight]

This is what you call "trying to have a civilized discussion"?

Dave

No it his continued use of ad hominems, but you knew that.

 

[JayUtah]

The "If I ran the zoo" Fallacy?

Essentially yes. I'm not sure if I coined that term back in the early 2000s, but the argument prototype was common enough among the Apollo hoax crowd that I gave it that name and I've seen it more widely used since. You could call it an appeal to intution, and it bears a strong resemblance to the more widely discussed appeal to nature. In its purest form, "If I Ran the Zoo" begs an expectation by stating that it would have been reasonable or advantageous -- and relatively simple -- to do something in some case, and if it wasn't done then this makes the narrative suspect. So it combines a begged question with an inferential error. Either can be wrong, or both can be wrong together. The begged question can be wrong if it implies something that isn't reasonable -- or here in Manifesto's case, that it isn't possible -- or simple. The inference is wrong when it infers necessity from mere possibility; that's overly generalized.

Appeals to intuition -- i.e., to common sense -- are often seen as a fallback position from which was first postured as an expert opinion. We see this a lot in politics lately. "Everyone knows..." or "It's common sense that..." are various ways to prop up a premise that was ostensibly based on fact and is later shown not to be. It's especially amusing when it's propped up against actual working knowledge. One important difference between actual expertise and common sense is that expertise actually knows what's possible or not within some specialized practice because it follows a systematic process of trial and error in which knowledge is accumulated. The word "counterintuitive" pops up a lot in these fields, and that's exactly why we invented science -- to actually test things rigorously and know whether or not they are predictive. The scientific method was invented precisely because intuition is so often wrong.

Orbital mechanics is just such a field. Even in entertainment that tries to get the physics right (e.g., as opposed to spaceships that behave like airplanes) the filmmakers generally defer to how the layman thinks orbits work rather than how they actually work. Gravity and Mission to Mars are egregious examples. These films make intuitive sense, but are factually wrong. The right thing to do in orbital mechanics is usually the one that intuition says won't work, such as "speed up to slow down." The least convincing argument someone can make to me is that the experts must be wrong because "common sense" disagrees.

 

[MicahJava]

manifesto , MicahJava is trying to catch up to your whoppers!

I edited the comment to explain these problems a billionth time once more. Your welcome for the free education.

Your knowledge of the case is so outdated, you are probably the real one using 33-year-old memory

You argue that an entry wound in the parietal bone survive intact after removing the shattered skull bone fragments and some additional sawing. Some brain removal procedures can indeed happen where the occipital bone remains intact and careful maneuvering of the brain can allow it to be fit through the front. But in those cases, not only is a lot of frontal bone separated, but enough of the left side of the skull to fit your fingers under both temporal lobes of the brain. We know from the best and earliest evidence that the autopsy pathologists officially concluded the single head trajectory was anatomically upwards. Which means that if you believe the entry wound in the autopsy report was actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, then you must also believe that not a lot of frontal bone was removed, otherwise you'd have to explain the beveled exit notch on the open-cranium photographs. And also the open-cranium photographs shows a lot of the left side of the skull intact.