Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
Now, now none of this logical, reasonable and fact based discussion. I want mad, mad speculation and damn the evidence!
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII
- Thread starter JTF
- Start date
Now, now none of this logical, reasonable and fact based discussion. I want mad, mad speculation and damn the evidence!
HSienzant
Philosopher
The single bullet theory is true. Only fragments of one bullet were found in the limo and only one nearly whole bullet was found in Parkland. Most witnesses heard only three shots, and only one shooter was seen that day by witnesses, in the Depository. And only one weapon and three shells were recovered.
Given that evidence, tell me how the single bullet theory could not be true without inventing additional shooters there is no evidence for.
And you apparently think a simulation showing a difference of about six inches is significant. Wow. Not impressive.
What is the margin of error in the recreation, per chance? Do you think it's zero percent? It's not. If Connally is turned to his right even slightly in the recreation, that brings the wound into alignment, won't it?
Moreover, that recreation is not persuasive.
Slow down that video to 25% and look at frames 17:10 - 17:11. Or frames 16:23 - 16:24.
He's cheating. The limo doesn't move significantly in those frames but the origin of the blue line (the position of the supposed shooter) continues to swing to the right as we view the motorcade from behind (it has the net effect of moving the shooter more toward the western end of the Depository).
That affects where the bullet hits Connally. Move the shooter back to the sniper's nest and the bullet entry on Connally's back pivots to the right as the shooter moves to the left.
The adage I learned five decades ago (GIGO) is still true.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hilarious.
I've been posting the facts since about 1992, when a co-worker turned me onto Prodigy, and the ongoing discussion board there. I've "meandered" from board to board, but mostly because they keep closing on me. Prodigy's boards are gone. AOL's boards are gone. Amazon's are as well.
You haven't been paying attention, or you're knocking down a strawman. As I've said multiple times in the past*, I was a CT from the mid-1960s (after reading Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, and Thompson) through the early 1980s, when I sprung for the Warren Commission volumes of evidence and read them through twice. I spent $2500 on the set from the Presidents Box Bookshop, and when reading them I realized the extent of the quotes taken out of context and the focus on small discrepancies the critics were utilizing to build their case. For example, more than 90% of the witnesses said three shots, no more, no less. More witnesses said two shots than said four or more. But you won't learn about that from the critics, they focus on those few who recalled four or more, like Jean Hill and Sam Holland.
I resolved the issues to my own satisfaction by going back to the evidence, rather than trusting the conspiracy theorist authors to tell me the truth. I realized their goal wasn't to tell the truth or reveal a conspiracy, it was to make money by selling books that pushed a conspiracy.
_______________________
* Here are links to the most recent three (including some when you were active):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13099237#post13099237
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12306111&highlight=$2500#post12306111
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12178017#post12178017
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Not exactly. I had read that Final Report (800+ pages) side by side with conspiracy books pointing out the supposed Warren Commission lies plenty of times. I verified the Commission said the things the critics said were lies. But I never verified whether they were actually lies. I trusted the critics to tell me the truth. It was only when I sprung for the 26 volumes of Testimony and Evidence and read through all 26 volumes twice that I realized the conspiracy authors were lying to me.
But spot on with everything else you posted.
HSienzant
Philosopher
I don't see any soldiers. Perhaps they are in Ukraine fighting the Russian invaders?
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
After watching that, one of the videos YouTube suggested was this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEDgG5MKndo
Just to let you know what YouTube thinks of that video you suggested.
HSienzant
Philosopher
The most active are DiEugenio, Fetzer, and Aguilar.
They aren't very selective however - all pretty much never met a conspiracy theory they didn't like.
Of course he doesn't have it "nailed down". He is just stamping his feet and saying he is right.
But to get to more serious matters. To me a key sign that someone is not serious about investigating the case is when they take seriously the crap about the head movement to the back either proving or providing significant evidence that the or a shot hit Kennedy in the front of the head. As soon as I read that I dismiss what the person says. Why? Well because it indicates the person takes movies and TV physics way to seriously and hasn't done real research.
