Happy Atheist Forum

Where are my fellow atheist conspiracy theorists at? There needs to be more atheists speaking out about alien coverups, alien bases on the moon, NWO, 9/11, and reptilians.

Who else here believes in theory that the human race was created in a laboratory by advanced aliens? There needs to be more research done by top scientists to expose the ancient alien truth.

i think   is a conspiracy to flood the internet with awesome.

What do you guys think about the tough evidence that proves we are part of a simulated reality?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/ (http://www.simulation-argument.com/)

THIS IS NOTHING BUT A REAL MATRIX

stop creating new threads

I have a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories: Every conspiracy theory is a conspiracy.

Say that ten times fast.

I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat it until someone believes it.

Isaac Newton was a weird bastard, messing around with all that alchemy stuff.
I think it is suspicious he spent years trying to make gold, then he supposedly gave up, and then;
"As Master of the Mint in 1717 in the "Law of Queen Anne" Newton moved the Pound Sterling de facto from the silver standard to the gold standard"
Obviously he was making gold financing Britain's rise to power, but he couldn't be too obvious about it...

I wonder if I could turn this into an internet scam?
The Nazis stole the Newtonian Codex during WWII, but it was lost on route to Berlin, until now.
Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for you I have insufficient funds to start the transmutation process.
Anyone interested in investing a few thousand dollars for raw materials?  You will reap a million fold return!

Quote from: "ConspiracyTheorist"What do you guys think about the tough evidence that proves we are part of a simulated reality?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/ (http://www.simulation-argument.com/)

THIS IS NOTHING BUT A REAL MATRIX

Hello and welcome to HAF, ConspiracyTheorist.  I looked at the page you linked, and read some of the articles there.  I didn't see any "tough evidence" that we're part of a simulated reality.  Maybe I missed it.  What evidence are you talking about?

Oh sure, people conspire against people, governments against governments, governments against people and corporations against pretty much everyone for different reasons and with different gains in mind.

I don't usually discuss it though because most "mainstream" conspiracy theories are a load of rubbish and because I have little constructive to say on the subject beyond that.

If you talk about this stuff too much  you know THEY will come looking for you, don't you!?  

Quote from: "ConspiracyTheorist"Where are my fellow atheist conspiracy theorists at? There needs to be more atheists speaking out about alien coverups, alien bases on the moon, NWO, 9/11, and reptilians.

Oh....who cares about that stuff??

Everyone knows that "whitney" is a code name for an obscure un-named religious fundamental group who start atheist discussion boards to chart and track Christians that frequent the boards. These fundamental know that atheists are right but wish to gain intel on said Christians to make it easier for them to conquer the West (hint hint)

Using the ISP addresses, those in cahoots with the fundamentals can track down the general whereabouts of these Christians and then send out a big brown truck that looks a lot like a UPS truck. Sensitive equipment in these trucks can find the location of these Christian posters when they're online. An unsubstantiated rumour, but from a very good source has it that disease ridden TV Guide magazines will be sent to the unsuspecting Christians they track down.

Want proof? Wait for the truck.

Oh...and when you come down with some sort of disease like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever...don't say I didn't warn you.

don't be surprised if the OP doesn't return, he was on new post about conspiracy theories number 3 (all merged into here) when I asked that he stopped creating new threads.  The request perplexed him and he wanted to know "why in god's name can't he post more threads" (paraphrased) and I said because being a new member it looks like spam plus since we don't get a lot of conspiracy theorists around here one thread is enough until such a point where enough people take interest to justify starting new threads.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Oh sure, people conspire against people, governments against governments, governments against people and corporations against pretty much everyone for different reasons and with different gains in mind.

I don't usually discuss it though because most "mainstream" conspiracy theories are a load of rubbish and because I have little constructive to say on the subject beyond that.

"Yes" to all of that

The simulation argument:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calamitiesofnature.com%2Farchive%2F391.jpg&hash=297b3e7b715c371fae2816ba514205f5b6cf17ac)

...We don´t know if the technology is even possible, to start with, but what motivation would we possibly have to simulate a world such as this one?... and surely that would require a huge amount of work to pull off?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"The simulation argument:

...We don´t know if the technology is even possible, to start with, but what motivation would we possibly have to simulate a world such as this one?... and surely that would require a huge amount of work to pull off?

