A Legitimate Complaint? Or A Bunch Of Whining CTers?

[David Von Pein]

Fellow AAJ forum members,

I'd appreciate it if some of you would provide your opinions regarding the
situation that I have documented at the link below, which is a rather odd
situation that resulted in my being banned from The Education Forum on
August 26, 2019.

And if you feel compelled to call me a "thief", feel free to do so. My
feelings won't be hurt. (I'm getting used to it.) :-) ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html

Thank you.

DVP

[John McAdams]

On 16 Sep 2019 15:42:09 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

So, you are in fact banned from the Education Forum?

I browsed through stuff at the link above. Arguing with those idiots
seems to be a waste of your very considerable intelligence.

But then, I've been known to screw around with stuff that doesn't tax
my intelligence, too. :-(

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Deagle]

I cannot stand Dieugenio. He looks like a leprechaun. Ignorant bastard.

[19efppp]

No matter how silly you are, I don't see why they won't let you quote
their discussions. Do they think that you are devaluing their product with
free advertising? They should learn a lesson from our Dear Leader, Trump.
All publicity is good publicity.

[BT George]

Sorry of the loss of an excellent place for you to offset silliness. In
due time they will find excuse to get rid of the EF's other LN's. This
sort of tribalism that squashes opposing views is part of a growing and
alarming trend across the country. Not just in all too many JFK
assassination venues.

[John McAdams]

On 16 Sep 2019 22:34:40 -0400, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course, being unwilling to engage opposing arguments means that the
little tribe will fester with the same old arguments, unable to
prevail when faced with any serious opposition, and sentenced to be
largely irrelevant outside their narrow circle.

Much the same thing happens with political correctness in academia,
although unfortunately *that* has spread to the mainstream media,
Hollywood, etc. But in the long run it's counter-productive for the
left.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 4:06:21 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> So, you are in fact banned from the Education Forum?
>

Yes, John, the owner/moderator of The Education Forum (James R. Gordon)
finally found a trumped-up excuse to toss me out the door, which (IMO) is
something he has been anxious to do ever since I embarrassed the daylights
out of him during a heated discussion we had in 2015 concerning the
Single-Bullet Theory [linked below].

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

[David Von Pein]

Related excerpts from two forum discussions (at both the EF forum and at
Duncan MacRae's forum)....


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

To [be] fair to David, he appears to be trying to establish a
chronological argument. But it appears he is doing so by editing the views
of fellow members - as opposed to a full copy of their views. And the
complaint is that the edit has changed what members both believe and said.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Incorrect. I've "changed" neither.

With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics **that I have chosen to
engage various CTers on** (at both The Education Forum and then at my site
when I transfer that material over there so that I know my own remarks are
in a safe place that won't disappear when this forum goes down the tubes
due to a lack of funding), I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any
original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

The essential point is that fellow members do not have editorial access to
their work on David's site. On his site, David is the editor of EF
members' ideas and views and the complaint is that David is
misrepresenting their position.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And that complaint is also untrue, insofar as (again) **the particular JFK
sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on**.

There has been no "misrepresentation" on my part with respect to the
topics that I have CHOSEN to talk about with the conspiracy theorists at
The Education Forum (and then over at my own site when I copy those *exact
same discussions* there).

As for the topics at The Education Forum that I have NOT chosen to engage
the CTers on, I always provide a link (or links) to the full and complete
forum discussion on my webpages at my site. So, as I've pointed out
numerous times previously, if someone wants to read the full thread, they
can easily do so from my site (if such a link is available, that is, which
sometimes it is not, but that's beyond my control because the thread was
deleted by the moderators, and in such a case, then my site is now the
*only* place to read *any* part of those deleted threads).

[...]

JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

The Bill Kelly post is a six page thread. Please provide the link to your
site which demonstrates that you published every word.

From looking at your site, it appears to me you edit.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

See my last comments.

Of course I haven't responded to every single post on ALL SIX PAGES of a
thread. (Who does?) But I've linked to the complete discussion (as
mentioned many times before).

Again---

I attempt to archive the portions of discussions that I myself have
participated in. Nothing more. Nothing less.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

By your own admission, you are copying members work and editing it. In the
case of the Bill Kelly thread, you have selected what you feel is
pertinent to your purpose.

I am sorry, that is wholly unacceptable to copy EF work, edit it, and
place it on a foreign site for which no member of this site has editorial
access.

I am sorry to have to say this, but tomorrow I will remove your access to
this site. I will not allow this behaviour to continue.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, that's what I figured.

For more than three years this thread [linked below] has been here...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/

...and in that whole time not a SINGLE person asked to have their content
removed from my site. Now, suddenly, CTers are crawling out of the
woodwork with complaints. Even just 3 days ago, Bart Kamp couldn't have
cared less about what I did on my rinky-dink little blog. Now, three days
later, he's ready to leave the forum and demand that all of his *OWN*
posts be removed because of *MY* site that three days ago he didn't care
about at all. Unbelievably fickle.

And, again, can you just imagine this thread existing if a "CTer" had
archived some of his posts at his website (which likely *has* occurred
somewhere online)? It never would have been started in the first place, of
course.

Bye.

Enjoy your fickleness until this forum goes belly-up in the near future.
And when that happens, you might even find yourself wanting to seach *my*
site for *your* forum posts that have been lost for all time because of
the fact that Internet forums rarely last forever.

[...]

RICK PLANT SAID:

A person who's confident in their research should have no problem with
others copying their info as long as it isn't taken out of context.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Rick, the relevant comment in your post is "so long as it isn't taken out
of context." DVP take note.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ray, maybe you can help me repair any "out of context" quotes that I have
transferred to my website from the JFK forums. Would you be so kind as to
provide a few examples of where you think I have quoted conspiracy
theorists "out of context" on my website/blog.

After I take a good look at your examples, we'll see if I agree with you
or not regarding the "out of context" matter.

In the event that I *do* agree with you on any of the quotes you cite, I
will do my best to add more CTer "context" back into the quote(s) by
checking out the complete original discussion(s) and putting in additional
CTer quotes as warranted in order to enhance the "context" that almost all
CTers at The Education Forum seem to think I have left completely out of
virtually *every single CTer quote* I have ever transferred from the EF to
my own site.

Footnote --- And that's how I can tell that this persistent "out of
context" refrain has been blown up to ludicrous proportions by the CTers.
Because to think that I have *actually* quoted the CTers "out of context"
*every single time* I've quoted a conspiracist in the last 10+ years is,
to put it bluntly, just plain crazy. A few CTer excerpts I've quoted on my
site could *possibly* use a little more "context", I'll readily admit that
possibility. But to hear the EF CTers tell it, I have never once quoted a
CTer properly in my whole life. And that overboard notion is flat-out
silly.

[DVP NOTE: The response I received from Ray Mitcham to the above request
was --- dead silence.] [As of 9/16/2019 PM anyway.]

[InsideSparta]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with your copying message board thread
debates from the Ed forum and posting them on your website, so long as you
credit the source site and provide a link. Original message board (or
newsgroup) content does not have any copyright, and is fair game to be
used elsewhere. The only exception would be if the website were a pay
site, in which users must pay a subscription fee to access the content.
Even in that case, there's no legal repercussion for someone copying the
message board content and posting it somewhere else. But I'd certainly say
that it is the prerogative of a subscription site's owner to ban someone
for posting their content on other sites. Our good friend Ralph Cinque was
doing exactly what you were doing, taking debate material he had with
others on this site (including myself) and posting it on his own website.
No harm no foul in that. Take solace David in knowing that you were doing
such a good job at exposing the lunacy of some of the LNers, that they had
to resort to the petty act of banning you in an attempt to stop you from
continuing to embarrass them. If they were winning those debates, they
would love to have you around.

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 10:33:30 PM UTC-4, 19efppp wrote:
>
> No matter how silly you are, I don't see why they won't let you quote
> their discussions. Do they think that you are devaluing their product with
> free advertising? They should learn a lesson from our Dear Leader, Trump.
> All publicity is good publicity.

Allow me to repeat something I said to the Education Forum crowd three
years ago:

"Yeah. I should be locked up for life for the dastardly crime of
*voluntarily* posting a lot of comments written by *CTers* on a site run
by an *LNer*, thereby providing an additional Internet location where many
many conspiracy arguments can now be viewed. (And providing links to the
original full discussions, if anyone wants to view them.) Yes, I get the
"last word" in those arguments after I transfer the portions of the
arguments that I have been involved in (which is the only part of the
discussions I have any interest in archiving on my website). But since I'm
an LNer who thinks all conspiracy theories are bunk, what in the heck
would you expect? It's *my* site. Get real. I should be getting an
"Attaboy!" from CTers for voluntarily posting on my site hundreds of
different arguments presented by the "other side" (which I certainly don't
have to do). Instead, I'm treated like a dirty thief who robs people blind
and skips town with everybody's money and jewelry. Geez Louise.
Ridiculous." -- DVP; February 21, 2016

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Some people, including groups, just can't handle the truth, so they
just ban it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

As John pointed out, the problem is the inability nowadays with some who
hold a strong opinion on a subject to entertain an opposing view.

You're taking the fun out their hobby, David (America is evil! Everyone
killed JFK!), and that will not be tolerated.

The only surprise to me is that they waited this long to figure out a way
to justify banning you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, the horror.
A WC defender being disscriminated against?
Whoever thought that that could happen?
I would never call you a thief here. You know that is not allowed
because WC defenders are protected no matter what the crime.
Please post some more off-topic rants.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/16/2019 4:06 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2019 15:42:09 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Fellow AAJ forum members,
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if some of you would provide your opinions regarding the
>> situation that I have documented at the link below, which is a rather odd
>> situation that resulted in my being banned from The Education Forum on
>> August 26, 2019.
>>
>> And if you feel compelled to call me a "thief", feel free to do so. My
>> feelings won't be hurt. (I'm getting used to it.) :-) ....
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> DVP
>
> So, you are in fact banned from the Education Forum?
>
> I browsed through stuff at the link above. Arguing with those idiots
> seems to be a waste of your very considerable intelligence.
>

Pro forma. someone has to do it. It would be nice if you believed in
Freedom of Speech and defended him.

> But then, I've been known to screw around with stuff that doesn't tax
> my intelligence, too. :-(
>

More baseball please. Definitely on topic.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, so what? You think that means that he does not have a right to
express his opinion?

[BT George]

Spot on Chuck.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean like ,John and his minions?

> You're taking the fun out their hobby, David (America is evil! Everyone
> killed JFK!), and that will not be tolerated.
>

That is physically impossible. Evil people exist, but they do not
constitute the whole country. Just the Republicans.
It is physically impossible to have everyone kill JFK. There were only 4
or shots. Even if all Republicans are eveil. There are just not enough
firing locations to fit them all.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

More knots to untangle. No, I don't mean like John or his minions.

>
> > You're taking the fun out their hobby, David (America is evil! Everyone
> > killed JFK!), and that will not be tolerated.
> >
>
> That is physically impossible.

