JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63...

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
He's abandoned the thread in the past only to start anew with the fring reset months later.

Check out this page from the fourth iteration of this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297389&page=58

Post 2310 was made by MicahJava on December 8th of 2016:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11620411&postcount=2310

A bit later on the same page 58 is MicahJava's post 2316:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11749838&postcount=2316

That post is from March 9th of 2017 -- fully three months and one day from his prior post.

Indeed, there's an even better example in this thread.

He left on March 15th of 2019 on page 74 of this thread with this post, issuing a generic ad hominem in post 2957:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12883551&postcount=2957

He came back on November 6th of that year here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12883551&postcount=3060

So my conclusion is he'll be back once he figures most people here have wandered off or moved on to graze other internet pastures.

Hank
Click to expand...

Oh I do agree with your assessment from my short experience in this topic. All I was thinking it would be nice if he grew out of his CT thoughts like some others have. ;)
 
MicahJava, you quoted Humes as saying this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11870328&postcount=246

"The fatal wound was blatantly obvious," Humes recalls. "The entrance wound was elliptical, 15 millimeters long and 6 millimeters wide, and located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. The inside of the skull displayed the characteristic beveled appearance."
Click to expand...

And you quoted Finck as saying this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876542&postcount=391

"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."
Click to expand...

Since both doctors give the same dimensions, it is clear to me they are talking of the same wound. It is also clear that the width provided of six mm means the other dimension is perceived as the length - that is, that it is longer than it was wide, not the other way around.

And since Finck said there was a corresponding wound to the skull under that lesion, that 15 x 6 lesion is the entry wound. It must be. Right?

Now, do you see any "blatantly obvious" lesion / laceration on the autopsy photo we see here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11868122&postcount=219
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/autopclr4.JPEG

I see one - the one you keep calling the "the cowlick red spot". If you cannot identify any other blatantly obvious lacerated wound on the back of the head above the external occipital protuberance that is an appropriate candidate, then this lesion / laceration is apparently the only one.

In addition, of course, it bears all the earmarks of the wound that we would expect in am autopsy photograph. It is:

1. In focus
2. In the relative center of the photo
3. next to a ruler
4. within the hair apparently parted so as to better reveal what you call the 'cowlick red spot'​

Can you address the actual arguments put forth against your interpretation of the evidence without all the logical fallacies and better understand why we don't find your interpretations of the evidence at all convincing?

Your constant logical fallacies and quotes out of context (liberally misinterpreted by you) do not a realistic nor complete scenario make. Until you offer true rebuttal points, your claims will remain contrived, off-the-mark, and meaningless.

Hank
 
Last edited:
The 6th Floor Museum just put up a video of KRLD Reporter Bill Mercer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwcJUxvcgsM

Again, if you love history this is worth your time.

In this video you learn:

How crowded that small hallway on the 3rd floor of DPD was and how it got smaller as reporters packed in.

How primitive live TV was in 1963.

The close relationship between the press and DPD.

The conditions which lead to false information getting out on air.

This video is wonderful for perspective on conditions inside the police station and is a window into a time when beat reporters were the backbone of journalism.
 
Axxman300 said:
The 6th Floor Museum just put up a video of KRLD Reporter Bill Mercer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwcJUxvcgsM

Again, if you love history this is worth your time.

In this video you learn:

How crowded that small hallway on the 3rd floor of DPD was and how it got smaller as reporters packed in.

How primitive live TV was in 1963.

The close relationship between the press and DPD.

The conditions which lead to false information getting out on air.

This video is wonderful for perspective on conditions inside the police station and is a window into a time when beat reporters were the backbone of journalism.
Click to expand...

Except all the CTs who have already "learned" everything they need in the "conspiracy"
 
Axxman300 said:
They're beyond help.

The point of posting and sharing stuff like this is to illustrate just how unrealistic they are about almost every aspect of the assassination.
Click to expand...

Paris Flammonde wrote the first book about Jim Garrison's 'investigation' into the supposed conspiracy to kill President Kennedy that turned into the trial of Clay Shaw. It was called "The Kennedy Conspiracy" and was published in 1969.

48 years later, he was interviewed about his beliefs by talk show host Dave Emory. He hadn't learned a damned thing. He was still a card-carrying conspiracy theorist. This is a bit personal for me, as Paris Flammonde was a frequent guest (and for many years, the producer) of The Long John Nebel radio show. I used to listen to that show as a teenager in the 1960s, and Nebel's radio show frequently had discussions about UFO's, the Kennedy assassination, and other controversial subjects. In many ways, that was my introduction to the JFK assassination critics.

