JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
Skepticus Maximus
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:44 pm

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Skepticus Maximus » Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:51 pm

Flash wrote:I am not a shooting expert at all. I just saw Jesse Ventura on The Big Picture, a Thom Harmann show on RT and that's what he said.
Thom seemed to take him seriously. I just can't see why Ventura would lie about or exaggerate the fact that it wouldn't be easy at all to hit a moving target at that distance. And remember that Oswald was not a marksman.

This thing isn't going away any time soon because of problems like these, because Jack Kennedy had so many enemies and because the Warren commission botched the job.


If Ventura says it was a difficult shot (contrary to what every marksman I have ever heard speak on the subject says) then yes, he is lying and it would not be the first time (far from it!). Also, asserting that JFK was a "moving target" is disingenuous at best. JFK's car was moving directly away from Oswald, at a speed of maybe 10-12 mph. As close to a short range stationary target as any moving target gets.

Also this claim that Oswald was not a marksman is just plain wrong. He had one score that was somewhat 'under par' but the rest of the time he got from 47-49 out of 50 in his shooting exercises IIRC.

The shot Oswald made was literally no more difficult that taking a scopes sniper rifle and hitting your neighbor on his front porch 3 houses down and across the street with clear LOS.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:20 pm

Skepticus Maximus wrote:The shot Oswald made was literally no more difficult that taking a scopes sniper rifle and hitting your neighbor on his front porch 3 houses down and across the street with clear LOS.

Hey, I can do that! on second thought no I probably can't :whistle:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10395
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:16 pm

Gord wrote:
Skepticus Maximus wrote:The shot Oswald made was literally no more difficult that taking a scopes sniper rifle and hitting your neighbor on his front porch 3 houses down and across the street with clear LOS.

Hey, I can do that! on second thought no I probably can't :whistle:

You can't know until you try . . .
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4698
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:39 am

I'm still leaning toward the theory of Oswald as the lone gunman having Cuban and Russian connections and sympathies, and possibly being a double- (triple?) crossing double-agent for the CIA as perhaps the simplest, Occam's Razor-type explanation of events.

But, here's a complicated possibility for truth-seekers or conspiracy buffs with interesting commentary about human nature and political power.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/roge ... f-cards-3/
Voltairian individualist on the lunatic fringe of the radical center.

User avatar
TruthMakesPeace
BANNED
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:54 pm

U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby TruthMakesPeace » Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:39 pm

It is bizarre that self described "skeptics'' like Michael accept a story that up to 80% of Americans disbelieve, even though an official government investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Special Committee on Assassinations concluded that there were at least two gunmen who killed President Kennedy. Hello!

The reason the conspiracy theories persist is that:
1. there is a lot of evidence for a conspiracy
2. the official story does not make sense
3. official hiding of information that could prove or disprove the Warren Commission.

The records LBJ sealed are STILL classified after 51 years, drawing logical and completely justified suspicion.

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. "
"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy."
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/se ... ee-report/

2009 CBS poll found that up to 80% of Americans conclude that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy.

Roger Stone: The Man Who Killed Kennedy: the case against LBJ

The Illusion of Michael Shermer
http://www.ctka.net/2011/shermer_illusion.html

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:20 am

TruthMakesPeace wrote:It is bizarre that self described "skeptics'' like Michael accept a story that up to 80% of Americans disbelieve
Most Americans believe in "the Devil". Are you arguing that Michael Shermer should also believe in the Devil?

Do you believe in "the Devil" because most Americans do exactly that?

You are a bit silly.

:D

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:20 am

You win this argument Matthew but isn't it also strange that in America all of the prominent assassinations have been explained as acts of singular madmen?

Elsewhere, it's a different story. Caesar was killed by conspirators so were other Roman emperors; Caligula and probably Tiberius. The Medieval rulers in Europe were pestered by conspiracies. If it wasn't the nobles it had to be their own families who conspired to get rid of the inconvenient ruler. At least a couple of popes were knocked off by conspirators. The Ludwig II of Bavaria, the one who loved to build the neo-Gothic castles was disposed of by a conspiracy. The Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by conspirators. Hitler's attempted assassination was a conspiracy. Stalin was terrified by a prospect of conspiracy.

In the twentieth century...well there is Olaf Palme the prime minister of Sweden. To this day no ones knows for sure who killed him. The secretary general of the UN Dag Hammarskjold, not to forget the the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyyarimana.