More knots to untangle. It's conversational shorthand for getting a
general observation across regarding the varied conspiracist beliefs at
the EF without the need for writing thousands of words.

>Evil people exist, but they do not
> constitute the whole country.

More knots to untangle. This is a straw man argument.

>Just the Republicans.

I'll bet you really believe that deep in your soul, which explains a few
things.

> It is physically impossible to have everyone kill JFK.

More tendentious knots to untangle. This is a straw man argument.

There were only 4
> or shots.

Great. Three shots from the TSBD and some Nervous Nellie standing a few
yards away from Abraham Zapruder on the grassy knoll who missed
everything. Go track down Frank Bender's relatives and yell at them.
Hurry.

Even if all Republicans are eveil. There are just not enough
> firing locations to fit them all.

You're apparently still frosted after all of these decades that a
wife-beating malcontent--harboring political views you agree with--wiped
out Camelot.

[John Deagle]

I recommend that you start using SPELLCHECK.

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU think that Oswald was a Nervous Nellie who missed everything on this
planet with one shot. I know the grassy knoll shooter hit JFK in the
forehead above the right eye.

> Even if all Republicans are eveil. There are just not enough
>> firing locations to fit them all.
>
> You're apparently still frosted after all of these decades that a
> wife-beating malcontent--harboring political views you agree with--wiped
> out Camelot.
>

How do you know that the grassy knoll shooter was a wife-beating
malcontent? That's not a nice way to talk about a CIA officer.

[Anthony Marsh]

My newsreader automatically does spellchecking.
It doesn't always catch typos.

[Bud]

It is easier for these lefties to create false narratives than face
reality.

[19efppp]

Spellcheck is for communist sluts.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect, which Wikipedia defines as a
cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability
as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory
superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack
of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot
objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.

You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors. You're not. You think
they lied to cover it up and help keep WW3 from happening. They didn't,
and you have no proof, just suspicions. You think the other medical
professionals that have looked at the autopsy results over the years were
either incompetent or lying as well. They weren't.

This is in part why real historians laugh their asses off at buffs who not
only dismiss the core findings in a case like this, but are also unable to
put up a counter-narrative that ties the loose ends up better than the WC
case they criticize. Two shots to JFK's head, or one shot fired from the
knoll is a non-starter, not because I say so, but because SCIENCE says so.

You've had fifty-six years to put your Frank Bender stand-in up on the
knoll, a few feet from Abe, and fire rounds at a realistic test dummy or
block of ballistic gel, etc. and film the results, and so on. Since "90%
of the American public" (or whatever number Team Oswald is trotting out
nowadays) thinks a conspiracy knocked off Camelot, why not raise the money
through GoFundMe for the tests? Do it right, hire experts, invite critics
to participate, get modern technology to record the shots, absorb the
bullets for observation, film the event from different angles, hire
bystanders to give their impressions of what they heard and saw, and on
and on. Put the study on YouTube.

Where is this work?

>
> > Even if all Republicans are eveil. There are just not enough
> >> firing locations to fit them all.
> >
> > You're apparently still frosted after all of these decades that a
> > wife-beating malcontent--harboring political views you agree with--wiped
> > out Camelot.
> >
>
> How do you know that the grassy knoll shooter was a wife-beating
> malcontent? That's not a nice way to talk about a CIA officer.

I notice you didn't address the part where I wrote he harbored political
views you agree with. ;-)

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, I see, so you think only LEFTIES believe in conspiracy?
Breakfast with Oswald.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Yes, an erratic unstable Oswald, who probably hadn't practiced with the
rifle for two months, missed the first shot.

You, however, think a crackerjack CIA sniper, trained to kill - under
orders from Helms - firing from the window missed everything.

Which is more believable?

[Bud]

I think leftists are more prone to construct false narratives because
they can`t face reality.

[bigdog]

I've seen no polling to support this but based on my observations, lefties
seem more prone to be CTers than righties. They seem more willing to
believe JFK was done in my some mysterious shadow government controlled by
ultra right wingers. It's not a hard fast rule. There are lefties who are
LNs and righties who are CTs. Bugliosi was very liberal.

[Ace Kefford]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Fellow AAJ forum members,
>
> I'd appreciate it if some of you would provide your opinions regarding the
> situation that I have documented at the link below, which is a rather odd
> situation that resulted in my being banned from The Education Forum on
> August 26, 2019.
>
> And if you feel compelled to call me a "thief", feel free to do so. My
> feelings won't be hurt. (I'm getting used to it.) :-) ....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html
>
> Thank you.
>
> DVP

Whining CTers.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you realize that Oswald missed Walker from only 120 feet away? I bet
not even YOU could do that.

> You, however, think a crackerjack CIA sniper, trained to kill - under
> orders from Helms - firing from the window missed everything.
>

YOU think Oswald missed everything with one of his shots.
I never said tha CIA sniper was crackerjack.
Strawman argument.

> Which is more believable?
>
>
>
>
>
>

[BT George]

Yeah. High and to the right. Just like the scope misalignment might have
caused if it was in already in place at that time. It's possible Oswald
may have relied on the scope not yet realizing that it was misaligned.

> > You, however, think a crackerjack CIA sniper, trained to kill - under
> > orders from Helms - firing from the window missed everything.
> >
>
> YOU think Oswald missed everything with one of his shots.
> I never said tha CIA sniper was crackerjack.
> Strawman argument.
>

Make up your mind. Was he so terrible he missed Walker when he should have
easily nailed him, yet far to accurate to miss everything when aiming at a
person in a moving vehicle and probably as he was going left to right
across his view.

> > Which is more believable?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't get out much, do you? Never watched TV and probably don't even
own one. So you've never heard of rightwing conspiracy kooks like:
Roger Stone
Jerome Corsi
Alex Jones
Gary Allen
Donald Trump
Sean Hannity

Why do conspiracy theorists tend to be right wing?

Right-wing conspiracy theory tends to focus on efforts by communists and
other hard-core, organized socialists, fascists, and advocates of Big
Government to impose an absolute tyranny or "New World Order" on Americans
in particular and mankind in general in which major industries and
products (food, energy, media, money and banking, etc.) would be owned or
controlled by government bureaucrats as world monopolies with no private
alternatives allowed -- and the rights of peaceful people in their lives
and properties destroyed completely by political central planning and
control.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean like Trump and Roger Stone?
Do you think they'll make good cell mates?

[bigdog]

Apparently they were on a budget and couldn't afford a good sniper.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Okay, you think a CIA trained sniper firing from 30 yards away missed
everything.

I think Oswald - an erratic, unstable non-professional sniper who likely
hadn't practiced in two months - missed everything.

Which is more believable?

[Jerry Organ]

- Obama "death panels". (Sarah Palin, 2009; 2016: 30% American believe it)

- "Green New Deal" resolution means "no more combustion engines, no more
airplanes, no more cows" (Sean Hannity, July 2019)

- "Deep State" using FBI/DoJ to destroy Trump (Lou Dobbs, Alex Jones.
Hannity: "attempted coup")

- Leftists are hyper-sensitive marshmallows easily-bated (some on this
group troll them for sport)

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Well the government is supposed to award contracts to the lowest bidder.
So the winner had to cut costs and use a part time worker.

Really, the ridiculousness of what some conspiracy believers think is
unlimited. The government consists of human beings. They couldn't pull off
something like this - multiple agencies and departments coordinating this
on the federal, state and local level - if they tried. And not keep it
secret too.

[Anthony Marsh]

You aren't a very good WC defender when you can't even admit one of its
major conclusions. THEY said one shot missed entirely. Hence the need to
invent their Single Bullet Theory.

I would love to hear you explain that Oswald hit JFK in the back and then
Connally with separate bullets. But that is not the WC. That is heresy.


I have never said that Oswald was "to accurate."
I don't have a theory that Oswald was intentionally missing.
That sounds like something that Judyth would say.

>>> Which is more believable?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Plauasible deniability. Don't you think that the US government would
have enough money to hire the most expensive assassin in the world?
If someone hired the best assassin in the world for $100M, you wouldn't
be able to figure out who would be rich enough to hire him? That's why
the CIA used the Mafia.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Which shot?
Show me your 30 yards.
No ren the DPD test shooter for the HSCA shooting tests could miss the
sandbags at only 50 feet away.
Look at the CBS shooting tests. They had to look jigh and low to find
someone who could miss all the shots.

> Which is more believable?
>


Your ability yo make up ridiculous strawman arguments is unbelievable.
Have you ever shot a gun?

[bigdog]

The conspiracy hobbyists would have us believe their conspirators were so
cunning that they martialed all these forces in a coordinated effort to
kill JFK and then cover it up afterward yet at the same time so
incompetent they couldn't locate a skill sniper to take the shot. On top
of that, they gave him a crappy rifle.

[BT George]

IOW, my commentary was excellent and you don't have anything worth saying
in reply.

> >>> Which is more believable?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Your commentary was incoherent.

>>>>> Which is more believable?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, that is not what all conspiracy believers say. You have to separate
the conspiracy to murder from the conspiracy to cover it up. Some people
in the cover-up believe they are doing it for the good of the country,
to prevent WWIII.
If you plan on framing someone for a murder it works best to use his gun
rather than your own.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect,

I see you've wrung this idiotic rhetoric dry in the other forum and
decided to carry it over here where you won't be challenged, and act like
you're some psychology scholar discovering something new.

>
> You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors.

No, actually you do. You don't believe there is a 13 cm. defect situated
in the posterior scalp in the occipital-parietal area. Instead you agree
with the government, who stated the autopsy report was mistaken ("It is
probably misleading in the sense that it describes an actual absence of
scalp and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present; but torn and
displaced.")

Now why don't you tell us how Wikipedia defines "Dunning-Kruger" for the
25th time, then show us how the government's "cognitive ability" is not
"mistakenly assessed" over that of the autopsy report and "postmortem
experts"?

Then remind us again, who knows more about the medical evidence: the
government or the forensic pathologists?

Oops, did I spoil another one of your juvenile talking points again?

Speaking of forensic pathologists, show us how Cyril Wecht is displaying
"Dunning-Kruger" effect in the pages below:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0105a.htm

And show us how you disagreeing with him is NOT displaying
"Dunning-Kruger."

Then after you've pretended to read Wecht's report, explain why Finck
insisted that the observations of such autopsy pathologists were more
valid than those who examined the photos? You know Finck, right? One of
the "postmortem experts"?

Then tell us why you lie when you claim it's CTers who believe the
forensic experts who examined the autopsy results were incompetent or
lying, when it's clearly LNers who believe this.

Then tell us why you so vaguely allude to "other medical professionals"
without actually naming a single one.

Then tell us why Humes (one of the other "postmortem experts") was forced
to work under the constant interference of Admirals Burkley, Kenney and
Galloway, practically up his ass from start to finish, and show this
blatant interference does not constitute "Dunning-Kruger".

