Jump to content
The Education Forum

A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have figured out the respective roles of contributors such as DVP and myself.  Those such as DVP are Professors of Evidence, who confront conspiracy theorists with the errors and gaps in their conspiracy scenarios.  This is invaluable, but I would not have the patience or depth of knowledge to do it.  Those such as myself are Professors of Logic, who examine conspiracy scenarios and theories and ask things like "Does that make any sense?  How would that work in the real world?  Why would the planners of a Presidential assassination have done that or taken all those unnecessary risks?"  The roles overlap to some extent, of course.

The problem I had with JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy is that it seemed to me that McAdams was too willing to dive directly into the nuts and bolts of conspiracy theories, to confront the "evidence" directly.  This is playing the game on the conspiracy theorists' turf, and a good conspiracy theorist will just keep moving the goal posts as we see on almost every thread here.  Even if I had DVP's depth of knowledge, I wouldn't have the patience to do what he does.  I believe the way to begin is always to ask "Even if what you suggest were true, would it make any sense at all?"  

Here, Cliff's Irrefutable Solution presents a true evidentiary conundrum, a perfectly legitimate issue.  The bullet hole evidence could indeed point to a conspiracy.  If there was no conspiracy, a Lone Nutter must explain this evidence - simple as that.  Cliff's mistake, which is why he appears to be a one-dimensional crank and is his own worst enemy, is in insisting that any explanation other than his is impossible, you must deal with the bullet hole evidence in a vacuum and are not allowed to consider it in the context of all the events in Dealey Plaza,  and you are a fool if you are not willing to immediately throw in the towel and concede a massive conspiracy with gunmen at the front and rear with dissolving bullets and a complete absence of exit wounds..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

 and you are a fool if you are not willing to immediately throw in the towel and concede a massive conspiracy with gunmen at the front and rear with dissolving bullets and a complete absence of exit wounds..

In your case "bloviating mediocrity" is the most apt term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is silly.

Do you know how many witnesses say the front neck wound was an entrance?  About 12.

I mean we now know that when Perry said that at the press conference, he was told by the FBI or . Secret Service to STFU about it.  Which means that within 90 minutes of Kennedy's death the fix was in.

That testimony about the anterior neck wound was so damaging that the Secret Service assigned Elmer Moore to change it. This is all now in black and white and people like Gary Aguilar and Pat Speer have written about it at length.  The ARRB did a nice job on the issue.  But guess what? Bugliosi did not.  Vince, the cover up artist, could not find space for Moore's name in all 1500 pages of text for RH.  Hmm.  Wonder why.  Maybe because what Moore did reveals what Vince calls "consciousness of guilt"?  I mean as Allard Lowenstein wrote, "In my experience as a lawyer,  people who have nothing to hide don't hide things."  

 

Does this mean that the neck wound was a bullet wound of entrance for sure? Not necessarily. But to say that it was an exist is preposterous.

Just note the measurements between the back wound and Perry's mental note of the neck wound.    Its ridiculous.  As Sibert said, when you do an autopsy without the body that is not medicine its magic. 

 

The single bullet concept was always a fantasy.  It was a political solution to a medico-legal problem.  

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The single bullet concept was always a fantasy.  It was a political solution to a medico-legal problem.  

And just because it's the only solution that makes a lick of sense...well...let's just ignore that reality....right, Jim?

XX.+Single-Bullet+Theory+Blog+Logo.png

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Burden of proof is on you.

Demonstrate this or do the world a favor and STFU.

Spoken as if it is me who is constantly bringing up the topic of the clothing 24/7/365.

The irony is thick in here.

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

 

ROTF,  makes sense?🤧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

ROTF,  makes sense?🤧

You bet it does.

You actually think YOUR "Two Bullets Entered From Opposite Directions But Neither Bullet Exited And Then Both Bullets Disappeared" theory makes MORE sense than the SBT?

You can't be serious (but, incredibly, I know you are).

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You bet it does.

You actually think YOUR "Two Bullets Entered From Opposite Directions But Neither Bullet Exited And Then Both Bullets Disappeared" theory makes MORE sense than the SBT?

You can't be serious (but, incredibly, I know you are).

 

The autopsy pathologists already downplayed their awareness of the throat wound at the time of the autopsy. Humes' phone call to Dr. Perry probably even happened that night, not the day after as we have been told. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying the back wound photo is fake, but at the time of the autopsy, the pathologists did seem to think the bullet which entered the back should have gone into the pleural cavity, and they seeked permission to examine the chest rather than the neck. That wouldn't make very much sense if the back wound was on the top of the shoulder. 

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 Does this mean that the neck wound was a bullet wound of entrance for sure? Not necessarily. But to say that it was an exist is preposterous.

Not necessarily?

We can rule out the throat wound as an exit but that doesn't necessarily make it an entrance?

WTF?  It kills the JFK Critical Master Class of Big Name Researchers to acknowledge the T3 back wound/throat entrance wound -- they're worse than the Nutters, I swear.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Spoken as if it is me who is constantly bringing up the topic of the clothing 24/7/365.

The irony is thick in here.

 

The intellectual dishonesty is thick in here. 

Von Pein touts the SBT 24/7/365

Demonstrate your claims for the SBT or....wait for it...STFU.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In your case "bloviating mediocrity" is the most apt term.

Let me explain this to you, Cliff:  "Bloviating mediocrity" is not a substantive response.  When the Psychiatrist Truther refers to my "bovine excrement," "gibberish" and whatnot, these are not substantive responses.  These are the non-substantive responses of desperate folks who realize they are being made to look like dopes on a public forum and are unable to respond substantively.  For someone who purports to disdain "fake" debate, you do "real" debate like an ill-prepared high-schooler.  Is this your idea of weaponizing?  Perhaps you have confused "weaponizing" with "shooting yourself in the foot."

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do you know how many witnesses say the front neck wound was an entrance?  About 12.

Let's say 12 witnesses did say this.  Whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound is not determined by popular vote, particularly in the utter chaos that prevailed in the aftermath of the assassination.  As any lawyer knows, by the end of a trial those 12 "eyewitnesses" might well be entitled to virtually no weight, particularly since it was not really the job of any them to make a determination as to the nature of the throat wound (and all them were just a bit distracted by a dying President whose head had essentially exploded).  Had I been there, you probably would have 13 eyewitnesses who said it looked like an entrance wound.  Alas for you, the nature of the throat wound is really determined by careful and qualified medical and forensic analyses.  The throat would evidence is certainly ambiguous, and always will be since it had been obliterated by the time the body left Parkland, but to the best of my knowledge the consensus of such analyses is that the throat wound was an exit wound.  But CTers always prefer the outliers.  If there was one witness who said it looked like an entrance wound, you'd hang your hat on that.  This is why medical "experts" at trial are so maddening - you can always - always, always, always - find an "expert" to say what you want, even if his "expert opinion" is out of synch with 99% of the real experts in his field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...