So the world is full of conspiracies...but not in the United States. It's truly exceptional that all of the most important assassinations in the US were carried out by what the investigators have always concluded were either singular unhappy citizens or madmen.

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy all shot by a single assassin...no conspiracy.
Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, attempted assassination of Reagan, no conspiracy.
Some abortion doctors, black churches in the south bombed, Oklahoma City, no conspiracy.

9/11...several fanatics getting together under the sponsorship of Al Qaeda. That had to be a conspiracy although the role of the Saudis was avoided like a hot potato.

What a strange country the US is. The ordinary political fanatics just don't have the skills and intelligence to know how to get together to organize an assassination. Americans are just socially impaired in this way So fortunately (or unfortunately, whatever your point of view is) it's always some singular maniac who conveniently appears on the scene just in time to commit a dastardly act.

Americans can sleep soundly, their 17 spying agencies and all of he police are on the watch for peace and democracy and making sure that if anybody actually assassinates anybody than that anybody is really a complete lone nobody . And then the records of the investigations are either fubar or sealed in some impenetrable vault for ever.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby clarsct » Thu Nov 20, 2014 9:42 am

Um...some of these things are not like the others.

In Medieval Ages, there was rarely another way to get someone out of power, not to mention the temptation of an overmighty subject to take the reins. Same with a Pope, or a military junta.

Booth had sympathizers, certainly. As did Oswald. But there is no evidence that they worked in tandem with someone. A lack of evidence is evidence of nothing.

Of course, there is the weight by which most conspiracies fail: If more than three people know something, it is no longer a secret.

Exactly how big is this conspiracy of which you speak?
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:26 pm

Flash wrote:You win this argument Matthew but isn't it also strange that in America all of the prominent assassinations have been explained as acts of singular madmen?


Good point. I guess on a "legal level" they are all singular, but that that doesn't mean they were alone as "madmen". The Soviets did invite Oswald to Russia, which was a sign of madness by the Russians. I guess I'm saying there are "solo" responsible "nutters" who come from a nutty environment, but you can't charge and convict the environment.

The only solution, I can think of, is to educate the most number of people as possible and hope the "whole environment" improves. I guess this is what Michael Shermer and the Society is aiming at....making a small difference.....


Flash wrote: Elsewhere, it's a different story. Caesar was killed by conspirators so were other Roman emperors;.......
I agree with your examples. I can only offer a humorous anecdote.

Harold Holt, the Australian Prime Minister went for a swim at a dangerous beach and disappeared. Everyone, deep down, knows he simply drowned.......however.....


"The Australian Government official story was that Harold Holt drowned, but they soon helped to spread the whisper that Harold Holt was a Chinese spy and high tailed to China on a Chinese Submarine and for the next 38 years the Australian media were just too happy to dance to this tune for their masters."
http://www.harold-holt.net/chinese.htm

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:51 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Harold Holt, the Australian Prime Minister went for a swim at a dangerous beach and disappeared. Everyone, deep down, knows he simply drowned.......however.....

So he lives now in Bejing, misses the blue skies, fish and chips and shrimps on a barbie. Serves him right. :mrgreen:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:25 am

clarsct wrote:
Booth had sympathizers, certainly. As did Oswald. But there is no evidence that they worked in tandem with someone. A lack of evidence is evidence of nothing.

On the contrary, my dear echo of false memes. The lack of evidence for the second moon in Earth's orbit is such that it is enough to conclude that we have only one giant satellite of that type.

Of course, there is the weight by which most conspiracies fail: If more than three people know something, it is no longer a secret.

Again, not necessarily true.

Exactly how big is this con?spiracy of which you speak

Gigantic. The pope, the Illuminati, The Vanderbilts, The Jews, Communists, the neo-Nazis, the Free Masons, Obama and of course Putin...just kidding.

I said that in America there are no conspiracies, none one can think of. Big country, violent history, lots of prominent people assassinated and no conspiracies. Just these individual madmen with guns and bombs knocking off presidents, politicians, artists, assorted office workers, kids in daycare...school.

I also suggested that Americans, almost without exception, might be culturally preconditioned to spill any secrets they might be privy to. Now I think that this condition might even be genetic. As you so eloquently said it yourself clarsct, one American can keep a secret (especially if he is dead) but with three Americans... the "secret" is going to be all over the late night comedy shows in no time.

