Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Yes, I've read John Corbett's latest reply. It is so loaded with evasion, distortion, deception, and error that it's not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about any of his statements, feel free to message me or post them here. Anyway, moving on. . . .

For those who might be interested, another worthwhile discussion on some of the major problems with the autopsy evidence is presented in chapter 8 of Dr. Don Thomas's 2010 book Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, & the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist. He's had over 100 articles on biology, entomology, DNA, phylogeography, and ionizing radiation published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence. 
32
Without a doubt.

Thank you for your frankness.
What do you think of that Lance?
I hope you don't take it personally if I avoid you like the plague.
Have a nice life  Thumb1:
33
I have no training in dealing low-IQ people.

You mustn't have any mirrors in your house.
Remember, Oswald killing JFK is just a theory. Is that low-IQ enough for you?
Do you understand the reality of this?
Or is it the case that Oswald killing JFK is a fact like gravity is, or the earth being an oblate spheroid?
I'm actually interested - do you believe these are the same class of 'facts'?

Without a doubt.
34
I haven't figured out how to deal with people who deny Oswald fired the shots from the sniper's nest. I have no training in dealing low-IQ people.

I have no training in dealing low-IQ people.

You mustn't have any mirrors in your house.
Remember, Oswald killing JFK is just a theory. Is that low-IQ enough for you?
Do you understand the reality of this?
Or is it the case that Oswald killing JFK is a fact like gravity is, or the earth being an oblate spheroid?
I'm actually interested - do you believe these are the same class of 'facts'?
35
Your lack of education is again showing.

We're hardly talking about a "blank sheet of paper" but about standard deductive analysis of an obviously suspicious event, the kind of analysis that police investigators and district attorneys do every day. It is only logical to believe that if this two-day meeting at Marcello's estate had really been a legal strategy meeting, at least one of Marcello's attorneys would have been there, and not just David Ferrie, who had no legal training of any kind.

If your figuring was standard for police investigators, few bad guys would ever go to jail.
Quote

Both Marcello and Ferrie are logical suspects in JFK's death. Ferrie had publicly called for JFK's assassination and made a highly suspicious trip to Houston on the night of the assassination. Marcello harbored an intense hatred of the Kennedys, had voiced the desire to see JFK dead, had expressed foreknowledge of a plot to kill JFK, and unwittingly revealed to a federal informant after the assassination that he played a role in JFK's death.

How many death threats do you supposed are made against all presidents. Only in extremely rare instances does the individual act or even intend to act on such threats.
Quote

One would have to be quite gullible to believe that a Mafia kingpin like Marcello and a volatile right-winger with no legal background like David Ferrie spent two days at Marcello's estate talking about legal strategy for Marcello's deportation trial.

So in lieu of any evidence as to what Marcello and Ferrie were talking about, you leap to the conclusion they were discussing the assassination of JFK.
36

I mean...honestly...how do you begin to deal with this kind of mentality.

I haven't figured out how to deal with people who deny Oswald fired the shots from the sniper's nest. I have no training in dealing low-IQ people.
37
A skull is comprised of multiple bones fused together. Whereas most people use layman's terms to describe various parts of the head (forehead, temples, etc.) medical professionals use the scientific names for the various parts of the skull. When I first stared reading the medical evidence related to the headshot, I didn't know just where the various terms were referring to until I saw a diagram like this one:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=2w%2fPyM0n&id=97843A74E06F41302B017670983169A9153F1866&thid=OIP.2w_PyM0nULa23sbUY2F1zAHaGv&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwellnesslifezone.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2019%2f04%2fBONE_Skull.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.db0fcfc8cd2750b6b6dec6d4636175cc%3frik%3dZhg%252fFalpMZhwdg%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1866&expw=2048&q=bones+of+the+skull+diagram&mode=overlay&FORM=IQFRBA&ck=FDD8D913AEF4C678E6199ECCDB4C2287&selectedIndex=0&idpp=serp&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

The autopsy report stated the blowout in JFK's skull was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." The FPP also identified a piece missing from the posterior of the frontal bone. Before seeing this diagram, I would have guessed the frontal bone meant the forehead. As the above diagram shows, the frontal bone extends well beyond the forehead to both the top and sides of the head. The missing piece of frontal bone would have been nowhere near the forehead.
38
We epistemological types would note that the term "theory" is being tossed around rather loosely by, er, what we might charitably call non-epistemological types.