Is this the "discussion" you were hoping to have in the other forum?

So...let's discuss it, Dunning.

But we all know what you'll do:

1.) Fail to answer a single one of these.
2a.) Insist you don't have to address any of them...
2b.) Invent some flimsy reason why you don't have to...
2c.) which in your mind translates to: "these aren't really issues at all."
3.) Deflect.
4.) Change the subject with another verbose go-nowhere filibuster
chock-full of ad hominems that no doubt McAdams will mysteriously allow.
5.) Wipe your brow.
6.) Pretend this post never happened.
7.) Resurrect your "Dunning-Kruger" talking point again tomorrow, without
the slightest ounce of shame, self-awareness or irony.

[BT George]

Then read for comprehension next time. Maybe what is obvious to all other
sentient beings on the planet will suddenly be revealed to you. ...I
doubt it though.

> >>>>> Which is more believable?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/27/2019 1:36 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect,
>
> I see you've wrung this idiotic rhetoric dry in the other forum and
> decided to carry it over here where you won't be challenged, and act like
> you're some psychology scholar discovering something new.
>
>>
>> You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors.
>
> No, actually you do. You don't believe there is a 13 cm. defect situated
> in the posterior scalp in the occipital-parietal area. Instead you agree

Show me. That's not what Humes said. He said the entrance wound was down
near the hairline, which turned out to be a dab of FAT, not brain matter,
on TOP of the hair.

> with the government, who stated the autopsy report was mistaken ("It is
> probably misleading in the sense that it describes an actual absence of
> scalp and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present; but torn and
> displaced.")
>
> Now why don't you tell us how Wikipedia defines "Dunning-Kruger" for the
> 25th time, then show us how the government's "cognitive ability" is not
> "mistakenly assessed" over that of the autopsy report and "postmortem
> experts"?
>
> Then remind us again, who knows more about the medical evidence: the
> government or the forensic pathologists?
>
> Oops, did I spoil another one of your juvenile talking points again?
>
> Speaking of forensic pathologists, show us how Cyril Wecht is displaying
> "Dunning-Kruger" effect in the pages below:
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0105a.htm
>
> And show us how you disagreeing with him is NOT displaying
> "Dunning-Kruger."
>

I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with Cyril on some pooints. He is
not God. You've never talked to him. I have. he got little things wrong.

> Then after you've pretended to read Wecht's report, explain why Finck
> insisted that the observations of such autopsy pathologists were more
> valid than those who examined the photos? You know Finck, right? One of
> the "postmortem experts"?
>

The autopsy doctors were not allowed to see the autopsy photos.

[bigdog]

I suppose somewhere in there is a logical thought but I'll be damned if I
can find it.

[bigdog]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 1:34:20 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> No, that is not what all conspiracy believers say. You have to separate
> the conspiracy to murder from the conspiracy to cover it up. Some people
> in the cover-up believe they are doing it for the good of the country,
> to prevent WWIII.
> If you plan on framing someone for a murder it works best to use his gun
> rather than your own.

If you are planning on shooting the POTUS on short notice, have limited
means, and rely on others for transportation, you don't have much choice
but to use your own rifle.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Which is the best (or one of the best) argument as to why it was a lone
act. Where's the help? Where's the planning?

Damned, he got so very lucky. It's why, in part, I was a conspiracy
believer. How could this nobody with almost no resources kill the
President? Historically, assassins went after their victim; here we have
JFK being "brought" to him.

But if one reads history - and not the crazy conspiracy history that we
have to reason with - there are unlimited examples of "luck" playing a
role. In conspiracy world, though, there's no such thing as luck;
everything has a purpose and is part of a design.

[John McAdams]

On 28 Sep 2019 10:32:37 -0400, "Steven M. Galbraith"

History is full of coincidences that changed history.

The Archduke died because his driver took a wrong turn, bringing him
down the street where the assassin was. Why was the assassin on the
wrong street? Because he thought he had missed his chance and went to
a cafe. Which happened to be on the steet onto which the Archduke's
driver blundered.

At the Battle of Midway, American submarine USS Nautilus threatened
the Japanese fleet, and was pursued by the Japanese destroyer Arashi,
which became separated from the main fleet.

After a while, the Arashi gave up the chase, and headed at flank speed
back toward the main fleet.

At that point, overhead a squadron of dive bombers commanded by Wade
McClusky appeared, and they were lost. Didn't find the Japanese fleet
were they thought it should be.

McClusky inferred that the Arashi was headed back toward the main
fleet, and led his diver bombers off on the same heading as the
Arashi.

We know what happened then.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

More coincidences regarding Midway: the Japanese carriers were in a very
poor defensive position with most of their planes in hangers (most were
not on the open flight decks as is sometimes repeated in history books).
There was hesitation from Admiral Nagumo regarding whether to prep for
another strike against Midway Island or launch against the US carriers;
different missions use different bombs, so the Japanese Vals and Kates
were in their hangers, surrounded by bombs and torpedoes suitable for both
missions, waiting for instructions.

The US attacks had been coming in from on the deck by torpedo bombers, and
the slaughter of the US torpedo bombers--including Squadron 8 which
earlier had ALL of it's planes shot down in a bloodbath with just one
survivor--had the Japanese Zero CAP thinking low and slow, and during
those unforgiving minutes of Japanese hesitation, the fortuitous McClusky
signaled his Dauntless Dive Bombers to nose over for the attack, exploding
all of that Japanese ordinance sitting on the carrier decks.

Alas, in the world of the JFK buff, there are no coincidences, no
happenstances. Everything is planned down to the nanosecond with secret
operatives ready to swap out a bullet at Parkland and replace it in the
evidence chain, etc.

By the way, the Battle of Midway is the subject of a new movie. Here's the
trailer:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=new+movie+on+the+battle+of+Midway+2019#id=2&vid=c39c3cd50a59862b1f3c7b4d2e9bf008&action=click

My problem with this latest batch of WW2 movies the past decade is that
they are TOO heavy with the computer generated effects, and quite frankly,
the battle scenes look phony and over the top. The trailer for this new
movie looks like a cartoon. Movie makers did a better job with Tora Tora
Tora in 1970, and that was before all of the fancy special effects.

[John McAdams]

On 28 Sep 2019 22:35:45 -0400, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 9:46:19 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2019 10:32:37 -0400, "Steven M. Galbraith"
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Archduke died because his driver took a wrong turn, bringing him
>> down the street where the assassin was. Why was the assassin on the
>> wrong street? Because he thought he had missed his chance and went to
>> a cafe. Which happened to be on the steet onto which the Archduke's
>> driver blundered.
>>
>> At the Battle of Midway, American submarine USS Nautilus threatened
>> the Japanese fleet, and was pursued by the Japanese destroyer Arashi,
>> which became separated from the main fleet.
>>
>> After a while, the Arashi gave up the chase, and headed at flank speed
>> back toward the main fleet.
>>
>> At that point, overhead a squadron of dive bombers commanded by Wade
>> McClusky appeared, and they were lost. Didn't find the Japanese fleet
>> were they thought it should be.
>>
>> McClusky inferred that the Arashi was headed back toward the main
>> fleet, and led his diver bombers off on the same heading as the
>> Arashi.
>>
>> We know what happened then.
>>
>
>

>More coincidences regarding Midway: the Japanese carriers were in a very
>poor defensive position with most of their planes in hangers (most were
>not on the open flight decks as is sometimes repeated in history books).
>There was hesitation from Admiral Nagumo regarding whether to prep for
>another strike against Midway Island or launch against the US carriers;
>different missions use different bombs, so the Japanese Vals and Kates
>were in their hangers, surrounded by bombs and torpedoes suitable for both
>missions, waiting for instructions.
>
>The US attacks had been coming in from on the deck by torpedo bombers, and
>the slaughter of the US torpedo bombers--including Squadron 8 which
>earlier had ALL of it's planes shot down in a bloodbath with just one
>survivor--had the Japanese Zero CAP thinking low and slow, and during
>those unforgiving minutes of Japanese hesitation, the fortuitous McClusky
>signaled his Dauntless Dive Bombers to nose over for the attack, exploding
>all of that Japanese ordinance sitting on the carrier decks.
>

All good points.

In a broader sense, you could say the whole thing was not a
"coincidence," since when you break an enemies codes you are likely to
be able ambush them.

But even then, the battle could have turned out very differently.

>Alas, in the world of the JFK buff, there are no coincidences, no
>happenstances. Everything is planned down to the nanosecond with secret
>operatives ready to swap out a bullet at Parkland and replace it in the
>evidence chain, etc.
>
>By the way, the Battle of Midway is the subject of a new movie. Here's the
>trailer:
>
>https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=new+movie+on+the+battle+of+Midway+2019#id=2&vid=c39c3cd50a59862b1f3c7b4d2e9bf008&action=click
>
>My problem with this latest batch of WW2 movies the past decade is that
>they are TOO heavy with the computer generated effects, and quite frankly,
>the battle scenes look phony and over the top. The trailer for this new
>movie looks like a cartoon. Movie makers did a better job with Tora Tora
>Tora in 1970, and that was before all of the fancy special effects.

Yea, we too much CGI in current movies.

Things like the chariot race in Ben Hur, or the sea battle in that
same movie, or even the original King Kong I frankly consider more
impressive than the "too many pixels and too much CGI code" today.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:36:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect,
>
> I see you've wrung this idiotic rhetoric dry in the other forum and
> decided to carry it over here where you won't be challenged, and act like
> you're some psychology scholar discovering something new.

Aw, you're just mad 'cause I use it on you at the Nuthouse, and it fits
you to a "T".

>
> >
> > You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors.
>
> No, actually you do. You don't believe there is a 13 cm. defect situated
> in the posterior scalp in the occipital-parietal area. Instead you agree
> with the government, who stated the autopsy report was mistaken ("It is
> probably misleading in the sense that it describes an actual absence of
> scalp and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present; but torn and
> displaced.")

Then why did the autopsy doctors indeed conclude JFK was shot in the head
only one time, and the shot was fired from above and behind? And why do
the autopsy photos and pictures verify this? And why did the HSCA team
reach the same conclusion?

Wow, what a grouch. Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed the other
day, but thanks (I think?) for craving my attention bad enough to creep on
what I write at different forums.

That's quite the Gish Gallop. Your barrage of conspiracy talking points
has been addressed as inferences based on begged questions, and you don't
like that, but that's the correct way to deal with you.

Since my position doesn't differ from the historically accepted conclusion
(and I know that's boring as heck to you, or just plain uninformed or
wrong), why don't you tell us--as best as you can--how many shots were
fired, and from where, and which shots caused what wounds, and so on. Give
us your back story with your overall "take" on how it happened, who was
behind it, etc.

Be specific, and we'll compare your narrative to the Oswald Alone
narrative.

