JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[Major Major]

Mark Lane also stated that the Jim Jones/Jonestown slaughter was a CIA Plot.

Mark Lane Stated a lot of things.

Almost all of them pure Paranoid B.S.

Exactly.

Yet, he still has a high regard among the conspiracy theorists, who in their turn are highly regarded among people because they are skeptics who don't believe the government's lies.

And there's no need to debate people saying things like you say, because such things are only said by naive fools, and they know better than to believe the government.

 

[JayUtah]

Exactly.

Yet, he still has a high regard among the conspiracy theorists, who in their turn are highly regarded among people because they are skeptics who don't believe the government's lies.

And there's no need to debate people saying things like you say, because such things are only said by naive fools, and they know better than to believe the government.

Which, translated, reads: "Let's all persist in a delusion of grandeur with our fingers jammed firmly in our ears."

 

[EventHorizon]

Exactly.

Yet, he still has a high regard among the conspiracy theorists, who in their turn are highly regarded among people because they are skeptics who don't believe the government's lies.

And there's no need to debate people saying things like you say, because such things are only said by naive fools, and they know better than to believe the government.

Where does this come from? This has always fascinated me about conspiracy theorists. "If you don't believe in this ridiculous and impossibly complex conspiracy then you believe the evil government". I just don't get how the opposite of believing in a conspiracy theory is believing the government. That thought process is completely foreign to me. How does it happen? What happens inside someone's brain to make that seem like a logical statement?

 

[HSienzant]

Kind of makes you wonder why Lane hasn't been rubbed out by the conspiracy, doesn't it? After all, they have no problem knocking off obscure, tenuously-connected folks like Tom Howard, Jim Koethe, and Gary Underhill; they don't mind going to the opposite extreme and taking out public figures like Dr King and RFK; why would they stick at an opponent of their plans like Lane?

I think your word "amorphous" from your later post is a good one for this conspiracy- it appears to conveniently have just enough shape that CTists can define it by their assumptions about its actions, but not quite enough that they need to define it by any evidence for those actions.

If conspirators are rubbing out people who know too much about the conspiracy, Mark Lane has nothing to fear.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Exactly.

Yet, he still has a high regard among the conspiracy theorists, who in their turn are highly regarded among people because they are skeptics who don't believe the government's lies.

And there's no need to debate people saying things like you say, because such things are only said by naive fools, and they know better than to believe the government.

What government lies can you actually cite regarding the Kennedy assassination?

None, I would wager.

I suspect you get your information from Oliver Stone's movie and a couple of conspiracy books.

Surprise me and cite something meaningful that you think is a government lie, complete with the citation to the actual source.

Hank

PS: The true skeptics are those who don't believe everything they read in conspiracy books.

 

[turingtest]

If conspirators are rubbing out people who know too much about the conspiracy, Mark Lane has nothing to fear.

Hank

I just looked it up- Mark Lane will be 87 next week (born Feb 24, 1927); at this point, going by normal life expectancy, the man's already running on borrowed time. But you can bet your bottom dollar that whenever and however he kicks the bucket, some CTist somewhere is going to say, "yeah, right! 'Old age'- as if!!! The man was in perfect health; what did he know, what was he about to reveal, that the conspiracy needed to knock him off now??!??!?"

Or there will be those saying he was just a shill, telling the sheep the lies that the conspiracy wanted them fed to keep them off the truth. Either way, it's perfectly circular reasoning- only assuming the conspiracy makes the deaths mysterious; and assuming the deaths are mysterious becomes "evidence" for the conspiracy. It's another of those things that make me think that CT is a religion, with the chosen conspiracy, whether it's JFK, 9/11, or Sandy Hook (or, in extreme examples like CluesForum, everything), as their deity (and with Lane, in this case, either a sacrifice like the others, or a heretic).