Ergo, no conspiracies in America.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby clarsct » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:41 pm

Flash wrote:clarsct wrote:
Booth had sympathizers, certainly. As did Oswald. But there is no evidence that they worked in tandem with someone. A lack of evidence is evidence of nothing.

On the contrary, my dear echo of false memes. The lack of evidence for the second moon in Earth's orbit is such that it is enough to conclude that we have only one giant satellite of that type.

Of course, there is the weight by which most conspiracies fail: If more than three people know something, it is no longer a secret.

Again, not necessarily true.

Exactly how big is this con?spiracy of which you speak

Gigantic. The pope, the Illuminati, The Vanderbilts, The Jews, Communists, the neo-Nazis, the Free Masons, Obama and of course Putin...just kidding.

I said that in America there are no conspiracies, none one can think of. Big country, violent history, lots of prominent people assassinated and no conspiracies. Just these individual madmen with guns and bombs knocking off presidents, politicians, artists, assorted office workers, kids in daycare...school.

I also suggested that Americans, almost without exception, might be culturally preconditioned to spill any secrets they might be privy to. Now I think that this condition might even be genetic. As you so eloquently said it yourself clarsct, one American can keep a secret (especially if he is dead) but with three Americans... the "secret" is going to be all over the late night comedy shows in no time.

Ergo, no conspiracies in America.

Or maybe Americans suck at conspiracies. The ones you hear about are the ones that fail...

Huh.

Maybe we're too damned good!
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Sat Nov 22, 2014 12:03 am

clarsct wrote:
Or maybe Americans suck at conspiracies. The ones you hear about are the ones that fail...

Huh.

Maybe we're too damned good!

Absolutely! I think that last notion is what the so called conspiracy nuts have been trying to tell us?
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:53 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2843665/Mob-hitman-James-Files-claims-man-responsible-President-John-F-Kennedy-s-assassination-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-never-fired-single-shot.html
Mob hitman James Files claims once again he was the man responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination - and that Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a single shot
James Files claims in the documentary I Killed JFK that he was the man who killed President John F. Kennedy
Files says he was standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 and fired the shot that killed Pres. Kennedy
He also claims that Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a single shot, and that his boss Charles 'Chuckie' Nicoletti was in the book depository
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby clarsct » Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:32 am

Does he have any evidence? If he was going to give a 'deathbed confession' or suchlike, you'd think he'd have kept ahold of something.

Besides, We do have some conspiracies in the US, just not about assassinations. Tuskegee, for instance.

Tammany hall.

I'm sure there's more.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:16 am

Yes, James Files has a witness... himself. He says he killed Kennedy.

Tammany Hall, the Republican Party, The bakers on Wall St, Free Masons, the catholic Church.. You mean they are all conspiracies? Okay.
It really depends how you define a conspiracy.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10395
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:27 am

Flash wrote:Yes, James Files has a witness... himself. He says he killed Kennedy.

Tammany Hall, the Republican Party, The bakers on Wall St, Free Masons, the catholic Church.. You mean they are all conspiracies? Okay.
It really depends how you define a conspiracy.

I'm not familiar with the bakers on Wall St., so that must be a conspiracy. Have you ever hired a mason? Not free, not free at all. Need I go on?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:31 am

Oh the "bakers" of Wall Street. :mrgreen:
Tis' too late to edit I suppose.
There is also a conspiracy to misspell words. JO must be the ring leader and now it came out that I too am the hapless member.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:51 am

Flash wrote:...the hapless member.

Viagra?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:05 am

You are calling me a dick Gord?
I thought we agreed to be nice to each other... Wait, it wasn't you, it was Xouper. Go on...
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:06 am

No, just limp.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:07 am

Flash wrote:Wait, it wasn't you, it was Xouper. Go on...

"gourd soup, e errrrr"....?..
Gord Soup.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby clarsct » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:24 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Flash wrote:Wait, it wasn't you, it was Xouper. Go on...

"gourd soup, e errrrr"....?..
Gord Soup.jpg


Old poster...

Was on SkepticalCommunity a while back, but not in ages. Banned from JREF in a haze of very old drama that needs no rehashing.

Altogther, not a bad fellah, but a bit ascerbic at times.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:50 pm

Whaaaaat?? Banned from JREF too?! Awww.

He was a smart guy whose opinion was valuable to me, but yes, he could be acerbic.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:26 am

I had a peace pact with Xouper. If we could do it I don't see why Obama and Putin can't, eh. :mrgreen:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7282
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby TJrandom » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:58 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gord wrote:
Skepticus Maximus wrote:The shot Oswald made was literally no more difficult that taking a scopes sniper rifle and hitting your neighbor on his front porch 3 houses down and across the street with clear LOS.

Hey, I can do that! on second thought no I probably can't :whistle:

You can't know until you try . . .


Not intending to brag here - but I hunted rabbits with a lever action 22 marlin octagonal barrel rifle at 15 or so, and generally made head shots - having switched from a shotgun that spanked my beagle that one time. So those shots on JFK weren`t so difficult IMO.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:13 am

clarsct wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Flash wrote:Wait, it wasn't you, it was Xouper. Go on...

"gourd soup, e errrrr"....?..
Gord Soup.jpg


Old poster...

Was on SkepticalCommunity a while back, but not in ages. Banned from JREF in a haze of very old drama that needs no rehashing.

Not having followed too closely (and being a little tired), I went like, Huh? what's wrong with the pic? :lol:

Altogther, not a bad fellah, but a bit ascerbic at times.

Ha, now it makes sense.


I miss xoup. :frown:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28986
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Gord » Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:02 am

TJrandom wrote:a shotgun that spanked my beagle that one time

Ah, euphemisms. Where would we be without them in our pants?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:23 am

TJrandom wrote: Not intending to brag here - but I hunted rabbits with a lever action 22 marlin octagonal barrel rifle at 15 or so, and generally made head shots - having switched from a shotgun that spanked my beagle that one time. So those shots on JFK weren`t so difficult IMO.


So you shot President Kennedy! You bastard!

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Flash » Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:02 am

Wait Matthew, it's the new thing. Anybody who wants to be somebody comes out claiming that he shot the president. The pre-frontal lobotomy and the electro-convulsive clinics are full of them. Even the people who weren't even born in 1962 claim they were in Dallas book depository with a riffle when the presidential limo passed by.

The honestly god conspiracy advocates are going crazy. All of the sudden they've got too many conspirators.
I dunno...Do you suppose the Empire is going completely nuts?
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:21 pm

Flash wrote:Wait Matthew, it's the new thing. Anybody who wants to be somebody comes out claiming that he shot the president.


There is an English comedy TV series called "Red Dwarf". In that show, they somehow get JFK to assassinate JFK to prevent JFK from shooting JFK later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6naJ08Tskk

User avatar
TruthMakesPeace
BANNED
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby TruthMakesPeace » Sat Feb 28, 2015 7:56 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TruthMakesPeace wrote:It is bizarre that self described "skeptics'' like Michael accept a story that up to 80% of Americans disbelieve
Most Americans believe in "the Devil". Are you arguing that Michael Shermer should also believe in the Devil? Do you believe in "the Devil" because most Americans do exactly that? You are a bit silly. :D

No. You display an inability to think logically. Unwarranted Assumption Fallacy.
1. Most people believe X (or do not believe X)
2. Most people believe Y
3. A person believes (or disbelieves) X
4. It is not a logical, warranted assumption that that they believe Y too.
There is no causal connection, especially when X and Y are dissimilar topics
(i.e. Lone Gunman Theory of the JFK Assassination vs. a religious belief in a non-physical entity).
Red Herring Fallacy of assumed pretense of equality of X and Y, argumentum ad aequalitas
Regardless, it is a good thing you frequent the Skeptic Forum, where we all can improve our critical thinking ability.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:30 am

TruthMakesPeace wrote:It is bizarre that self described "skeptics'' like Michael accept a story that up to 80% of Americans disbelieve
Matthew Ellard wrote:Most Americans believe in "the Devil". Are you arguing that Michael Shermer should also believe in the Devil? Do you believe in "the Devil" because most Americans do exactly that? You are a bit silly. :D


TruthMakesPeace wrote: No. You display an inability to think logically.

No, Rick, that's you.

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Remember when you pretended a normal Volvo car crash, in wet weather, was an "assassination using a magical controlled Volvo"? As evidence you copied a list of aircraft automated control research, from your own blog to this forum. You can't get basic evidence to match your own bizarre claims.

When are you finally going to answer Papa Oystein's question? It's a bit boring watching you run away each time.
:D

User avatar
TruthMakesPeace
BANNED
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby TruthMakesPeace » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:47 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TruthMakesPeace wrote: No. You display an inability to think logically.

No, Rick, that's you.
Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Note the words "when misued" in your own post.
Argument by qualified authority is a totally valid argument, and used in life & death court cases when expert witnesses testify. Falsers with low reading comprehension think that means any authority is invalid. Qualification exams for authorities are considered important in the medical, dental, scientific, and law enforcement fields in the real world, even if not on your fantasy island.

If you were an attorney, and your client was accused of a crime, his DNA was found at the scene, and a DNA laboratory forensics expert showed the results, you might try telling the judge that this is "argument by authority", but he would over rule your objection, and the jury would not be convinced by your argument.

There is nothing wrong with citing an authority in debate, as long as it also quotes the reason the authority gives. A DNA expert on the witness stand in court would not just say "the defendant is guilty", but also must show his DNA analysis charts or details.
Last edited by TruthMakesPeace on Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:04 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby psychiatry is a scam » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:01 am

and a lot of innocent people get convicted because of lying experts
for the real minority ; there will be no justice , there will be no peace .
makes sense 2me , so it has 2be wrong .

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:03 am

TruthMakesPeace wrote: It is bizarre that self described "skeptics'' like Michael accept a story that up to 80% of Americans disbelieve
TruthMakesPeace wrote: Argument by qualified authority is a totally valid argument
......so you are now claiming that you and 80% of all Americans, are qualified authorities?
:D

TruthMakesPeace wrote: If you were an attorney
I am a tax lawyer and understand the various evidence acts concerning expert witnesses. Are you claiming 80% of Americans are "expert witnesses"? That would be idiotic wouldn't it?

You seem to have a habit of supplying the wrong evidence for your claims. When I called you on "automated Volvos" you copied a list from your blog concerning aircraft. You are now informing me about expert witnesses as though it relates to your comment concerning 80% of all Americans.

Please try harder next time.

:D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:05 am

psychiatry is a scam wrote:and a lot of innocent people get convicted because of lying experts
Are you going to join the debate on JFK or keep trolling every thread to talk about your self imposed medical problems?

User avatar
TruthMakesPeace
BANNED
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby TruthMakesPeace » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:08 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:so you are now claiming that you and 80% of all Americans, are qualified authorities? :D

No, and never did.
You often try to set up a "straw man" argument - making up some unreasonable conclusion, then using the words "so you are saying..." to try attributing it to your debate opponent.
An example of your own medicine is: "So, you are claiming 80% of Americans are not qualified on anything?"
"Are you unAmerican, or just hate our freedoms?" :) If some juries buy your "Ellard Illogical Extension" technique, good for you and your clients.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26136
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: U.S. House of Rep. Special Committee on Assassinations

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:28 am

TruthMakesPeace wrote:It is bizarre that self described "skeptics'' like Michael accept a story that up to 80% of Americans disbelieve

TruthMakesPeace wrote: Argument by qualified authority is a totally valid argument

Matthew Ellard wrote:so you are now claiming that you and 80% of all Americans, are qualified authorities? :D

TruthMakesPeace wrote:No, and never did.


Hey Rick? You're definitely not a lawyer, are you? It shows.
:D

Robert Harris
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:45 pm

Re: JFK Conspiracy Theories in SKEPTIC

Postby Robert Harris » Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:15 pm

Dave Reitzes wrote:Hi, all.

My name is Dave Reitzes. I contributed the cover story, "JFK Conspiracy Theories at 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters,"

In early 2014, I posted a message to David in the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup where he usually hung out (no longer, however), asking him questions about the very article he referred to in this thread.

David and I discussed this issue many times in that forum and his position was that Oswald could have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, apparently thinking that Oswald was more skilled than all of the FBI and HSCA experts who tested the rifle. Not only did he omit that in his Skeptics article, he never bothered to mention the fact that the Warren Commission reported that "most" of the witnesses heard only a single, early shot and then two closely bunched shots at the end. To more fully understand this, please look at my article at the top of the thread entitled, "The JFK Case - another approach".

This is the message I posted to David then. I am still waiting for his reply:

David, in your article at Skeptic magazine, you made the following
statement, obviously meant to create the impression that the witnesses
were hopelessly confused.

"Amidst the sensory assault of roaring motorcycles, wailing sirens, and
the highly animated throng cheering the arrival of President John F.
Kennedy and his elegant wife, Jacqueline, one of the most momentous events
of the 20th century occurred in mere seconds. Eyewitness perceptions
varied wildly."

First of all, why would you think that the motorcycles were "roaring" when
they were traveling at 8-14mph? At that speed, they were barely audible
most of the time.

And second, don't you think you should have told your readers that the
"wailing sirens" were not heard until well after the shooting had ended?

And finally, why did you claim that "Eyewitness perceptions varied
wildly"? Granted, you can find a few isolated cases of bad recollections
but the Warren Commission concluded that those people were quite
consistent about the shots they heard and that "most" witnesses heard only
a single shot, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end. Didn't
you think it was important to share that information with your readers,
rather than create the false impression that they were all over the place?

Even when you were pointing out that "81 percent" heard three of the
shots, you failed to mention the spacing that they reported. Since that
spacing was critical to the question of whether Oswald fired them all, why
wouldn't you talk about that? You also stated,

"Careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the commission?s
conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics."

David, I wonder if you realize how blatantly false that sweeping
generalization really is:-) Would you mind explaining in detail, how a
"careful and sober" analysis of any kind, vanquishes my arguments about
the spacing of the shots?

And why do you refuse to even address (let alone "vanquish") the
statements of Gov. Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan and nursing supervisor
Bell, which prove beyond all doubt, that CE399 was not the bullet that
wounded Connally? I know you've read this article David, when to you
intend to rebut it?

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

It's one thing to ignore the tough arguments David; it's quite another to
pretend that they were "vanquished". Wouldn't you agree?

Another really outrageous statement you made was about the conclusions of
numerous doctors and nurses at Parkland, that there was massive damage to
the back of the head.

"For example, some described a massive blowout to the rear of the head..
But they were wrong, and research shows this is not at all unusual."

David, don't you think it would have been better to simply show your
readers the BOH and let them decide for themselves:-)

http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg

And don't you think it would have been good to tell your readers what Dr.
Boswell had to say about the damage to the back of the head? He not only
inspected the wounds but it was his job to measure them and document their
exact positions and sizes.

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left
posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded
over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When
you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and
there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the
remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect
that...

Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal
area...

David, why didn't you share this information with your readers? Why would
you instead, try to claim that the Parkland doctors saw things differently
from the autopsists? If you were simply unaware of this, you should read
this brief article I wrote several years ago, so that you will not
continue to spread false information.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

You also attempted to refute the argument that the mob was behind the
assassination. But you did that without even mentioning the name of Carlos
Marcello, the mafia don who swore that he would kill JFK, long before
11/22. The head of the HSCA concluded that Marcello ordered the murder,
several years before Marcello actually confessed (unwittingly) to an FBI
informant, that he did exactly that. He also admitted the crime to
mafia attorney Frank Ragano.

Don't you think your readers would have wanted to know that? And shouldn't
you have told them about the murders of mafiosos, Roselli, Giancana, and
Nicoletti literally within days of them testifying or telling the press
about the mob's role in the assassination?

On the bright side, you did a fine job of attacking theories related to
"badgeman", "umbrella man", etc. and I would certainly commend you for
that, as well as your analysis of the 313 shot, which undoubtedly did come
from the rear.

But none of that has anything to do with the ultimate question, or at
least it doesn't, with the knowledge that the claims are false. The real
question is, did Oswald fire all the shots. Wouldn't you agree?

On that subject, you made some very serious errors. And you also failed to
share critical facts and evidence with your readers, most of whom were
undoubtedly far less knowledgeable about the JFK case than you and I.

Why didn't you mention the analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio?

And why didn't you mention the reactions following frame 285. You
previously stated that my conclusions about that were not at all
unreasonable and proceeded to argue that Oswald could have fired shots at
both 285 and 313. Why didn't you tell your readers about that?

I only have one more question David. Do you consider your article to be a
balanced, objective assessment of this crime or would you call it more of
a one-sided sales pitch?

If you are up for acknowledging the obvious answer to that question, then
you must realize that you should never have submitted this article to a
magazine like Skeptic, where objectivity is virtually a religion.


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest