The Fundamental Problem

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 117104 times)

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2019, 12:50:52 AM »
Dillon,

A rather decent post overall. Though, I do take issue with one of your assertions. You refer to "the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin." I have no idea as to what Canning's pseudoscience might be but I suspect with Guinn that you are alluding to Neutron Activation Analysis. NAA is not a pseudoscience. Guinn's use of it is questionable but the science itself is not. At least, not that I'm aware of.

The language is admittedly dramatic. NAA as a method isn?t pseudoscience, but Guin?s usage of it in the JFK and other cases seems to fit the citeria?mainly overblown statements of certainty/accuracy and erroneously stating the extent to which the results were sknficant and specific to individual samples. Canning?s trajectory analysis was based two big faulty premises: bullets travel in straight lines and the SBT happened at Z190?he also overstated the significance of his tests.   

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2019, 01:00:16 AM »
You've either got the wrong forum or you have a very skewed way of looking at it. In a nutshell, CTs hold the WC's feet to the fire while LNers merely deny everything that hints at conspiracy. CTs are AOK with Oswald taking token shots at JFK, but he was not a lone nut, simple as that.

LNers are actually Conspiracy Deniers, Coincidence Theorists and WC shills. Painting LHO as a LN is a WC conspiracy. To what degree LHO was involved is still up for debate but the LN hypothesis is effectively dead. Only the Chapmans remain to troll the forum. :)

All I did here was talk about the general epistemologies held by each of the debate. For instance, give me an argument favouring the CT side that doesn?t follow the basic rules I outlined (I know there are some).

Your sense of certainty seems to be decidedly inflated; what makes you quite so sure that the LN theory is dead in the water, and only CT explanations?   

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2019, 01:34:59 AM »
None of that is specific enough to make inferences regarding its relation to a particular vertebra. The measurements are the most important?T1 is the most consistent (see Pat Speer?s replication using a man of JFK?s measurements).

              As much as some of you would like to complicate/muddle the issue, it really is Very Simple. (1) The Autopsy Face Sheet has a dot on JFK's Back to show the location of the Back Wound. (2) The Autopsy Photo(s) display the JFK Back Wound/Where the wound is located. (3) The Back of JFK's Dress Coat has a bullet hole in it. (4) The Back of JFK's Dress Shirt has a bullet hole in it. All 4 of these pieces of evidence corroborate each other by displaying the JFK Back Wound in the Same Location on his back.  These 4 independent pieces of corroborating physical evidence leave no question as to the location of the JFK Back Wound.   
« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 01:38:02 AM by Royell Storing »

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2019, 01:39:58 AM »
              As much as some of you would like to complicate/muddle the issue, it really is Very Simple. (1) The Autopsy Face Sheet has a dot on JFK's Back to show the location of the Back Wound. (2) The Autopsy Photo(s) display the JFK Back Wound/Where the wound is located. (3) The Back of JFK's Dress Coat has a bullet hole in it. (4) The Back of JFK's Dress Shirt has a bullet hole in it. All 4 of these pieces of evidence corroborate each other by having the JFK Back Wound in the Same Location on his back.  These 4 independent pieces of corroborating physical evidence leave no question as to the location of the JFK Back Wound.   

Excellent Post, Royell.... It's impossible to present a plausible rebuttal to the points you make in your post .... 

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2019, 01:44:11 AM »
The language is admittedly dramatic. NAA as a method isn?t pseudoscience, but Guin?s usage of it in the JFK and other cases seems to fit the citeria?mainly overblown statements of certainty/accuracy and erroneously stating the extent to which the results were sknficant and specific to individual samples. Canning?s trajectory analysis was based two big faulty premises: bullets travel in straight lines and the SBT happened at Z190?he also overstated the significance of his tests.   

I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2019, 01:54:21 AM »
I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

Since Some genius discovered that an apple falling from a tree falls due to the effect of gravity......  Bullets have NEVER traveled in a straight line.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3723
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2019, 05:26:13 AM »
  a tendency to distrust or be skeptical 
What's wrong with being skeptical? If there were no liars, there would be no lies.
Oct 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine. ..."The Warren Report-Piecing Together the Evidence"
If the pieces didn't quite fit, that was OK. Just trim a little here and there. I just re-discovered another perplexing item. This was submitted as evidence in the Report...Why?

 

Marina was still a citizen of the USSR. She would not need a visa to return to the Soviet Union. She would need a visa to return to the USA if she did not obtain what is called 'advanced parole'. What about the daughter? The daughter would get to go. The daughter was a citizen of the Soviet Union...she was born in the USSR. There was an obvious charade going on there.