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
Thanks; familiar with Fetzer and Aguilar but don't remember DE.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
bknight
Master Poster
You may have spent 6 years fact checking, but you haven't any "facts" that are true. You keep coming back to the autopsy and have yet to produce one fact that demonstrates the autopsy was in error, just supposition on your and the other CTs around. Your comments have been destroyed, yet you seem incapable of admitting when you're wrong. 6 years of wasted effort is what I WOULD CLASSIFY YOUR WORK. (Caps intended)
HSienzant
Philosopher
Apparently Micah Java has turned into a drive-by poster at the present time. Nearly two weeks since he posted three times in roughly a 20-minute span. And of course, except for one minor attempt to defend his "two decade" remark, and one remark about Connally appearing to have puffy 'soldiers', he hasn't bothered to even try to engage with anybody here.
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
Seagull troll now, at best. I haven't hung around here for quit some time as I''ve spent almost 100% in the 9/11 threads. I just browsed when I was bored.
Axxman300
Philosopher
This is excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sh06VUiXaA
Ask a Mortician recounts the handling of JFK's body from Parkland all the way to the funeral. All of the important side-factors which drove the decisions made about the handling of the body, the autopsy, and funeral are covered perfectly.
A key name I'd never heard before plays a major factor in Jackie's choices:
Jessica Mitford, and her book: "The American Way of Death."
Sometimes it takes an expert to add needed context to an event.
Check it out, it's worth your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sh06VUiXaA
Ask a Mortician recounts the handling of JFK's body from Parkland all the way to the funeral. All of the important side-factors which drove the decisions made about the handling of the body, the autopsy, and funeral are covered perfectly.
A key name I'd never heard before plays a major factor in Jackie's choices:
Jessica Mitford, and her book: "The American Way of Death."
Sometimes it takes an expert to add needed context to an event.
Check it out, it's worth your time.
bknight
Master Poster
It was a good video and answered a few questions and reenforced the notions of control that the Kennedys had over the handling of JFK.
It won't satisfy some ignorant individuals concerns about the autopsy "failure, cover ups and conspiracy".
Allen773
Graduate Poster
You mean to tell me that the beloved Kennedys were/are themselves part of the Establishment/Powers That Be?
Say it ain’t so!
Say it ain’t so!
Allen773
Graduate Poster
Some meandering thoughts:
The US intelligence community, to the extent such a massive set of organizations can be generalized as partisan or ideological one way or another, is mostly moderately liberal to center-right. Above all, they desire access to the President, regardless of who that person is.
FDR during WWII, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, both Bushes, Obama, and Biden granted them that. Johnson and especially Nixon, to some extent Carter, Clinton, and Trump, not so much. The President, the National Security Advisor and NSC staff, and, in the case of the second Bush administration, the Offices of the Vice President and Secretary of Defense tend to get away with ignoring or bullying the Deep State if they feel so inclined (Trump certainly did, for the most part). The preferences of policymakers almost always trump those of the spooks.
Though obviously, more often than not Presidents love how much power the spooks offer them both in terms of access to the most classified state secrets and of course, covert action. Kennedy did not just conform to that reality, he EMBODIED it. One could make a plausible case that the CIA and broader intelligence community never had a better friend in the White House than the 35th President.
The US intelligence community, to the extent such a massive set of organizations can be generalized as partisan or ideological one way or another, is mostly moderately liberal to center-right. Above all, they desire access to the President, regardless of who that person is.
FDR during WWII, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, both Bushes, Obama, and Biden granted them that. Johnson and especially Nixon, to some extent Carter, Clinton, and Trump, not so much. The President, the National Security Advisor and NSC staff, and, in the case of the second Bush administration, the Offices of the Vice President and Secretary of Defense tend to get away with ignoring or bullying the Deep State if they feel so inclined (Trump certainly did, for the most part). The preferences of policymakers almost always trump those of the spooks.
Though obviously, more often than not Presidents love how much power the spooks offer them both in terms of access to the most classified state secrets and of course, covert action. Kennedy did not just conform to that reality, he EMBODIED it. One could make a plausible case that the CIA and broader intelligence community never had a better friend in the White House than the 35th President.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed.
The CIA/MIC assassinating him would be tantamount to them killing the goose that was laying their golden eggs for them. If there really was an upper echelon plot to assassinate him, they would have made absolutely certain to destroy any and all documents and information relating to Northwoods, Mongoose, Bingo and Dirty Trick.
Axxman300
Philosopher
CIA always has access to the White House through the National Security Advisor, and Director of Central Intelligence. The issue has always been how well the NSC listens to CIA, and how good CIA's intel is on any given topic in the first place.
Much has changed since 1960-1963. JFK inherited a CIA that had an active covert-action arm thanks to Ike trying to fight the advance of Communism without starting WWIII. This led to eight years of increasingly risky operations, the last of which became the Bay of Pigs, which JFK let himself get stuck with. The Bay of Pigs is always cited by CTists as the crack between JFK and the CIA, and while he felt he'd been lied to by the CIA, the fallout was mostly administrative (guys who were going to retire anyway resigned, and so on).
JFK and RFK expanded the CIA well beyond what most at Langley felt was wise. His administration began the program of the CIA reaching out to "patriotic" journalists in key news publications to plant stories. JMWAVE became a colossus in the Gulf of Mexico. And he spun up US Army Special Forces, and the US Navy SEALs for a covert action arm under the control of the DoD.
The assassination CTs always needed the CIA to be involved, because they needed JFK's murder to be an inside job. When I say that they needed, I mean for all CTists there could be no other truth than a conspiracy with the CIA in the center. As the 60s rolled on into the 70s, and revelations about the CIA working with the Maffia via Mongoose, Hoover, and eventually Watergate would cement the JFK Assassination CT as an unverified fact. 99% of news stories about the anniversary of the assassination include some poll number stating that X-% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, something that can be found in hack local news rages, all the way up to the NY Times.
This is irresponsible considering the bulk of the CIA's records from the 1950s and 1960s are declassified. Nothing in their history indicates they could have pulled it off. And certainly nothing in their entire history shows they could have kept it secret.
Much has changed since 1960-1963. JFK inherited a CIA that had an active covert-action arm thanks to Ike trying to fight the advance of Communism without starting WWIII. This led to eight years of increasingly risky operations, the last of which became the Bay of Pigs, which JFK let himself get stuck with. The Bay of Pigs is always cited by CTists as the crack between JFK and the CIA, and while he felt he'd been lied to by the CIA, the fallout was mostly administrative (guys who were going to retire anyway resigned, and so on).
JFK and RFK expanded the CIA well beyond what most at Langley felt was wise. His administration began the program of the CIA reaching out to "patriotic" journalists in key news publications to plant stories. JMWAVE became a colossus in the Gulf of Mexico. And he spun up US Army Special Forces, and the US Navy SEALs for a covert action arm under the control of the DoD.
The assassination CTs always needed the CIA to be involved, because they needed JFK's murder to be an inside job. When I say that they needed, I mean for all CTists there could be no other truth than a conspiracy with the CIA in the center. As the 60s rolled on into the 70s, and revelations about the CIA working with the Maffia via Mongoose, Hoover, and eventually Watergate would cement the JFK Assassination CT as an unverified fact. 99% of news stories about the anniversary of the assassination include some poll number stating that X-% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, something that can be found in hack local news rages, all the way up to the NY Times.
This is irresponsible considering the bulk of the CIA's records from the 1950s and 1960s are declassified. Nothing in their history indicates they could have pulled it off. And certainly nothing in their entire history shows they could have kept it secret.
mikegriffith1
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 803
Given the evidence that has emerged over the last 10 years, I would say that the JFK assassination conspiracy theory is no longer a theory but a verified fact. I would say the say same thing about the RFK assassination. In the case of RFK's death, we have hard audio evidence that more bullets were fired in the pantry than Sirhan's gun could have fired.