 

[HSienzant]

I just looked it up- Mark Lane will be 87 next week (born Feb 24, 1927); at this point, going by normal life expectancy, the man's already running on borrowed time. But you can bet your bottom dollar that whenever and however he kicks the bucket, some CTist somewhere is going to say, "yeah, right! 'Old age'- as if!!! The man was in perfect health; what did he know, what was he about to reveal, that the conspiracy needed to knock him off now??!??!?"

Or there will be those saying he was just a shill, telling the sheep the lies that the conspiracy wanted them fed to keep them off the truth. Either way, it's perfectly circular reasoning- only assuming the conspiracy makes the deaths mysterious; and assuming the deaths are mysterious becomes "evidence" for the conspiracy. It's another of those things that make me think that CT is a religion, with the chosen conspiracy, whether it's JFK, 9/11, or Sandy Hook (or, in extreme examples like CluesForum, everything), as their deity (and with Lane, in this case, either a sacrifice like the others, or a heretic).

I think Lane may be viewed more along the lines of a prophet or saint, keeping with the religion analogy, by the true believers. Someone akin to John the Baptist, with the unveiling of the one true conspiracy the prophesized event, like the second coming.

Of course, like the second coming, they may be waiting a long time for that unveiling...

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

My source for that Lee Bowers information can be found here:

http://www.maebrussell.com/Disappearing Witnesses/Disappearing Witnesses.html

It looks like more unsolved and not properly investigated murders to me.

You don't get to site a conspiracy webpage as evidence of anything. Lots of people died in car crashes in the 1960s (America's highways were deadlier than Vietnam for its citizens), and cancer deaths were common too.

 

[Major Major]

What government lies can you actually cite regarding the Kennedy assassination?

None, I would wager.

I suspect you get your information from Oliver Stone's movie and a couple of conspiracy books.

Surprise me and cite something meaningful that you think is a government lie, complete with the citation to the actual source.

Hank

PS: The true skeptics are those who don't believe everything they read in conspiracy books.

I never said that.

I said that CT'ers say that.

They also say that the government lies all the time.

I don't say that the government lies all the time.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Putting the JFK conspiracy position in the same boat with Holocaust denialism is itself a form of silly denialism.

There is hard physical evidence that more than one gunman fired at President Kennedy. Beyond that, the vast majority of Americans, not to mention Europeans, continue to reject the lone-gunman theory.

So it's a bit silly to pretend that belief in a conspiracy in the JFK case is akin to belief in Holocaust denialism.

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

Physical Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/physical.htm

 

[mikegriffith1]

The question of which bullet caused James Tague's injury is not really "unanswered." We know one thing: Whatever bullet fragment struck Tague in the face, that fragment could not have come from any of the three shots acknowledged by the lone-gunman theory, and therefore Tague's injury is clear evidence that there was more than one gunman firing in Dealey Plaza.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/tague.htm

Now, as for the supposed duplication of the single-bullet theory in the Australian test, a few questions:

* Did the bullet that emerged from the JFK block/object somehow nick the knot of the tie (there was a tie over the exit point, right?) and nick the knot, not on the edge, but slightly in from the edge?

* Did the bullet that passed through the JFK block/object enter at an upward angle in relation to the block/object, as established by the HSCA forensic pathology panel, and yet travel on a downward track through the block/object, as required by the SBT?

* Did the JFK block/object include a human skeleton with a torso anatomically comparable to JFK's torso, and did the bullet somehow magically avoid smashing through the spine, as required by the SBT? (Of course, on the night of the autopsy the autopsy doctors were positive, absolutely certain, that the bullet that struck the back did not exit. We know from medical personnel at the autopsy that the pathologists even probed the wound after they removed the chest organs to ensure they could track the path. See, for example, http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/historic.htm.)

* Was the JFK block/object housed in a shirt and coat comparable to JFK's shirt and coat, and did the bullet create a hole in the shirt and coat that was at least 2 inches lower than any back-wound location acceptable to lone-gunman theorists?