There's three interview summaries and six interview parts (two for each summary). Each part is approximately 30 minutes each. The interviews were conducted in 2007. Flammonde repeats a lot of the hoary myths that have been resolved for decades, but still carried as truth by many CTs. We've discussed and dismantled many of these false claims here (the Mauser nonsense, Paris, really?)

You can get an idea of what kinds of stuff Flammonde believed by looking at the titles of the books he wrote here: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Se...F-_-topnav-_-Results&kn=paris flammonde&sts=t

http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-rec...about-the-assassination-of-president-kennedy/

http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-rec...s-flammonde-about-the-masques-of-new-orleans/

http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-rec...nde-about-the-masques-of-new-orleans-part-ii/

EDIT: Found two more interviews from 2008 with Flammonde from the same talk show:

://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/...ris-flammonde-a-whole-new-form-of-government/

Hank
 
Last edited:
Just started reading Reclaiming Parkland.

Whoo Boy.

Finished Death of The Kingfish! by Richard Briley III.

I'm starting to believe that all political assassination CT's are cut from the same cloth.
 
HSienzant said:
I buy all my JFK assassination conspiracy books used now. That way the money isn't going to the original author, and doesn't encourage them to grind out more nonsense.

Hank
Click to expand...

You fail to understand that this kind of study is a labor of love. There are only a small handful of people in the world who have made a serious profit from "conspiracy theories" (the definition of "conspiracy theory" is literally just "anything that questions western government").
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
You fail to understand that this kind of study is a labor of love. There are only a small handful of people in the world who have made a serious profit from "conspiracy theories" (the definition of "conspiracy theory" is literally just "anything that questions western government").
Click to expand...

That's not even the definition of "literally," much less the definition of "conspiracy theories."
 
That's it? You're away for months and that's what you come back with? HILARIOUS!


MicahJava said:
You fail to understand that this kind of study is a labor of love.
Click to expand...

I'm calling Bovine Excrement on that one. Cite your source, and it *shouldn't* be the authors who are selling you their books.

A labor of love for what exactly? Money?

A guy who says "that will be $22.99" out of one side of his mouth while telling you he wrote the book out of a "labor of love" out of the other side isn't the most trustworthy of individuals.

In addition, calling any conspiracy-oriented book or article a 'study" is being more than overly generous on your part. It's typically eyewitness quotes taken out of context, suppositions, misunderstandings or false characterizations of expert testimony, bizarre personal interpretations of the evidence unsupported by any facts, and, when all else fails, outright lies and slander. The typical route pursued in most every conspiracy book is to contrast some eyewitness testimony with the hard evidence, then use the eyewitness testimony to discard the hard evidence or to argue for conspiracy.

One such example is quoting some witnesses (maybe five or six) who said they heard four shots (or more), then concluding this is strong and solid evidence of another shooter (the Depository contained only three shells traceable to Oswald's rifle). The conspiracy authors who do this 'out of a labor of love' according to you don't inform their readers that the witnesses they are quoting are in the serious minority, that over 90% of the witnesses said they heard three shots. They also don't inform their readers that more people said they heard two shots than said they heard four or more. These authors conceal pertinent facts necessary to make an informed decision from their readers. They then claim the Warren Commission was guilty of the very offenses they are guilty of.

If these authors are doing it out of a "labor of love" as you claim, it's certainly not a love of the truth that motivates them.


MicahJava said:
There are only a small handful of people in the world who have made a serious profit from "conspiracy theories"...
Click to expand...

What about the others who have made it their livelihood and have written multiple books with the intent that it would be their main or supplemental source of income? Harold Weisberg (who was one of the original JFK conspiracy authors starting in the mid-1960s) published about ten books on the supposed conspiracy to kill JFK and was quite upfront about needing a new source of income after he sold his goose farm. The JFK assassination books were going to be just that, he said.


MicahJava said:
...(the definition of "conspiracy theory" is literally just "anything that questions western government").
Click to expand...

Why do you think just making up stuff is the best route for you to take? May I be so bold as to suggest it's because if you didn't just make up stuff you wouldn't have anything to say in rebuttal?