Since we are dealing with an historical event and a large body of evidence, the scientific definition is not inappropriate:

A theory is "a well-established framework built upon extensive evidence." It is the highest level of scientific understanding short of an observable, scientifically proven fact. The LN narrative is a theory. Certain key aspects of the theory are subject to testing and falsification and have been confirmed.

A hypothesis is "a testable prediction or explanation that is formulated as part of research or experimentation" but has not achieved the status of a theory. The very multiplicity of CT explanations for the JFKA and the extent to which they are debated, as well as the failure of any explanation to convincingly account for Dealey Plaza, shows that none has achieved the status of a theory.

Although Flat Earthers will insist the spherical earth is "just a theory" and thus stands on the same epistemological footing as the flat earth "theory," the fact is that the spherical earth is regarded as an observable, scientifically proven fact while the flat earth is regarded as an absurd myth - not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

At this point, to attempt to place any CT explanation on the same footing as the LN narrative, or to use terminology such as "just a theory" in regard to the LN narrative, is completely invalid. Dan has conceded that his LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley scenario is pure speculation and cannot account for Oswald. In epistemological terms, it would be a "wild guess."

Everyone should read Thomas Kuhn's seminal The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and at least some basic works on epistemology. Epistemological ignorance really is at the root of much JFKA debate.

For anyone unfamiliar with this new-wave brand of Lone Nut lunacy, here's a classic example.
From the same post:

" The LN narrative is a theory."

and then this:
"... to use terminology such as "just a theory" in regard to the LN narrative, is completely invalid."

I mean...honestly...how do you begin to deal with this kind of mentality.
In Lance's world I can say "the LN narrative isn't a fact, it's a theory" and that's valid.
But if I say "the LN narrative isn't a fact, it's just a theory", well...that's totally unacceptable  ::)
Oh brother...

It's great fun to point out to the most rabid Nutters it is a theory that Oswald took the shots that killed JFK. They literally cannot deal with this. You can almost hear the tears of frustration hitting the keyboard as Corbett types - 'There are some things for which there is so much evidence that they are no longer theories. Oswald killing JFK is one of those things."
Really?
Are you sure about that?
At least Lance has stayed true to his pretence of being an open-minded Nutter and managed to actually type the sentence about the LN narrative being a theory, even if he immediately retracts it.
"epistemological types"?  :D :D
I do admire the combination of arrogance and dumbness.

Oswald killing JFK is just a theory. That's a fact.
39
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 04:12:18 PM
WC defenders ignore or summarily brush aside the fact that on November 16-17, five days before the assassination, David Ferrie spent the weekend with Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello at Marcello's Churchill Farms estate. Supposedly, the two were discussing "defense strategy" for the final week of Marcello's deportation trial in federal court. However, strangely enough, Marcello’s attorneys were not there.. Humm. . . . Ferrie was no lawyer. It is very hard imagine what legal strategy Marcello and Ferrie could have discussed for two entire days; it is also hard to fathom how a weekend-long legal defense strategy meeting would not have included at least one of Marcello's attorneys. Dr. Richard Mahoney correctly and logically suspects that Marcello and Ferrie were finalizing some of the details of the planned assassination of JFK in Dallas (The Kennedy Brothers: The Rise and Fall of Jack and Bobby, 2017 edition, p. 386).


CTs love when they get a blank sheet of paper they can fill with their wild speculations.

Your lack of education is again showing.

We're hardly talking about a "blank sheet of paper" but about standard deductive analysis of an obviously suspicious event, the kind of analysis that police investigators and district attorneys do every day. It is only logical to believe that if this two-day meeting at Marcello's estate had really been a legal strategy meeting, at least one of Marcello's attorneys would have been there, and not just David Ferrie, who had no legal training of any kind.

Both Marcello and Ferrie are logical suspects in JFK's death. Ferrie had publicly called for JFK's assassination and made a highly suspicious trip to Houston on the night of the assassination. Marcello harbored an intense hatred of the Kennedys, had voiced the desire to see JFK dead, had expressed foreknowledge of a plot to kill JFK, and unwittingly revealed to a federal informant after the assassination that he played a role in JFK's death.

One would have to be quite gullible to believe that a Mafia kingpin like Marcello and a volatile right-winger with no legal background like David Ferrie spent two days at Marcello's estate talking about legal strategy for Marcello's deportation trial.

 


40
I am so impressed by such an articulate response.

Good for you. It was articulated in my original post
Your lame excuse/gaslighting requires no further response
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10