10 Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/10reasons.htm

The Shifting Sands of the Single-Bullet Theory
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/sbtsand.htm

 

[catsmate]

Putting the JFK conspiracy position in the same boat with Holocaust denialism is itself a form of silly denialism.

No it isn't.

There is hard physical evidence that more than one gunman fired at President Kennedy.

No there isn't. There's lots of silly ramblings from nuts and people pushing books but no actual evidence.

Beyond that, the vast majority of Americans, not to mention Europeans, continue to reject the lone-gunman theory.

So what? Argument ad Populum fallacy.

So it's a bit silly to pretend that belief in a conspiracy in the JFK case is akin to belief in Holocaust denialism.

Nope.

 

[vtbub]

No it isn't.

No there isn't. There's lots of silly ramblings from nuts and people pushing books but no actual evidence.

So what? Argument ad Populum fallacy.

Nope.

You missed his link spam too.

 

[JayUtah]

There is hard physical evidence that more than one gunman fired at President Kennedy.

No. There are only inferences drawn according to oversimplified interpretations of the forensic and other physical evidence. Inferences are not evidence, much less "hard physical" evidence. Hard physical evidence of a second shooter would be nothing less than the actual second shooter. However, no conspiracy theorist is yet willing to name that shooter and make a case for it.

Beyond that, the vast majority of Americans, not to mention Europeans, continue to reject the lone-gunman theory.

Appeal to the gallery.

The number of people who believe something is less important than the reasons they can name for believing it. At least if you want to cite their belief in the proposition as evidence that the proposition is true.

And it's not a "vast" majority. The polls typically report in the neighborhood of 60% of respondents believing in something other than a lone gunman theory.

Here's the problem with trying to prove your point by Gallup polls. The polls don't test any specific conspiracy theory. They test the complement of the "lone gunman" theory, which is any abstract number or formulation of competing, contradictory theories. For example, a hypothesis that a Mafia assassin shot Kennedy from one of the storm drains is not even remotely compatible with a hypothesis that a CIA assassin shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll. The evidence in either case wouldn't be remotely compatible or bear the slightest resemblance, but both are included in the "not a lone gunman" conclusion. Hence the state of evidence has no bearing on the outcome of the poll, hence the poll is not a reflection of the evidence.

Further, the polls are phrased as an attractive (but not unreasonable) open-ended option. Belief that Oswald acted alone and shot Kennedy is a singular, concrete alternative. In contrast, mere belief that the shooter "didn't act alone" doesn't require the respondent to commit to any particular theory. Further, the respondents to a poll suffer no consequences for slipshod thinking. Therefore the most general, open-ended alternative is immediately perceived as the most intellectually "safe" answer, and therefore the one most people will naturally choose.

 

[I Ratant]

Quoting Mike is not a plus.
His advanced degrees are in theology, which is a field of study with no subject.
He and I conversed many times 20 years ago, and his fixation on being wrong has apparently never altered over the years.
You might as well quote Jack White.
.
I used to have a full-scale layout of Dealey Plaza in AutoCad, but that was 5 computers ago, and I can't find it now.
Using that, I could go to any spot in Dealey Plaza and look in any direction.
For the Tague wound, it's pretty obviously the result of a fragement of the head wound bullet, which hit the windshield chrome and shattered there, leaving debris in the limo on the passenger's side, and a small fragment probably went downrange to hit Tague... as I've said before.
There was no "curb strike" from any bullet.. as I've said before.
Going out to see if I can find a 3-1/4" disk reader for USB.
I might be able to pull some of the old drawing into the new computer.
.
These are the drawings... 3 by me and one by Thompson..
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm
.One of the ongoing mysteries of Dealey Plaza is the origin of the fragment that hit James Tague. Three graphics images, all rendered Autocad drawings, test two scenarios. First is Posner's theory that a shot at about Zapruder frame 160 was deflected off a branch of the Live Oak in front of the Depository and hit the curb in front of Tague. The other theory is that a fragment of the head shot hit Tague. TAGUE1.GIF, TAGUE2.GIF, and TAGUE3.GIF show the trajectories involved.