The definition of "conspiracy theory" is quite simply this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy theory

conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators​

Says nothing about "western government". I have a theory that the Kremlin and the Chinese governments are responsible for the murder of many journalists who are trying to get the truth out about what goes on over there. Those governments are doing it to silence dissent and control their populace.

I have another theory that the Russians and Chinese are utilizing paid assets to post conspiracy nonsense about western governments on conspiracy boards in the west to sow dissent while of course tightly controlling their own citizens internet access and reading material.

Are either of those a "conspiracy theory"? Are they about "western governments"?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
You fail to understand that this kind of study is a labor of love.
Click to expand...

No, it's a labor of ego for nimrods who need to back-engineer an a historic event to fit - protect their world view. Half the "research" of every JFK-CT book is just quoting other JFK-CT books as if they are fact. The other half, if there is any additional research done at all, is simply cherry-picking, taking information out of context, and ignoring contradictory data. Hanging out on Reddit and using exclusive JFK-CT websites is not research.

There are only a small handful of people in the world who have made a serious profit from "conspiracy theories"
Click to expand...

Advances for non-fiction books used to run between $2,500 to $15,000 depending on the author and the publishing house. If it's a name author it can be up to $25,000 for a big publishing house. CT's a good money if you're a decent writer. Look at Jim Marrs, he's never met a CT he didn't like. Most authors might not get rich but they can make a living.

(the definition of "conspiracy theory" is literally just "anything that questions western government").
Click to expand...

Said the guy who wouldn't last a week under an eastern-block style government.
 
MicahJava said:
You fail to understand that this kind of study is a labor of love. There are only a small handful of people in the world who have made a serious profit from "conspiracy theories" (the definition of "conspiracy theory" is literally just "anything that questions western government").
Click to expand...

Where in the definition of CTs does it say/mean western government? They are merely theories/beliefs that are CONTRADICTORY to the current understanding of an event.

You paint yourself into a corner with those thoughts. You should get out of CT sites/books/papers and read what the real research is on subject. CTs do indeed as many have posted quote out of context, like you do; quote out of other CTs as they are facts, a strong logical failure as one cannot prove an assertion by stating it many times, like you do. The list could be length, but I doubt you are going to be persuaded, since you know the TRUTH. :rolleyes:
 
The argument ignores "eastern government", or in the JFK sense - the Soviet Union and Castro. The Cheka predates the CIA by 30 years (they evolved into the KGB who are now the FSB and still conducting the same operations they always have). Everything which the US and the West did in the Cold War was to counter Soviet aggression and expansion, which was either direct ( see Czechoslovakia in 1968, or the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961). The actions of the CIA and MI6 didn't happen in a vacuum.

Today the FSB continues to assassinate enemies of the Russian Federation much to the telling silence of the CT community.
 
Oh good, Bob Dylan finally got around to writing a song about the assassination:

https://variety.com/2020/music/news...dy-assassination-murder-most-foul-1203546713/

When it comes to the actual assassination, Dylan doesn’t skimp on the details: “They blew off his head while he was still in the car,” he sings in the first stanza. Later on, he traces the car’s frantic exit away from Dealey Plaza in Dallas, even taking the first-person point of view of the deceased Kennedy: “Riding in the backseat next to my wife / And it’s straight on into the afterlife / I’m leaning to the left I got my head in her lap.”

He also takes the point of view of Kennedys assailant — or, in his view, assailants — singing provocative lines like, “We’ve already got someone here to take your place.” In the song’s view, the killing of JFK, “right there in front of everyone’s eyes,” is the “greatest magic trick” — and one he presumably thinks has some relevance in 2020.
Click to expand...

I'll wait for the Jimi Hendrix cover...oh wait, "They" got Jimi too...:D
 
Axxman300 said:
Today the FSB continues to assassinate enemies of the Russian Federation much to the telling silence of the CT community.
Click to expand...

They should look into the 1999 apartment buildings in Russia. The Russians even blamed it on Islamists and it helped Putin win the Presidency of Russia, all while escalating a brutal and indiscriminate war on terrorism in Chechnya.

More recently, Bashar al-Assad of Syria has been widely accused of using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. He blames Islamist terrorists.

All I’ll say is that there is a hell of a lot more evidence for Russian and Syrian malfeasance in these incidents than there is for the CIA killing the Kennedys or making 9/11 happen on purpose. Yet indeed, the CT community is curiously silent about these incidents. Telling indeed...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom