JFK Assassination/Example of Theory - Page 5

Lonewulf · #**121** (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hello people

I said 'your' tent.

Why would I need a tent?

I'm not gnashing my teeth for either side of any argument.

Judging from your signature, you seem to be of the belief that a person can't really "know" anything. If I'm wrong, please say so.

Going by this, are you claiming that a person can't know anything? No matter how much evidence there is that the knowledge is correct? No matter how many times it's been scientifically proven?

If the answer to all three questions is "yes", then I ask: Does mathematics work? Can courts of law ever be right? Do engineers really build buildings that are usually stable and don't randomly fall because they don't know anything?

I await your responce.

hello people · #**122** (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 04:52 AM

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe maybe

I suppose it depends on what angle a torch is shined on it.

Lonewulf · #**123** (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hello people

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe maybe

I suppose it depends on what angle a torch is shined on it.

So you're saying it's DEFINITELY maybe... and that you're ABSOLUTELY ambiguous... (always wanted to say that)... and that this "torch" you bring up is the end-all, be-all to knowing information?

If so, then what CAN you know?

SpitfireIX · #**124** (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 05:29 PM

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe maybe

We should lock him up in a room with Brumsen and let the two of them debate the existence or nonexistence of the universe.

Gillianren · #**125** (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 05:36 PM

You know, some people might consider that "cruel and unusual punishment." But I say we must be bold enough to sacrifice CTs that way.

hello people · #**126** (**permalink**) 18-August-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

So you're saying it's DEFINITELY maybe... and that you're ABSOLUTELY ambiguous... (always wanted to say that)... and that this "torch" you bring up is the end-all, be-all to knowing information?

If so, then what CAN you know?

Exactly, except for the torch...different people use different torches I suppose.

I can't really say. Who am I to say?

Kjeld · #**127** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 12:12 AM

I think it is wierd that Mr. Kennedy left Dallas wrapped in sheets in a expensive casket, but when he came to Bethesda he was in a cheap casket in a body bag!

ZaphodBeeblebrox · #**128** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeld

I think it is wierd that Mr. Kennedy left Dallas wrapped in sheets in a expensive casket, but when he came to Bethesda he was in a cheap casket in a body bag!

Well, Look What Happened to Lincoln's Casket ...

They Wanted to Avoid a Huuge Public Throng ...

Isn't it The FAMILY'S Riight, to Have Some Privacy In their Bereavement?

SpitfireIX · #**129** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 03:51 AM

I think it is wierd that Mr. Kennedy left Dallas wrapped in sheets in a expensive casket, but when he came to Bethesda he was in a cheap casket in a body bag!

No. See here.

Quote:

David R. Wrone
Officials never lost contact with the casket, so the replacement of the allegedly altered corpse was impossible. General McHugh was always close to the coffin, never losing contact with it from the time it was unloaded from Air Force One until the ambulance parked at the mortuary jetty, where he assisted in its removal. In addition, FBI agents James W. Sibert and Francis X. O’Neill Jr. met the plane, watched the casket being removed and placed in the ambulance, followed it in the third car of the motorcade, kept the casket constantly in sight from the airport to the hospital, and then helped unload the casket and witnessed the autopsy. A key paragraph in their official report states as follows:

The president’s body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table, at which time the complete body was wrapped in a sheet and the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood. Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the president’s clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull. All personnel with the exception of medical officers needed in the taking of photographs and x-rays were requested to leave the autopsy room and remain in the adjacent room.

Their comment regarding the body’s condition matched the description testified to by the Dallas nurses who placed him in the coffin, information also absent from Lifton’s account. Nurse Diana Bowron: “We wrapped some extra sheets around his head so it wouldn’t look so bad.” Nurse Margaret Henchliffe: “We . . . wrapped him up in sheets [and] he was placed in the coffin.” [citations omitted]

Gillianren · #**130** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 04:01 AM

See, that's what bothers me. So many of the "inconsistencies" of conspiracy theories, be it JFK, Apollo, 9/11, or whatever, are either not inconsistencies at all or are apparently fever dreams of whatever unsound mind came up with the conspiracy theory in the first place. However, most of those who cite said "inconsistencies" never bother to find out if they're true or not, so they pass them on, and we end up hearing about them over and over and over again.

Lonewulf · #**131** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hello people

Exactly, except for the torch...different people use different torches I suppose.

I can't really say. Who am I to say?

So then, nothing is knowable? Sorry, I can't follow that philosophy.

Staying in willful and constant ignorance is not my prerogative. I learn, I don't shrug my shoulders and ignore.

SpitfireIX · #**132** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 10:41 AM

So many of the "inconsistencies" of conspiracy theories, be it JFK, Apollo, 9/11, or whatever, are either not inconsistencies at all or are apparently fever dreams of whatever unsound mind came up with the conspiracy theory in the first place. However, most of those who cite said "inconsistencies" never bother to find out if they're true or not, so they pass them on, and we end up hearing about them over and over and over again.

As Mr. Miyagi says in The Karate Kid, Part II, "Hit nail on head." In this case, one witness evidently misremembered seeing a body bag and a gray shipping casket (having likely seen many other bodies arrive at Bethesda in that condition), and the faulty memory immeditately becomes a "fact" in conspiracy land.

Kjeld · #**133** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 12:00 PM

And what about the doctors who saw a big wound on the backside of his head? I don't think those people will lie about it, because on the autopsy photo's it doesn't show a large wound on the back of his head. A man named Billy Harper found the backside of his skull in the grass. Bobby Hargis a motorcycle cop and he drove trough a big cloud of brains of blood(he was behind the car).

Image

that looks like a big wound on the back of his head.

Wolverine · #**134** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 01:09 PM

Hi Kjeld,

I replaced the image you hotlinked above with a URL; as noted in our forum rules (See #8), hotlinking is only allowed under very specific circumstances.

Lonewulf · #**135** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeld

And what about the doctors who saw a big wound on the backside of his head? I don't think those people will lie about it, because on the autopsy photo's it doesn't show a large wound on the back of his head. A man named Billy Harper found the backside of his skull in the grass. Bobby Hargis a motorcycle cop and he drove trough a big cloud of brains of blood(he was behind the car).

Image

that looks like a big wound on the back of his head.

Which is fully consistent with an exit wound made by a large caliber, hyper-velocity round.

The entry wound is usually small, the exit wound is usually very large.

jt-3d · #**136** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeld

Bobby Hargis a motorcycle cop and he drove trough a big cloud of brains of blood(he was behind the car).

It's too late in the day for me to engage in yet another conspiracy but I'll point out that Kennedy's car was being followed by another car, not a motorcycle.

EDIT: I see you have seen a page such as this. Kennedy is hit, lots of blood and tissue flies all over and meets wind resistance and for all intents and purposes stops. (Spit some water out the window next time you're in a moving car.) Motorcycle cop rides through 'cloud' before he stops. Not really surprising to me.

SpitfireIX · #**137** (**permalink**) 24-August-2006, 05:01 PM

And what about the doctors who saw a big wound on the backside of his head? I don't think those people will lie about it, because on the autopsy photo's it doesn't show a large wound on the back of his head.

In 1988 the American Public Television science series NOVA took four of the doctors who treated Kennedy to the National Archives to view the autopsy photos. Their reactions (as recorded here):

Quote:

Dr. Richard Dulaney
I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room.

Quote:

Dr. Marion Jenkins
Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day.

Quote:

Dr. Robert McClelland
I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . .

Quote:

Dr. Paul Peters
Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time.

A man named Billy Harper found the backside of his skull in the grass.

The Harper Fragment was most likely from Kennedy's parietal bone, on the top and side of his skull.

that looks like a big wound on the back of his head.

It's on the top and side, not the back. See here, and look at the House Select Committee drawing, which is the most accurate.

NEOWatcher · #**138** (**permalink**) 17-May-2007, 08:00 PM

Here we go again...
JFK: New study challenges one-gunman theory

Quote:

New science is now challenging the analysis over the details of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
The Washington Post reports a former FBI scientist and two Texam A&M researchers question a government study that declared gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Do I dare try to go to the WP story?

Grashtel · #**139** (**permalink**) 17-May-2007, 08:02 PM

So tell me, just how is a JFK assassination theory space and/or astronomy related?