[bigdog]

If Oswald were the only psychopath in the country who would have killed
JFK if given a chance, it would truly have been a remarkable coincidence
that JFK would by chance be routed right past his workplace. The fact is
we don't know how many potential Oswalds there were in the country at that
time and given JFK's fondness for riding through urban areas in open top
cars, it doesn't seem at all remarkable that at some point he would cross
paths with one of them. While we can only guess at the number of potential
assassins there were, history shows us that there are probably a lot of
them. The ones who actually get a chance to act are but a small fraction
of them.

The odds of winning a lottery are astronomically high yet many people beat
those odds every year simply because there are so many people who try. In
essence, there was an assassin's lottery and Oswald came out the winner.

[bigdog]

Luck played a huge part in our victory at Midway. The plan was for all
three attack groups to launch a coordinated attack but because they were
near maximum range when they found the carrier task force, they couldn't
wait for the following groups to rendezvous if they hoped to make it back
to the American carriers before running out of fuel. The first two waves
went in with no fighter cover and were wiped out by the Japanese fighters
but those two attacks brought down the Japanese fighter cover so when the
third wave arrived they were able to attack largely unopposed. The
Japanese were also in the process of switching from contact bombs to
torpedoes after they realized the American carriers were waiting for them.
Armaments were all over the flight deck when the third wave attacked. The
result was they destroyed 3 of the 4 Japanese carriers. A follow up attack
was launched to get the fourth carrier and that succeeded but during the
exchange, we lost the carrier Yorktown.

[bigdog]

I hope they do a better job than the 2000 movie Pearl Harbor. That was a
major disappointment. Based on what I saw in the trailer, I'm not sure it
will be any better. The special effects look ridiculous. I seriously doubt
any Japanese fighter were flying down streets 20 feet off the ground.

> My problem with this latest batch of WW2 movies the past decade is that
> they are TOO heavy with the computer generated effects, and quite frankly,
> the battle scenes look phony and over the top. The trailer for this new
> movie looks like a cartoon. Movie makers did a better job with Tora Tora
> Tora in 1970, and that was before all of the fancy special effects.

My sentinments exactly. Tora, Tora, Tora was so much superior to the 2000
Pearl Harbor movie which as you pointed out made the special effects the
star of the movie. For some reason the producers decided to turn one of
the most important events of the 20th century into a soap opera. The
Japanese only lost 28 aircraft in the attack and we are supposed to
believe that the two lead characters, played by Ben Affleck and Josh
Hartnett, downed 7 of them. There were elements of the dogfight that were
a joke.

The mid 1970s Midway movie was also very good, partly because they limited
the soap opera element. It opened with the Doolittle raid and reused the
takeoff footage from Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo as did the miniseries War
and Remembrance a few years later. Midway also recycled some of the attack
scenes from Tora, Tora, Tora.

[Anthony Marsh]

You say stuff like this because you know nothing about the CIA.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/28/2019 10:44 PM, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:36:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect,
>>
>> I see you've wrung this idiotic rhetoric dry in the other forum and
>> decided to carry it over here where you won't be challenged, and act like
>> you're some psychology scholar discovering something new.
>
> Aw, you're just mad 'cause I use it on you at the Nuthouse, and it fits
> you to a "T".
>
>>
>>>
>>> You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors.
>>
>> No, actually you do. You don't believe there is a 13 cm. defect situated
>> in the posterior scalp in the occipital-parietal area. Instead you agree
>> with the government, who stated the autopsy report was mistaken ("It is
>> probably misleading in the sense that it describes an actual absence of
>> scalp and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present; but torn and
>> displaced.")
>
> Then why did the autopsy doctors indeed conclude JFK was shot in the head

Well, yes JFK was shot in the head only one time. But that was just a
lucky guess.

> only one time, and the shot was fired from above and behind? And why do

Because the SS told them that the shooter was BEHIND the limo.

> the autopsy photos and pictures verify this? And why did the HSCA team
> reach the same conclusion?
>

The autopsy photos AND pictures? As if photos and pictures are two
different things? You have not seen the photos and/or pictures. They do
not verify that that the shot came from behind. Someone is lying to you.
The autopsy doctors were not allowed to see the photos and/pictures.

I don't care what you said in other places. Here the only tactic you
have is hurling insults.

> That's quite the Gish Gallop. Your barrage of conspiracy talking points
> has been addressed as inferences based on begged questions, and you don't
> like that, but that's the correct way to deal with you.
>

Whom are you trying to attack now? One of your own? An honest person
because he is honest?

> Since my position doesn't differ from the historically accepted conclusion
> (and I know that's boring as heck to you, or just plain uninformed or

There is no historically accepted conclusion. Only government lies.
The public has historically said it was a conspiracy. You represent only
a kook fringe minority.

> wrong), why don't you tell us--as best as you can--how many shots were
> fired, and from where, and which shots caused what wounds, and so on. Give

I did that in my article which I have posted hundreds of times.

> us your back story with your overall "take" on how it happened, who was
> behind it, etc.
>
> Be specific, and we'll compare your narrative to the Oswald Alone
> narrative.
>

Why don't you explain the bullet wound on JFK's forehead above his right
eye? And diagram the trajectory.

[Anthony Marsh]

False. No bullet shot in Dealey Plaza was found in JFK or Connally.
Someone planted a nearly pristine bullet which likely had struck no one.
There was no bullet "swap" as you put it.

> By the way, the Battle of Midway is the subject of a new movie. Here's the
> trailer:
>
> https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=new+movie+on+the+battle+of+Midway+2019#id=2&vid=c39c3cd50a59862b1f3c7b4d2e9bf008&action=click
>
> My problem with this latest batch of WW2 movies the past decade is that
> they are TOO heavy with the computer generated effects, and quite frankly,
> the battle scenes look phony and over the top. The trailer for this new
> movie looks like a cartoon. Movie makers did a better job with Tora Tora
> Tora in 1970, and that was before all of the fancy special effects.
>

Fair point. I think nowadays directors frown on actually killing extras.

[Anthony Marsh]

On the other hand, you like dancing pixels when you think they show Oswald
in the sniper's nest.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I like how you are allowed to drift this thread into things totally
unrelated to JFK. So let me try to drift it back to JFK. You point out the
importance having fighter cover for the bombers. Well, it turns out that
this was one of the reasons for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The Marine Colonel in charge of the invasion at the CIA screwed up.
Fighters from the USS Essex were supposed to fly air cover for the Cuban
Exile bombers. But Ned forgot about the difference in time zones and the
jets from the Essex arrived at the wrong time to provide cover for the
B-26 bombers from Castro's planes which the CIA did not know about which
easily shot down the B-26 bombers and gave Castro the upper hand so that
he defeated the exiles. Ned later joined the CIA and was one of the
propaganda assets arguing that there was no conspiracy in the JFK
assassination, while several CIA officers and Cuban Exiles were so angry
about JFK not providing the jet cover that they vowed to assassinate him.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are forgetting all the other psychopaths that the FBI and SS new
about, including the Miami threats and General Walker, who lived in Dallas.

> that JFK would by chance be routed right past his workplace. The fact is

Not my theory, but there are some kooks who claim that Connally lured
JFK to Dallas to make it easier for Oswald to take a shot.
Was General Walker lured to Oswald or did Oswald have to travel to shoot
at him? How could they lure JFK to Oswald's rooming house or the Paines?

> we don't know how many potential Oswalds there were in the country at that

Maybe 200-300.

> time and given JFK's fondness for riding through urban areas in open top

JFK was not the first President to prefer a convertible for parades.
The goal of a politician is to be seen by the public. That's what a
parade is for. Otherwise they could just use a helicopter.

> cars, it doesn't seem at all remarkable that at some point he would cross

Maybe you could claim that Oswald was too poor to go to Washington.

> paths with one of them. While we can only guess at the number of potential
> assassins there were, history shows us that there are probably a lot of
> them. The ones who actually get a chance to act are but a small fraction
> of them.
>

Thank God. And thank the FBI, CIA and SS for preventing almost all of
the attempts.

> The odds of winning a lottery are astronomically high yet many people beat
> those odds every year simply because there are so many people who try. In
> essence, there was an assassin's lottery and Oswald came out the winner.
>

I suspect that even if only half that number try, luck would assure that
at least one wins.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect,
> >
> > I see you've wrung this idiotic rhetoric dry in the other forum and
> > decided to carry it over here where you won't be challenged, and act like
> > you're some psychology scholar discovering something new.

Now we're going to watch a master class in projection, as Chuck
demonstrates his own accusation on others to a "T".

> >
> > >
> > > You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors.
> >
> > No, actually you do. You don't believe there is a 13 cm. defect situated
> > in the posterior scalp in the occipital-parietal area. Instead you agree
> > with the government, who stated the autopsy report was mistaken ("It is
> > probably misleading in the sense that it describes an actual absence of
> > scalp and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present; but torn and
> > displaced.")
>
> Then why did the autopsy doctors indeed conclude JFK was shot in the head
> only one time, and the shot was fired from above and behind?

Humes burned the first draft of the autopsy report and Burkley admitted to
altering subsequent drafts, and this was done after the AR was signed off
on. So, which parts did he doctor? Do you know? We know the neck wound
wasn't even known about. Finck says as much as it wasn't dissected. The AR
describes the second wound as in the thorax, not the neck. And there is no
evidence in the AR indicating that the pathologists did any kind of
thorough examination on the head wound, and that opinion is from Dr.
Charles Wilbur, not me. But you'll Dunning-Kruger that one yourself.

>
> And why do the autopsy photos and pictures verify this?

They don't. Like all your other opinions, this is something you pulled out
of a vending machine and decided to believe without looking into for even
the briefest of moments. And in fact, not only do they not verify what you
claim they do, but are actually at complete odds with each other. First of
all, I'm pretty sure I told you that Humes and Boswell both told the HSCA
that the wounds in the photos and x-rays had been moved (Remember Humes:
"This doesn't belong on the damn record!")

And being a big mouth on the subject, surely then you know that a CIA
employee named Regis Blahut was arrested for breaking into the HSCA safe
and tampering with the autopsy photographs.

>
> And why did the HSCA team reach the same conclusion?

Who? Robert Tanenbaum? Cyril Wecht? Blakey? Groden? Literally anyone who
was interviewed? Oh wait...this was another one of your vending machine
lies. Wasn't it?

Aaaaaand ignored ALL of this. That's what we thought. You have nothing to
say on the subject, and no knowledge to back it up. Constantly wrong, but
never in doubt. That's you. Notice the only LNer who even attempted to
come to your aid was Anthony Marsh? No one else. Why?

No let's consult my checklist of predictions...

1.) Fail to answer a single one of these.

Check.

2a.) Insist you don't have to address any of them...

Check.

2b.) Invent some flimsy reason why you don't have to...

Check.

2c.) which in your mind translates to: "these aren't really issues at
all."

A given, clearly.

3.) Deflect.

Check. In duplicate.

4.) Change the subject with another verbose go-nowhere filibuster
chock-full of ad hominems that no doubt McAdams will mysteriously allow.

Check. In triplicate.

5.) Wipe your brow.

No evidence this happened, but probable.

6.) Pretend this post never happened.

TBA.

7.) Resurrect your "Dunning-Kruger" talking point again tomorrow, without
the slightest ounce of shame, self-awareness or irony.

TBA. But we know. This is a "check" waiting to happen.

It was nice chatting with you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Well, in conspiracist-thinking, allow me to connect Midway to JFK:

Without a US victory at Midway, there likely isn't a US landing in the
Solomons at Guadalcanal in August.

Without a US base in the Solomons, there likely isn't a JFK operating a PT
boat out of those islands.

So there.

By the way, there isn't a connection between the Bay of Pigs and LHO.
You're assuming CIA involvement in JFK's murder, which you haven't shown.
You're assuming an intelligence connection to LHO to procure cooperation
as a patsy or as the shooter in the days prior to the assassination, which
you haven't shown.

This is called begging the question, and you do it a lot.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 5:23:20 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/28/2019 10:44 PM, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:36:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect,
> >>
> >> I see you've wrung this idiotic rhetoric dry in the other forum and
> >> decided to carry it over here where you won't be challenged, and act like
> >> you're some psychology scholar discovering something new.
> >
> > Aw, you're just mad 'cause I use it on you at the Nuthouse, and it fits
> > you to a "T".
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors.
> >>
> >> No, actually you do. You don't believe there is a 13 cm. defect situated
> >> in the posterior scalp in the occipital-parietal area. Instead you agree
> >> with the government, who stated the autopsy report was mistaken ("It is
> >> probably misleading in the sense that it describes an actual absence of
> >> scalp and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present; but torn and
> >> displaced.")
> >
> > Then why did the autopsy doctors indeed conclude JFK was shot in the head
>
> Well, yes JFK was shot in the head only one time. But that was just a
> lucky guess.
>
> > only one time, and the shot was fired from above and behind? And why do
>
> Because the SS told them that the shooter was BEHIND the limo.

So autopsies are conducted based on what people tell doctors they saw?
Silly.

Such as?

>
> > That's quite the Gish Gallop. Your barrage of conspiracy talking points
> > has been addressed as inferences based on begged questions, and you don't
> > like that, but that's the correct way to deal with you.
> >
>
> Whom are you trying to attack now? One of your own? An honest person
> because he is honest?

Boris agrees with you that a massive conspiracy killed JFK. It involved
multiple shooters and coordination from many other organizations and
groups.

>
> > Since my position doesn't differ from the historically accepted conclusion
> > (and I know that's boring as heck to you, or just plain uninformed or
>
> There is no historically accepted conclusion.

Read a history book. In any standard history work, Oswald is named as
JFK's killer, and if there are a few additional lines written, the
textbook give passing notice that a conspiracy was suspected, with nothing
ever proven.

Only government lies.
> The public has historically said it was a conspiracy.

Argumentum ad Populum. Bandwagon fallacy.

You represent only
> a kook fringe minority.

Cite please. Context please.

>
> > wrong), why don't you tell us--as best as you can--how many shots were
> > fired, and from where, and which shots caused what wounds, and so on. Give
>
> I did that in my article which I have posted hundreds of times.

Yes, you have your unique take, and other buffs have their unique take.
You need to explain all of the evidence better than the prevailing case,
and no buff has ever gotten past a few "these are the things that look
freaky to me," items before running into trouble with the established
facts in the case. It's why real historians no longer take you guys
seriously.

>
> > us your back story with your overall "take" on how it happened, who was
> > behind it, etc.
> >
> > Be specific, and we'll compare your narrative to the Oswald Alone
> > narrative.
> >
>
>
>
> Why don't you explain the bullet wound on JFK's forehead above his right
> eye? And diagram the trajectory.

Why don't you? You're challenging, not me.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I don't believe we've ever really "chatted". I'm still waiting for you to
put up your better explanation. Then we can chat.

You've had several years at the Nuthouse to marshal all of your thoughts,
all of your reasoning abilities, etc. and put together a compelling case.
You've flamed out in a spectacular way, and you're irked that you're being
called upon to state a case and not just have someone else track down
answers to your endless begged questions, all of which have been answered
in the past five decades or so, but alas, never to your satisfaction.

1.) You will fail to acknowledge that that the burden falls upon you to
put forward a better explanation.

2.) You will insist you don't have to address in detail all of the issues
that point to Oswald as a murderer, or explain your comment that
Oswald was "complicit" in JFK's death.

2b.) You will invent some flimsy reason why you don't need to.

2c.) This translates in your mind as: "these aren't really issues at all."

3.) Deflect.

4.) Change the subject with another verbose filibuster.

5.) Wipe your brow.

6.) Pretend this post never happened.

7.) Reiterate your displeasure at being nailed on the definition of
Dunning-Kruger fitting you to a "T".

Time is up on the buff movement. Until Team Oswald can put up a compelling
case that better explains JFK's death in detail in a better way than the
historically accepted narrative--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help--no
additional energy or resources need to be devoted towards playing Fetch
the Stick with rebutting the inferences buffs make off of their begged
questions. That's the PROPER way to handle the constant demands. You think
a shot was fired through the limo windshield and hit JFK? Show the
research. Show the tests. You think Oswald was somehow complicit that day?
Great. Baby steps. Tell us HOW he was complicit. State your case. You
think the Zapruder film was altered? Show how it was done. Run the tests,
explain what was edited out, explain why the timeline for the provenance
of the film is wrong, explain why Zavada was wrong, and on and on. Don't
ask me to disprove your suspicions.

You want to be considered a talented, insightful researcher, but you don't
want to do the work, or at least point to the work of others that jibes
with your still unstated theory.

I recognize your demands to be nothing more than the same old, same old
that these boards have endured from your kind for decades. If you don't
have a case, if you don't know what happened, or if you think you know but
don't want to come forward with it due to embarrassment or whatever,
simply state so, and we can move on.

Now feel free to snip this and tell me I'm filibustering.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2019 8:41 AM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect,
>>>
>>> I see you've wrung this idiotic rhetoric dry in the other forum and
>>> decided to carry it over here where you won't be challenged, and act like
>>> you're some psychology scholar discovering something new.
>
> Now we're going to watch a master class in projection, as Chuck
> demonstrates his own accusation on others to a "T".
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You think you're smarter than the autopsy doctors.
>>>
>>> No, actually you do. You don't believe there is a 13 cm. defect situated
>>> in the posterior scalp in the occipital-parietal area. Instead you agree
>>> with the government, who stated the autopsy report was mistaken ("It is
>>> probably misleading in the sense that it describes an actual absence of
>>> scalp and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present; but torn and
>>> displaced.")
>>
>> Then why did the autopsy doctors indeed conclude JFK was shot in the head
>> only one time, and the shot was fired from above and behind?
>
> Humes burned the first draft of the autopsy report and Burkley admitted to
> altering subsequent drafts, and this was done after the AR was signed off
> on. So, which parts did he doctor? Do you know? We know the neck wound
> wasn't even known about. Finck says as much as it wasn't dissected. The AR
> describes the second wound as in the thorax, not the neck. And there is no
> evidence in the AR indicating that the pathologists did any kind of
> thorough examination on the head wound, and that opinion is from Dr.
> Charles Wilbur, not me. But you'll Dunning-Kruger that one yourself.
>

2 additional points he's not aware of.

Humes originally said that the entrance wound was down near the hairline
and he saw brain matter oozing out of the wound. When the HSCA
photographic panel examined the autopsy photos they found that the thing
he saw was only a dab of fat tissue n top of the hair. In the HSCA
roundtable discussion Humes could not point out where the entrance wound
was and he said that the mark in the cowlick was only a blood clot.

We have a hint about what his original theory was when we read the
newspaper article from the next morning that summarized what the
Parkland doctors theory was. Most people have never even seen the story.
Obviously the only place you can find it is on my web site. McAdams
won't let you see it.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

>
>>
>> And why do the autopsy photos and pictures verify this?
>
> They don't. Like all your other opinions, this is something you pulled out
> of a vending machine and decided to believe without looking into for even
> the briefest of moments. And in fact, not only do they not verify what you
> claim they do, but are actually at complete odds with each other. First of
> all, I'm pretty sure I told you that Humes and Boswell both told the HSCA
> that the wounds in the photos and x-rays had been moved (Remember Humes:
> "This doesn't belong on the damn record!")
>
> And being a big mouth on the subject, surely then you know that a CIA
> employee named Regis Blahut was arrested for breaking into the HSCA safe
> and tampering with the autopsy photographs.
>

In the meantime a Secret Service agent named FOX leaked some of the
original autopsy photos from that night to a conspiracy author.
Few WC defenders have seen them. I have.

[Anthony Marsh]

I never claimed that there was a connection between the Bay of Pigs and
Oswald. Another false charge by you.

Are you going to try to deny that some CIA agents and/or Cuban Exiles
threatened to assassinate JJK because of the Bay of Pigs failure? I did
not say that those particular people are the ones who pulled the trigger.

> This is called begging the question, and you do it a lot.
>

And you are always ASSuMING things I never said in order to attack me
personally.

This is known as a straw man argument.
Do you know what happens when you ASSuME?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Now feel free to snip this and tell me I'm filibustering.

You're filibustering. And you addressed nothing. The entirety of your post
was TOTAL avoidance. And on the issue of Dunning-Kruger, you've failed in
every endeavor. Every one.

I've now demonstrated how you disagree with several pieces of the autopsy
report. I've shown how and why the conclusions are compromised separate
from the medical expertise, by the admission of Burkley himself. I've
shown that you disagree with Humes, Finck AND Boswell (all three of them),
and every single witness involved. You believe you know more than ALL of
them.

You believe you know more than 26 medical experts, 40 BOH witnesses, three
postmortem experts, a forensic pathology panel, and the HSCA. I've
demonstrated all of this, in two posts.

You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where on
the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.

You believe you know more than Humes and Boswell about the photos and the
X-rays. You believe you know more than the **photographers** of those
photos. You believe the photos and X-rays verify something they don't, AND
you believe they corroborate each other when in fact they're at total
odds.

You disagree with the findings of the HSCA. You think you know more than
the HSCA Deputy Chief Counsel.

You think you know more about weaponry than the police.

You think you know more about artillery than General Walker.

And let's face it, you just learned about the Regis Blahut arrest
yesterday. When I mentioned it.

....and that's just what I've managed to demonstrate of you in TWO POSTS.

Two.

You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect, which Wikipedia defines as a
cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability
as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory
superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack
of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot
objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.


You failed miserably. Utterly miserably. And that's why nobody is coming
to help you.

[John McAdams]

On 30 Sep 2019 08:41:06 -0400, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>And being a big mouth on the subject, surely then you know that a CIA
>employee named Regis Blahut was arrested for breaking into the HSCA safe
>and tampering with the autopsy photographs.
>

Tampering with?

What is your evidence on that?

Did he have a handy dandy photo lab in his briefcase? One capable of
handling color processing?

