RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Here's the biggest lie of all, manifesto
Thank you
for asking.MicahJava, you have some catching up to do!
Last edited:
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
for asking.MicahJava, you have some catching up to do!
That day? How do you know?
That is circular reasoning, Hank.
IF so, how did Day and Fritz & co know this an hour after the shooting, Hank?
Clairvoyance?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Meaningless responses are meaningless. No evidence to support your claims still.
"In due course" is seen for what it is.
Hank
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Don't you
know which day Oswald assassinated JFK?Tell us again how well read you
are. LOLIt is pretty much ad hoc, I admit.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed his answer reduces to "I'll answer whoever I want and ignore whoever I want, exclusively on my terms," which is equivalent in effect to running away from whatever he doesn't want to answer. Weasel words.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
John McAdams told me he thinks that's why the pathologists are so unanimous in their reporting.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Then I see no evidence that I should trust your assurance that you'll get to my questions in due course. There appears to be no due course -- only what you decide from day to day is worthy of your attention. I don't see that as fundamentally different from running away from questions you can't answer.
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, not that day. We know it now.
How so?
#97 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Nobody said they knew it then. You're asking why Day didn't perform a test that you cannot cite any evidence to establish even exists. First, prove the test exists and is used in crime detection. Cite for it with legitimate quotes and references to criminology texts. Establish this test was used in the 1960s.
Ball in your court.
Once you do that, then come back and start asking why Day didn't perform this test you yanked out of your hind parts.
Hank
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You misunderstand. For the order to be defined, you would have had to answer some of the questions.
Dave
HSienzant
Philosopher
So what? Even assuming that's true (you provide no evidence to support your assertion), and aside from the fact that John McAdams isn't here, why are you pretending anyone here advanced that argument so you need to rebut it here?
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I'm getting the feeling like that's what you think happened but don't want to admit it because you want to stay a 'minimalist" nutter.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Your 'feelings' don't matter. What you can prove with *evidence* is the coin of the realm here.
Your point is still a straw man argument, in that you're seen here rebutting a point nobody here made. And you admitted nobody here made that argument, claiming only that 'John McAdams' made that argument to you, at some time undefined, at some place undefined.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Destroyed that argument right here, pointing out the language you and Sandy are ignoring:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12319066&postcount=4917
Summary for those just tuning in: Oswald purchased the rifle used to assassinate JFK, and there's a long trail of evidence to support that. CTs (and Manifesto here) like to pick at the evidence trying to overturn it. In the case of the money order used to pay for the purchase (which bears Oswald's handwriting according to handwriting experts), the current CT approach is to take some postal regulations out of context, ignore the clear meaning of those regulations, and pretend the money order is invalid because it's missing a stamp from the bank that accepted the money order in a batch from Klein's. But the clear language of the regulation says that the vendor stamp is sufficient. So CTs have no argument here, but of course, since they have to establish all the evidence against Oswald is fraudulent to get him off the hook, they can't give this argument up, so every so often it gets recycled as if it actually disproves Oswald ordered, purchased, paid for, and had shipped to his PO Box the rifle that was used to kill Kennedy.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
'ad hoc' means 'created or done for a particular purpose as necessary'.
Can you tell us when you think it's *necessary* to support your claims?
Is 'never' the correct answer?
Hank
Last edited:
Yes, one reason, no doubt, that the advisory "should" was used instead of the mandatory "shall" or "must."
And, of course, even if CTs could establish some deviation from required endorsing practice--and they can't--this would prove nothing more than a deviation from standard practice, not a forgery. They would still have an undischarged burden--the argumentative equivalent of an unpaid money order.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Sorry, it was late.
Here's the Carcano:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134
Here's the National Archives Assassination Artifact Photo Gallery:
https://catalog.archives.gov/search?q=assassination-artifacts&tabType=image
bknight
Master Poster
The operative word. So is McAdams clairvoyant?
Axxman300
Philosopher
You've only proven that you don't know what you're talking about.
You haven't seen all of the photos so you have no idea what they show or don't show, and therefore it is impossible for you to make a definitive statement.
They didn't remove the brain through a 5 inch hole. They sawed the skull cap off per standard procedure, and testified repeatedly by Humes and Fink.
I posted the link to the Humes testimony for a seventh time, and you didn't read it for the seventh time meaning that you're not just a thief, but you're also lazy. It's on the Mary Farrell site too, which is CT-friendly.
Get with the program.
Also those photos you posted SHOW THE SKULL HAD BEEN SAWED OPEN. You posy visual evidence that proved you're wrong.
Axxman300
Philosopher
And by handling the weapon before the CSI detective arrives contaminates the rifle, and can cause the loss of latent prints.
Plus, it only shows that the rifle has been fired, not when it was fired.
You fail.
- Status