TAGUE4.GIF deals with the same issue, but this time the drawing is from conspiracy author Josiah Thompson. The diagram, drawn on a map of Dealey Plaza, shows the path a fragment from the head shot would have to have taken to hit Tague. Warning: this file is extremely large for screen viewing, and you may prefer to download it and print it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No it isn't.

No there isn't. There's lots of silly ramblings from nuts and people pushing books but no actual evidence.

So what? Argument ad Populum fallacy.

Nope.

You might want to chat with the many forensic pathologists, physicists, engineers, historians, acoustics experts, medical professionals, and photographic experts who believe there is hard evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case.

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read either of the articles that I cited.

The Tague wounding is a good case in point. The piece of curb that was struck was examined and photographed, and Tague's wound was photographed. The lone-gunman theory has no plausible, credible explanation for the Tague wounding. None of the three shots of the lone-gunman scenario could have produced a fragment that would have landed within 50 feet of the curb that was struck, much less Tague himself.

The Wounding of James Tague: Evidence of a Second Gunman in the JFK Assassination
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/tague.htm

Or how about the fact that not a single rifle test has yielded a gunman who could duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat on the first attempt under conditions reasonably similar to the ones Oswald would have faced? Reasonable people would say that when Master-rated riflemen abjectly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance, this is evidence that either Oswald was not the gunman or that Oswald secretly managed to squeeze in years of target practice that nobody knew anything about.

Was Oswald A Poor Shot?
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/poorshot.htm

 

[John Jones]

Putting the JFK conspiracy position in the same boat with Holocaust denialism is itself a form of silly denialism.

There is hard physical evidence that more than one gunman fired at President Kennedy. Beyond that, the vast majority of Americans, not to mention Europeans, continue to reject the lone-gunman theory.

So it's a bit silly to pretend that belief in a conspiracy in the JFK case is akin to belief in Holocaust denialism.

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

Physical Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/physical.htm

HAHAHAHA! Look what you wrote!

Oh. You were serious?

 

[JayUtah]

You might want to chat with the many forensic pathologists, physicists, engineers, historians, acoustics experts, medical professionals, and photographic experts who believe there is hard evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case.

Who says we haven't? Unfortunately what you and they fervently wish were "hard evidence" still equates to nothing stronger than inference.

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read either of the articles that I cited.

I'm sure some did, but I didn't. But as we discovered in the titular JFK threads, you don't read our posts, so I guess we're even. You simply shill the web site regardless of what has already been posted, ignore most of the responses, and then disappear for weeks. So chiding your critics for reading or not reading your web site is really not a substitute for an actual argument.

Further, there are threads already in the forum for discussing JFK evidence. Why don't you post there instead of derailing this thread?

None of the three shots of the lone-gunman scenario could have...

...and from that it is inferred there "must" have been a separate gunman. That's not "hard evidence." Do you see how that reasoning unravels when examined with less rosy approbation?

Or how about the fact that not a single rifle test has yielded a gunman who could duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat on the first attempt under conditions reasonably similar to the ones Oswald would have faced?

Not a fact.

 

[Hans]

HAHAHAHA! Look what you wrote!

Oh. You were serious?

Even funnier he wrote this

Or how about the fact that not a single rifle test has yielded a gunman who could duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat on the first attempt under conditions reasonably similar to the ones Oswald would have faced? Reasonable people would say that when Master-rated riflemen abjectly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance, this is evidence that either Oswald was not the gunman or that Oswald secretly managed to squeeze in years of target practice that nobody knew anything about.

When you are that far off into the swamp of confusion and error there is no map that can save ya!

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is hard physical evidence that more than one gunman fired at President Kennedy.

Please present it here. Nobody has ever presented "hard physical evidence" for any other gunman before. This should be novel and shown to the FBI. Why have you been withholding it?