Did you even know that *after* Blahut looked at the photos they showed
the same thing they showed when, long before the HSCA, the Ramsey
Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission looked at them?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 30 Sep 2019 08:41:06 -0400, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

>>

>> And why did the HSCA team reach the same conclusion?
>
>Who? Robert Tanenbaum? Cyril Wecht? Blakey? Groden? Literally anyone who
>was interviewed? Oh wait...this was another one of your vending machine
>lies. Wasn't it?
>
>

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, which unlike the people you named
actually had expertise in forensic pathology.

Are you saying Blakey disagreed with the FPP?

Are you aware that Wecht admitted to the Rockefeller Commission there
is no evidence for a shot from the front?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wecht.htm

Do you actually consider Groden an expert?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

Based on the contradictory notions he frequently puts forth, "Boris" needs
to have a chat with himself and get a few things settled with himself.

> You've had several years at the Nuthouse to marshal all of your thoughts,
> all of your reasoning abilities, etc.

Allowing him anything past 30 minutes is much too long. All the years
have simply been wasted.

and put together a compelling case.
> You've flamed out in a spectacular way, and you're irked that you're being
> called upon to state a case and not just have someone else track down
> answers to your endless begged questions, all of which have been answered
> in the past five decades or so, but alas, never to your satisfaction.
>

How can they? He hasn't settled most of them in his own mind.

> 1.) You will fail to acknowledge that that the burden falls upon you to
> put forward a better explanation.
>

At this point I'd settle for anything that even vaguely resembled a
*coherent* explanation. That "better" stuff is clearly a non starter.

> 2.) You will insist you don't have to address in detail all of the issues
> that point to Oswald as a murderer, or explain your comment that
> Oswald was "complicit" in JFK's death.
>

I rest my case on his internal confusion on this matter.

> 2b.) You will invent some flimsy reason why you don't need to.
>

When it's all ya' got....

> 2c.) This translates in your mind as: "these aren't really issues at all."
>

Don't assume stubbornness or malice to these deficits when clueless
reasoning will do.


> 3.) Deflect.
>

He's learned from his master Holmes.

> 4.) Change the subject with another verbose filibuster.
>

See 2b,).

> 5.) Wipe your brow.
>

Well for some the mental exertion is exhausting.

> 6.) Pretend this post never happened.
>

...Because make-believe is so much fun!

> 7.) Reiterate your displeasure at being nailed on the definition of
> Dunning-Kruger fitting you to a "T".
>

Ya' gotta be good at something!

> Time is up on the buff movement. Until Team Oswald can put up a compelling
> case that better explains JFK's death in detail in a better way than the
> historically accepted narrative--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help--no
> additional energy or resources need to be devoted towards playing Fetch
> the Stick with rebutting the inferences buffs make off of their begged
> questions. That's the PROPER way to handle the constant demands. You think
> a shot was fired through the limo windshield and hit JFK? Show the
> research. Show the tests. You think Oswald was somehow complicit that day?
> Great. Baby steps. Tell us HOW he was complicit. State your case. You
> think the Zapruder film was altered? Show how it was done. Run the tests,
> explain what was edited out, explain why the timeline for the provenance
> of the film is wrong, explain why Zavada was wrong, and on and on. Don't
> ask me to disprove your suspicions.
>
> You want to be considered a talented, insightful researcher, but you don't
> want to do the work, or at least point to the work of others that jibes
> with your still unstated theory.
>
> I recognize your demands to be nothing more than the same old, same old
> that these boards have endured from your kind for decades. If you don't
> have a case, if you don't know what happened, or if you think you know but
> don't want to come forward with it due to embarrassment or whatever,
> simply state so, and we can move on.
>
> Now feel free to snip this and tell me I'm filibustering.

I predict silence, or a filibuster all his own.

[Anthony Marsh]

As usual you got things backward. We won, you lost.
You are just a whining sore loser.

> case that better explains JFK's death in detail in a better way than the
> historically accepted narrative--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help--no

That is not a fact. There is no historicaly acccepted narrative.
Just your whinning.

> additional energy or resources need to be devoted towards playing Fetch
> the Stick with rebutting the inferences buffs make off of their begged
> questions. That's the PROPER way to handle the constant demands. You think
> a shot was fired through the limo windshield and hit JFK? Show the

Straw man argument. Only one kook thought that and we shot him down.

> research. Show the tests. You think Oswald was somehow complicit that day?
> Great. Baby steps. Tell us HOW he was complicit. State your case. You
> think the Zapruder film was altered? Show how it was done. Run the tests,
> explain what was edited out, explain why the timeline for the provenance

You seem to forget that *I* was the person who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic, not one of you cover-up artists.

> of the film is wrong, explain why Zavada was wrong, and on and on. Don't
> ask me to disprove your suspicions.
>

You get away with never proving anything.

> You want to be considered a talented, insightful researcher, but you don't
> want to do the work, or at least point to the work of others that jibes
> with your still unstated theory.
>

Who? You just hurl out insults at everyone who believes in conspiracy.
You wouldn't be brave enough to do that to Trump.

> I recognize your demands to be nothing more than the same old, same old

You have never met any demands. You refuse to answer easy questions.
All you have is bluff and bluster.

> that these boards have endured from your kind for decades. If you don't
> have a case, if you don't know what happened, or if you think you know but
> don't want to come forward with it due to embarrassment or whatever,
> simply state so, and we can move on.
>

We proved our case in 1978. Were you in a coma?

> Now feel free to snip this and tell me I'm filibustering.
>

SNip? Only McAdams snips.
I don't care if you are filibustering. Keep babbling away.
You do more harm to your own side than we can do.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> >
> >And being a big mouth on the subject, surely then you know that a CIA
> >employee named Regis Blahut was arrested for breaking into the HSCA safe
> >and tampering with the autopsy photographs.
> >
>
> Tampering with?
>
> What is your evidence on that?
>
> Did he have a handy dandy photo lab in his briefcase? One capable of
> handling color processing?

Oh, didn't he have hands and fingers? You know, ones capable of picking
something up and removing something?

Like all LN apologists, never pausing for a second to ask WTF a CIA
operative was doing breaking into a safe containing evidence. Just beeline
straight for the ridicule. It's a sure sign you lost, and never had won to
begin with.

>
> Did you even know that *after* Blahut looked at the photos they showed
> the same thing they showed when, long before the HSCA, the Ramsey
> Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission looked at them?

Oh, so you mean they were the same images that Humes and 26 separate
witnesses to the BOH wound all denounced unanimously? Excellent. Go take a
nap, you'll need your rest for Stuart Lyster's attorney.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> >>
> >> And why did the HSCA team reach the same conclusion?
> >
> >Who? Robert Tanenbaum? Cyril Wecht? Blakey? Groden? Literally anyone who
> >was interviewed? Oh wait...this was another one of your vending machine
> >lies. Wasn't it?

I'll answer my own question, since everyone else is too much of a coward
to do it.

The answer is, yes.

You're welcome, dot-John.

> >
> >
>
> The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, which unlike the people you named
> actually had expertise in forensic pathology.

Johnny doesn't like the names I just mentioned. But that's okay. You're
unfamiliar with the context. Currently you have a yappy LN chihuahua
infesting your forum keening something about "Dunning-Kruger", and how
CTers pretend to know more than the HSCA. Catch up on the soap opera
before chiming in. You LNers hate the HSCA more than anyone. But you pick
a lovely basket of cherries.

>
> Are you saying Blakey disagreed with the FPP?

Are you saying Blakey is an ally to your Lone Nut religion and fellow
believer? If every qualified medical witness to the BOH wound is in
unanimous disagreement with the photos and X-rays, it's circular logic to
say the FPP agreed with the photos and X-rays.

>
> Are you aware that Wecht admitted to the Rockefeller Commission there
> is no evidence for a shot from the front?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wecht.htm

What are you going to do now, tell me you agree with Cyril Wecht all of a
sudden? Please do let me know, as I'd hate to let his panel report to the
HSCA go to waste. Maybe you can take me out for drinks, coo sweet nothing
in my ear, and together we can quote some favored passages from Wecht's
panel report, since you're obviously tits-deep in lying by omission.

>
> Do you actually consider Groden an expert?

It's not who I consider an expert, it's who the HSCA deemed competent
enough to serve as a consultant. Why, are you disagreeing with the HSCA on
something again? You ought to be careful. If there was no plague of
hypocrisy in this dumpy forum, Chuck might accuse you of "Dunning-Kruger".

Why don't you enlighten us on how someone becomes an "expert" at
something? What is the process that is taken?


Or is it just whichever witness massages Allen Dulles's bloated corpse of
an ego?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 7:45:05 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Now feel free to snip this and tell me I'm filibustering.
>
> You're filibustering. And you addressed nothing.

You were addressed, and you immediately spool up to reset the argument
from the fringe by saying you weren't addressed. I said your inferences
are based off of begged questions. That's my answer. Now tell me you
weren't answered. Again.

The entirety of your post
> was TOTAL avoidance. And on the issue of Dunning-Kruger, you've failed in
> every endeavor. Every one.

Pointing out that you're begging the question isn't avoiding the issue.
It's the correct way to handle buffs. Answer the questions that flummox
you about Regis Blahut and Dorothy Kilgallen and the mystery shooters on
the South Knoll firing a bullet through the windshield. The questions
literally never end, but you know what we never get? Your version of the
event. You can start by telling us how Oswald was complicit, as you
admitted he was to Hank. Get busy. Next month marks 56 plus years. Stop
playing Fetch the Stick. Provide your own answers.

>
> I've now demonstrated how you disagree with several pieces of the autopsy
> report.

You haven't demonstrated this. It's a straw man argument. It's a fallacy
of composition.

>I've shown how and why the conclusions are compromised separate
> from the medical expertise, by the admission of Burkley himself.

So you're smarter than the experts.

I've
> shown that you disagree with Humes, Finck AND Boswell (all three of them),
> and every single witness involved. You believe you know more than ALL of
> them.
>
> You believe you know more than 26 medical experts, 40 BOH witnesses, three
> postmortem experts, a forensic pathology panel, and the HSCA. I've
> demonstrated all of this, in two posts.

Then please explain why the WC and HSCA did indeed both agree that JFK was
only hit by two shots, fired from above and behind.

>
> You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where on
> the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.

The film you say was altered? Perhaps your CIA film alteration team at
Hawkeye Works matted it out. Ask David Healy about the Zapruder film
alteration. He's the expert. You want a discussion about the Harper
fragment on film when you think the Zapruder film was altered?
Interesting. Doesn't that seem unfair? It's like arguing with 9/11
Truthers (of which you are one) about nano-thermite bringing down the
towers and then finding out they don't even believe airliners struck the
buildings. It's like arguing with RFK Truthers (of which you are one) that
Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal bullet and then finding out they
believe he was hypnotized via an MK Ultra plot, and that the "hit" was
masterminded by LBJ.

>
> You believe you know more than Humes and Boswell about the photos and the
> X-rays. You believe you know more than the **photographers** of those
> photos. You believe the photos and X-rays verify something they don't, AND
> you believe they corroborate each other when in fact they're at total
> odds.
>
> You disagree with the findings of the HSCA. You think you know more than
> the HSCA Deputy Chief Counsel.
>
> You think you know more about weaponry than the police.
>
> You think you know more about artillery than General Walker.
>
> And let's face it, you just learned about the Regis Blahut arrest
> yesterday. When I mentioned it.

You'd definitely clean up if we played JFK Trivia Pursuit.

>
> ....and that's just what I've managed to demonstrate of you in TWO POSTS.
>
> Two.
>
> You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect, which Wikipedia defines as a
> cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability
> as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory
> superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack
> of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot
> objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.

Tu quoque fallacy. You don't like it pointed out that D-K effect fits you
more snugly than the bloody glove on OJ's hand. So be it.

>
> You failed miserably. Utterly miserably. And that's why nobody is coming
> to help you.

Perhaps it's because your stale arguments based on begged questions are
hardly worth shooting down. I know you think you're a clever
Investigoogler, but you're just Tom Rossley with a better vocabulary.
There's nothing new about your arguments, including your lack of an
argument for your still unstated case.

Flush.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2019 8:45 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Now feel free to snip this and tell me I'm filibustering.
>
> You're filibustering. And you addressed nothing. The entirety of your post
> was TOTAL avoidance. And on the issue of Dunning-Kruger, you've failed in
> every endeavor. Every one.
>
> I've now demonstrated how you disagree with several pieces of the autopsy
> report. I've shown how and why the conclusions are compromised separate
> from the medical expertise, by the admission of Burkley himself. I've
> shown that you disagree with Humes, Finck AND Boswell (all three of them),
> and every single witness involved. You believe you know more than ALL of
> them.
>
> You believe you know more than 26 medical experts, 40 BOH witnesses, three
> postmortem experts, a forensic pathology panel, and the HSCA. I've
> demonstrated all of this, in two posts.
>
> You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where on
> the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.
>
> You believe you know more than Humes and Boswell about the photos and the
> X-rays. You believe you know more than the **photographers** of those
> photos. You believe the photos and X-rays verify something they don't, AND
> you believe they corroborate each other when in fact they're at total
> odds.
>

How do you think they are at odds?
Do you understand that they represent different times?
The head fell apart when they unwrapped it.
They had to hold up the rear of te head by the scalp because the
underlying bone fell apart into pieces.

> You disagree with the findings of the HSCA. You think you know more than
> the HSCA Deputy Chief Counsel.
>

Such as?

> You think you know more about weaponry than the police.
>

That's not hard.

> You think you know more about artillery than General Walker.
>
> And let's face it, you just learned about the Regis Blahut arrest
> yesterday. When I mentioned it.
>
> ....and that's just what I've managed to demonstrate of you in TWO POSTS.
>
> Two.
>
> You are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger effect, which Wikipedia defines as a
> cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability
> as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory
> superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack
> of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot
> objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.
>
>
> You failed miserably. Utterly miserably. And that's why nobody is coming
> to help you.
>

YOU can't even figure out how to post correctly in a newsgroup so that
people can figure out what you are babbling about.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2019 8:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2019 08:41:06 -0400, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> And being a big mouth on the subject, surely then you know that a CIA
>> employee named Regis Blahut was arrested for breaking into the HSCA safe
>> and tampering with the autopsy photographs.
>>
>
> Tampering with?
>

We don't know if or what he did anything to alter the photos. But it could
have substituted fakes. He was not authorized to handle them at all.

> What is your evidence on that?
>
> Did he have a handy dandy photo lab in his briefcase? One capable of
> handling color processing?
>

Now, wait a second. Can you prove that he had a briefcase? Did it have a
hidden compartment? Did you see it? Did you examine it? Why are you
allowed to make wild charges like this?

> Did you even know that *after* Blahut looked at the photos they showed
> the same thing they showed when, long before the HSCA, the Ramsey
> Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission looked at them?
>

Prove it. Have you seen ALL the autopsy photos? NO, you are just guessing.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's a game.

The null hypothesis is that Oswald shot JFK and Tippit, no known help.
History records Oswald as his killer.

>
> > case that better explains JFK's death in detail in a better way than the
> > historically accepted narrative--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help--no
>
> That is not a fact. There is no historicaly acccepted narrative.
> Just your whinning.

I'd bet every single American textbook on 20th Century US history has
Oswald as JFK's killer. This is the narrative, and it's settled until Team
Oswald comes up with a better solution. It's not looking promising for the
buffs.

>
> > additional energy or resources need to be devoted towards playing Fetch
> > the Stick with rebutting the inferences buffs make off of their begged
> > questions. That's the PROPER way to handle the constant demands. You think
> > a shot was fired through the limo windshield and hit JFK? Show the
>
> Straw man argument. Only one kook thought that and we shot him down.

Boris thinks a shot was fired through the windshield.

>
> > research. Show the tests. You think Oswald was somehow complicit that day?
> > Great. Baby steps. Tell us HOW he was complicit. State your case. You
> > think the Zapruder film was altered? Show how it was done. Run the tests,
> > explain what was edited out, explain why the timeline for the provenance
>
> You seem to forget that *I* was the person who proved that the Zapruder
> film is authentic, not one of you cover-up artists.

Boris thinks the Zapruder film was altered.

>
> > of the film is wrong, explain why Zavada was wrong, and on and on. Don't
> > ask me to disprove your suspicions.
> >
>
> You get away with never proving anything.

I have no obligation to reprove an established case. You're challenging,
not me. The burden falls upon you.

>
> > You want to be considered a talented, insightful researcher, but you don't
> > want to do the work, or at least point to the work of others that jibes
> > with your still unstated theory.
> >
>
> Who? You just hurl out insults at everyone who believes in conspiracy.

I pretty much limit any insults to Boris, and I try and keep the insults
at the Nuthouse. He flusters easily and has been creeping on what I write
over here, so that's the backstory. (Gratuitous Trump reference coming
from Marsh in 3...2...1...)

> You wouldn't be brave enough to do that to Trump.

Attaboy.

>
> > I recognize your demands to be nothing more than the same old, same old
>
> You have never met any demands. You refuse to answer easy questions.

All of your questions have been answered, but this has become a five
decade ritualistic dance, and you can't let it go. You derive comfort in
the belief that thousands killed Camelot; it reinforces your worldview of
America as a lousy country built on the backs of slaves and genocidal wars
against its natives. You'll never believe that a fellow traveler or yours
politically could've given your hero the ultimate bad hair day.

> All you have is bluff and bluster.

And the truth.

>
> > that these boards have endured from your kind for decades. If you don't
> > have a case, if you don't know what happened, or if you think you know but
> > don't want to come forward with it due to embarrassment or whatever,
> > simply state so, and we can move on.
> >
>
> We proved our case in 1978. Were you in a coma?

Great. So your case was that Oswald killed JFK, the autopsy was legit, the
photos are real, the Z film wasn't altered, and oh...some unknown guy
smoking heaters a few feet from Z missed everything with a point blank
shot and vanished into the sunny Dallas afternoon. Hurry and go find that
guy, and we can all pack our bags and go home.

[Mark]

Damn. That's some telling stuff there.

BTW, Boris, the only reason I haven't added to what Chuck has said to you
is that he has done a fine job answering your ad hoc assumptions by
himself. Mark

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Your ally was addressing me, Marsh. Pay attention. Boris is on your team.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:04:44 PM UTC-5, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

Silly. He wasn't smoking heaters. He was just using a Blunderbuss. Hence
the inaccuracy and chimney-like smoke. (...And they said Oz was using an
antiquated and inaccurate weapon!)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2019 8:45 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>> Now feel free to snip this and tell me I'm filibustering.
>
> You're filibustering. And you addressed nothing. The entirety of your post
> was TOTAL avoidance. And on the issue of Dunning-Kruger, you've failed in
> every endeavor. Every one.
>
> I've now demonstrated how you disagree with several pieces of the autopsy
> report. I've shown how and why the conclusions are compromised separate
> from the medical expertise, by the admission of Burkley himself. I've
> shown that you disagree with Humes, Finck AND Boswell (all three of them),
> and every single witness involved. You believe you know more than ALL of
> them.
>
> You believe you know more than 26 medical experts, 40 BOH witnesses, three
> postmortem experts, a forensic pathology panel, and the HSCA. I've
> demonstrated all of this, in two posts.
>
> You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where on
> the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.
>

We can see it streaking out of his head in frame 313 which was exposed
just millisedons after the bullet hit.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_i000049.jpg

Frame 313 is not extremely clear. There is a lot of fast moving debris and
the panning of the camera creates a little blur. But, when seen in motion,
there are two streaks of ejected debris. Not one. When you watch the
negative enhancement, it becomes clearer. It is a very fast streak that is
only seen in frame 313 because it either rapidly dissipates by 314 or is
out of frame. Watch the negative enhancement here. You need to watch
closely.

It is seen seeeral feet highwer in frame 314 which is about 1/18th of a
second later.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why was this poster allowed to say that another poster lied?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where on
> > the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.
> >
>
> We can see it streaking out of his head in frame 313 which was exposed
> just millisedons after the bullet hit.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_i000049.jpg

Holy crap, I've never seen that frame of film before. You've blown my
mind, because you're such a great researcher.

Harper's fragment was a piece of occipital bone. The back of his head is
completely intact in the Z-film, and don't bother saying otherwise,
because then you begin to conflict with the BOH photo and X-rays. So tell
us how a piece of occipital bone broke away from the back of his head and
"streaked" out the front while keeping the back of the skull neatly intact
on film? And then, of course, flew backwards after being thrust forwards.
Another denial of physics, I guess.

Here's a more plausible explanation: Harper's fragment is located in
EXACTLY the spot where over 40 witnesses attested to the large, fist-sized
BOH wound.

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

You either see that wound in the Z-film, or you don't. The photos don't
see it. The X-rays don't see it. Only the medical witnesses and autopsy
report see it. Your answer will tell us what everyone already knows about
you.

Drain the Marsh.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then tell us why you lie when you claim it's CTers who believe the
> >>>>>> forensic experts who examined the autopsy results were incompetent or
> >>>>>> lying, when it's clearly LNers who believe this.
> >>>>>>
>
> Why was this poster allowed to say that another poster lied?

Because I proved it factual.

Drain the Marsh.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 3:36:06 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >And being a big mouth on the subject, surely then you know that a CIA
> > >employee named Regis Blahut was arrested for breaking into the HSCA safe
> > >and tampering with the autopsy photographs.
> > >
> >
> > Tampering with?
> >
> > What is your evidence on that?
> >
> > Did he have a handy dandy photo lab in his briefcase? One capable of
> > handling color processing?
>
> Oh, didn't he have hands and fingers? You know, ones capable of picking
> something up and removing something?
>
> Like all LN apologists, never pausing for a second to ask WTF a CIA
> operative was doing breaking into a safe containing evidence. Just beeline
> straight for the ridicule. It's a sure sign you lost, and never had won to
> begin with.
>

And like all CT apologists "Boris" answers a question he likes while
ignoring one he doesn't. Once more "Boris":

"What is your evidence on that?"

This time try to answer it.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 3:38:01 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> And why did the HSCA team reach the same conclusion?
> > >
> > >Who? Robert Tanenbaum? Cyril Wecht? Blakey? Groden? Literally anyone who
> > >was interviewed? Oh wait...this was another one of your vending machine
> > >lies. Wasn't it?
>
> I'll answer my own question, since everyone else is too much of a coward
> to do it.
>
> The answer is, yes.
>
> You're welcome, dot-John.
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, which unlike the people you named
> > actually had expertise in forensic pathology.
>
> Johnny doesn't like the names I just mentioned. But that's okay. You're
> unfamiliar with the context. Currently you have a yappy LN chihuahua
> infesting your forum keening something about "Dunning-Kruger", and how
> CTers pretend to know more than the HSCA. Catch up on the soap opera
> before chiming in. You LNers hate the HSCA more than anyone. But you pick
> a lovely basket of cherries.
>
> >
> > Are you saying Blakey disagreed with the FPP?
>
> Are you saying Blakey is an ally to your Lone Nut religion and fellow
> believer? If every qualified medical witness to the BOH wound is in
> unanimous disagreement with the photos and X-rays, it's circular logic to
> say the FPP agreed with the photos and X-rays.
>

Oh brother.

1) Blakey doesn't agree with you either and you *know* it.

2) If the HSCA FPP (except Wecht at times, and at places) and every other
pathologist/forensic pathologist who has reviewed the evidence agrees
with the photos and X-rays then every *qualified* medical witness does
*not* disagree with the photos and X-rays. And remember HFB weren't
just looking at photos and their findings don't support your nonsense
either, although you and Holmes try desperately to make their words
supportive.

3) Furthermore, the doctors who viewed these things in the NA came away
saying the photos *were* as they remember the wounds. (Though they
often had to use some strange logic to reconcile their memories with
evidence of its faultiness staring them in the face.) So even they
didn't disagree with them when confronted with the evidence.

4) There's a begged question here, even if not a full on circular
argument. You begin with the premise that the photos and X-rays have
been altered, therefore the medical doctor memories were right, and the
Pathologists were wrong because they were looking at doctored evidence.
Yet you ignore the testimony of other *qualified* experts that the
photos and X-rays are legitimate and unaltered. Until you can take that
reality on and (credibly) take it down, you're just asking us to grant
you a fact never proven to be legitimate.

[BT George]

In looking at the thread "Boris" seems to have gotten away with quite a
bit. I suspect it's because .John scarcely noticed. He's probably
followed some of our exchanges with him over in the Nuthouse and he's so
used to seeing "Boris" and his pals talk that way that his words here
seemed subdued by comparison.

[bigdog]

The thread had already drifted.

> So let me try to drift it back to JFK. You point out the
> importance having fighter cover for the bombers. Well, it turns out that
> this was one of the reasons for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Thank you for telling us something that is common knowledge.

> The Marine Colonel in charge of the invasion at the CIA screwed up.
> Fighters from the USS Essex were supposed to fly air cover for the Cuban
> Exile bombers. But Ned forgot about the difference in time zones and the
> jets from the Essex arrived at the wrong time to provide cover for the
> B-26 bombers from Castro's planes which the CIA did not know about which
> easily shot down the B-26 bombers and gave Castro the upper hand so that
> he defeated the exiles. Ned later joined the CIA and was one of the
> propaganda assets arguing that there was no conspiracy in the JFK
> assassination, while several CIA officers and Cuban Exiles were so angry
> about JFK not providing the jet cover that they vowed to assassinate him.

Oh, they vowed to assassinate him. How do you know about this vow?

[Anthony Marsh]

Not if he is an alterationist.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/3/2019 12:58 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where on
>>> the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.
>>>
>>
>> We can see it streaking out of his head in frame 313 which was exposed
>> just millisedons after the bullet hit.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_i000049.jpg
>
> Holy crap, I've never seen that frame of film before. You've blown my
> mind, because you're such a great researcher.
>
> Harper's fragment was a piece of occipital bone. The back of his head is
> completely intact in the Z-film, and don't bother saying otherwise,
> because then you begin to conflict with the BOH photo and X-rays. So tell

The X-rays show the back of the head fractured and the only way the head
looks intact on the sutopsy photos is because thy are holding up the
scalp eith their hands. The underlying bone is gone.

> us how a piece of occipital bone broke away from the back of his head and
> "streaked" out the front while keeping the back of the skull neatly intact

Who said front? Left side.
Did you look at the HSCA drawing? Do you agree with it?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Photo_hsca_ex_66.jpg

> on film? And then, of course, flew backwards after being thrust forwards.
> Another denial of physics, I guess.
>

No. Caught by the 25 MPH wind.

[John McAdams]

On 3 Oct 2019 12:58:59 -0400, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >=20
>> > You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where o=

>n
>> > the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.

>> >=20
>>=20
>> We can see it streaking out of his head in frame 313 which was exposed=20

>> just millisedons after the bullet hit.

>>=20

>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_i000049.jpg
>
>Holy crap, I've never seen that frame of film before. You've blown my
>mind, because you're such a great researcher.
>
>Harper's fragment was a piece of occipital bone.

No, it wasn't. The HSCA FPP said it was parietal bone.

>The back of his head is
>completely intact in the Z-film, and don't bother saying otherwise,

Of course it's intact.

>because then you begin to conflict with the BOH photo and X-rays.

There isn't any such conflict. The x-rays show occipital bone in
place, although riven by nasty fractures.

>So tell
>us how a piece of occipital bone broke away from the back of his head and
>"streaked" out the front while keeping the back of the skull neatly intact
>on film? And then, of course, flew backwards after being thrust forwards.
>Another denial of physics, I guess.
>

It didn't fly backwards. Harper said he found it ahead of where the
limo was at the time of the head shot.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

>Here's a more plausible explanation: Harper's fragment is located in
>EXACTLY the spot where over 40 witnesses attested to the large, fist-sized
>BOH wound.
>

Aguilar is all wet, misrepresenting the witness testimony.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

>https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5Investigat=

>ionsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1
>
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
>You either see that wound in the Z-film, or you don't. The photos don't
>see it. The X-rays don't see it. Only the medical witnesses and autopsy
>report see it. Your answer will tell us what everyone already knows about
>you.
>

You can see plenty of "conflicts" when you buy conspiracy book
factoids.


--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean the autopsy photos that confused Humes?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

But YOU are allowed to drift threads. I am not.

>> So let me try to drift it back to JFK. You point out the
>> importance having fighter cover for the bombers. Well, it turns out that
>> this was one of the reasons for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
>
> Thank you for telling us something that is common knowledge.
>
>> The Marine Colonel in charge of the invasion at the CIA screwed up.
>> Fighters from the USS Essex were supposed to fly air cover for the Cuban
>> Exile bombers. But Ned forgot about the difference in time zones and the
>> jets from the Essex arrived at the wrong time to provide cover for the
>> B-26 bombers from Castro's planes which the CIA did not know about which
>> easily shot down the B-26 bombers and gave Castro the upper hand so that
>> he defeated the exiles. Ned later joined the CIA and was one of the
>> propaganda assets arguing that there was no conspiracy in the JFK
>> assassination, while several CIA officers and Cuban Exiles were so angry
>> about JFK not providing the jet cover that they vowed to assassinate him.
>
> Oh, they vowed to assassinate him. How do you know about this vow?

History books, documents, research.

>
>

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The X-rays show the back of the head fractured and the only way the head
> looks intact on the sutopsy photos is because thy are holding up the
> scalp eith their hands. The underlying bone is gone.

The X-rays show all white towards the back of the head, which indicate the
highest bone density. And I'm always amused by this Lone Nut rhetoric that
the BOH looked intact because "they were holding up his scalp" in the
photo, as if there was someone holding up his scalp in the Z-film when the
back of his head continued to maintain an intact and dark-blurred
appearance consistent with your beloved BS photo.

>
> > us how a piece of occipital bone broke away from the back of his head and
> > "streaked" out the front while keeping the back of the skull neatly intact
>
> Who said front? Left side.
> Did you look at the HSCA drawing? Do you agree with it?
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Photo_hsca_ex_66.jpg

Typical of all LNers, Marsh tries to make the drawing about ME and whether
or not *I* agree with it. It's not about me, it's about the witnesses, as
well as the AR. It's about the position of his head, and about where Humes
indicated the entrance wound was.

>
>
> > on film? And then, of course, flew backwards after being thrust forwards.
> > Another denial of physics, I guess.
> >
>
> No. Caught by the 25 MPH wind.

Let's just assume that a 25 MPH breeze can counter the force of a
high-velocity thrust enough to wholly reverse its momentum, because we all
know LNers like yourself list "defying science" as one of their favorite
hobbies...where the hell did you get 25 MPH from, Marsh, when all the
witnesses stated the limo was either stopped or very nearly close to a
stop? And are you saying Clint Hill caught up to a vehicle traveling at 25
MPH on foot? Tell us more, LONE NUTTER.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:21:51 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2019 12:58:59 -0400, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >=20
> >> > You believe film constitutes "hard evidence", but cannot locate where o=
> >n
> >> > the Z-film the Harper fragment dislodges from Kennedy's skull.
> >> >=20
> >>=20
> >> We can see it streaking out of his head in frame 313 which was exposed=20
> >> just millisedons after the bullet hit.
> >>=20
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_i000049.jpg
> >
> >Holy crap, I've never seen that frame of film before. You've blown my
> >mind, because you're such a great researcher.
> >
> >Harper's fragment was a piece of occipital bone.
>
> No, it wasn't. The HSCA FPP said it was parietal bone.

Much as I appreciate links to *your own website* in support of *your*
argument, I prefer articles with links to actual citations, from the HSCA
as well as medical experts, especially in regards to FPP.

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

[Mitch Todd]

On 10/1/2019 3:38 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Do you actually consider Groden an expert?
>
> It's not who I consider an expert, it's who the HSCA deemed competent
> enough to serve as a consultant. Why, are you disagreeing with the HSCA on
> something again? You ought to be careful. If there was no plague of
> hypocrisy in this dumpy forum, Chuck might accuse you of "Dunning-Kruger".

The HSCA *didn't* consider him to be an expert. He wasn't
actually on the Photographic Panel. The experts recognized
by the HSCA as such are named at the beginning of HSCA vol.
6. You'll notice that Groden's name ain't among them.
The HSCA listed Groden as a "consultant," brought in because
he was well versed in CT arguments regarding the films and
photos.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

That's quite **literally** what I said. I even used the qualifier
"consultant". Do LNers just like to hear themselves talk or what?

Since dot-john didn't answer this question, why don't you enlighten us on