Maybe the simulated environment is either harsher than reality, giving players a challenge. Maybe the simulated world is better than reality giving the players an escape from reality... pretty much like the same reasons people play video games nowadays.

The amount of work might all be handled by some programs instead of everything manually done by a person. I'm sure as technology gets more advanced, so too does our ability to offload work onto it.

Ah yes... simulation games.

I recently co-authored a short story about our reality being a simulation game.

However, if this is a simulation game, then where are the players? Are they busy shooting people in one of the ongoing wars, or what?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"The simulation argument:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calamitiesofnature.com%2Farchive%2F391.jpg&hash=297b3e7b715c371fae2816ba514205f5b6cf17ac)

...We don´t know if the technology is even possible, to start with, but what motivation would we possibly have to simulate a world such as this one?... and surely that would require a huge amount of work to pull off?

Eh, I'd say it's 50/50 chance.

QuoteOh sure, people conspire against people, governments against governments, governments against people and corporations against pretty much everyone for different reasons and with different gains in mind.

Exactly. I conspired against some douche tailgating me on the interstate this morning by slowing down and letting him fly by me right in front of a cop. Everyone conspires against someone or something for different reasons...I do it multiple times per day.

Not real sure where I'm going with this.

For a simulated reality, the human race, if it exists outside the simulation, would have had to change significantly enough to pretty much lose curiosity, otherwise our simulation would get all kinds of tourists, I imagine.  If humans lost curiosity, there wouldn't be much point to a simulation game.  To me it seems circular, so I'll wait to ask the aliens about it when they quit screwing around and realize that abducting me will teach them more than abducting farmer Joe and his toothless wife.

The difficulty proving a negative can be aided with mathematics, I think.  For an example, I will use the conspiracy theories surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of JFK.  There has not been any actual evidence of any sort of a conspiracy that hasn't been proven a forgery or fraud.  Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot, but that doesn't prove there wasn't someone else out there who was supposed to shoot.  (my father-in-law presented this one to me).  There is not one shred of actual evidence showing that Oswald was involved with anybody else in planning or carrying out the assassination.  Father-in-law says that doesn't prove there wasn't a cover-up.  I think it does prove there wasn't a cover up or another gunman, as the more real evidence you have, and the less they have, the more chance you are right.  

If the evidence you have is y, and the evidence they have is x, the chance you are right is perhaps y/x.  Of course, for this to work, there has to be a way of assigning value to each piece of evidence, perhaps on a scale of 1 to 100 in importance, and then adding all the numbers up on each side of the evidence to find y and x.

The closer the evidence on each side of the argument is, the closer to 1 the answer becomes.  But what happens when x (evidence in support of a conspiracy of the JFK assassination) is zero?  The function is undefined.  You can't prove it exists or doesn't.  Since y is trying to prove conspiracy didn't happen (proving a negative), there has to be some way to work with this function when it is zero.  Limits were made just for this problem.  As x approaches zero, the function gets larger.  So as x approaches zero, the limit of y/x approaches infinity.  Since y in my case is evidence against a conspiracy and x is evidence for a conspiracy, then the chances of me being right are infinity!  Oswald was a lone gunman without anybody else in on the planning or execution!  I win!

Quote from: "fester30"Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

that's a good one

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Ah yes... simulation games.

I recently co-authored a short story about our reality being a simulation game.

However, if this is a simulation game, then where are the players? Are they busy shooting people in one of the ongoing wars, or what?

So the extinction of dinosaurs could have been caused by data corruption, not caused by an asteroid but by a hard drive crash.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"So the extinction of dinosaurs could have been caused by data corruption, not caused by an asteroid but by a hard drive crash.

So that's the answer!  All this time the theists have believed that god has magic powers and warps the laws of physics.  The reality is god is actually a 16 year old in his parents' basement who can't find a girlfriend, likes practical jokes, and has learned how to program this simulation game!

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "fester30"Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

Heheh, how could it be a derail?  It's not like this thread is all that specific.  When you make a definitive assertion like the above, you should at least provide a source or two.  At a history forum which I belong to, every year (usually by mid-November) we have a nice long thread to re-fry the whole conspiracy/not a conspiracy issue re: the JFK assassination.  Really, I have seen no substantial or reliable evidence that there was a conspiracy.  Rather, the "scientific acoustical evidence" is repeatedly pointed to, and when it's shown that that evidence has been debunked, those who would rather continue to believe in a conspiracy just say (in essence), "Well that debunking is actually further proof of the conspiracy!"

But what the hell; maybe you have something that I haven't seen yet.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "fester30"Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

Heheh, how could it be a derail?  It's not like this thread is all that specific.  When you make a definitive assertion like the above, you should at least provide a source or two.  At a history forum which I belong to, every year (usually by mid-November) we have a nice long thread to re-fry the whole conspiracy/not a conspiracy issue re: the JFK assassination.  Really, I have seen no substantial or reliable evidence that there was a conspiracy.  Rather, the "scientific acoustical evidence" is repeatedly pointed to, and when it's shown that that evidence has been debunked, those who would rather continue to believe in a conspiracy just say (in essence), "Well that debunking is actually further proof of the conspiracy!"

But what the hell; maybe you have something that I haven't seen yet.

I kinda thought Thump was joking.  You know, I write that long, nonsense paragraph because I was loopy tired and bored, and he just says in one brief statement that I'm wrong.  It's funny.  Thing is nothing will ever stop these people.  In any murder where you can prove exactly who committed the crime, you can always speculate someone else told them to do it.  Dahmer, Gacy, Son of Sam, Green River Killer, etc., very well could have had co-conspirators (someone they talked to at the supermarket more than once perhaps?).  I think we should start conspiracy theories about some of them.

:P  

If so, at least I'm the one that fell for it, and not you.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "fester30"Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

Heheh, how could it be a derail?  It's not like this thread is all that specific.  When you make a definitive assertion like the above, you should at least provide a source or two.  At a history forum which I belong to, every year (usually by mid-November) we have a nice long thread to re-fry the whole conspiracy/not a conspiracy issue re: the JFK assassination.  Really, I have seen no substantial or reliable evidence that there was a conspiracy.  Rather, the "scientific acoustical evidence" is repeatedly pointed to, and when it's shown that that evidence has been debunked, those who would rather continue to believe in a conspiracy just say (in essence), "Well that debunking is actually further proof of the conspiracy!"

But what the hell; maybe you have something that I haven't seen yet.

Watch the Zapruder film.  Where does his head go?  Back.  Where do his brains go?  Back.  What does physics says about that?

That is evidence he wasn't shot from behind.  Yes, I'm aware that Posner says that the head-snap is neurophysiological, but that doesn't explain why a piece of occiput was found 20' behind and to the left of the Lincoln.  Nor does it explain his brains on the trunk-lid -- a nerve spasm would not remove brain material from the front seats, nor put it on the trunk.

However, my point is that the post to which I reply states an absolute which is still very debatable.  The fact that the debate would be mighty long is why I included the "derail" disclaimer.  Saying "not one shred" of evidence has been found contrary to his assertion is nonsense.  That was my point.

Also, Fester, what do you mean by the phrase "these people"?  Who are you lumping me in with, and why?

You're right, Thumpalumpacus; we don't need to turn this into a long thread about the assassination.  There are plenty of other places to do that sort of thing. I just wondered what particular evidence you feel there is to back the conspiracy theory.  You've given it-- I'm not going to take it any further than that.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, Fester, what do you mean by the phrase "these people"?  Who are you lumping me in with, and why?

I'm pretty sure fester was lumping you in with people who think JFK's death did not happen according to the official story....due to your comments.  So, I'm not sure what the problem is unless you aren't one of "those people."

Forensic sciences have explained how all of this could happen.  All of the stuff you mentioned has been explained through science.  I won't get into details here, but there are plenty of websites with the information.  This is a great one for skeptics.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).  

To clear up the "these people" comment, I was pertaining to many conspiracy theorists and people who believe in ghosts and extra-terrestrials visiting Earth.  Just like religious people, sometimes you just can't get reason to get through.   Whenever you present what seems to be an air-tight case of reason, the reply is always that the government is covering it up, destroying the smoking gun evidence, god is all-powerful and can fool you, and ghosts are real because I know what I saw, and they live in a realm free of physics.

They could be right.  There could be another realm free of physics, therefore invisible to any possible detection by our current technologies, and outside of any science.  There could be extra-terrestrials living secretly in some mountain somewhere or in a trench in the ocean that we cannot detect that only abduct the dumbest people in America for some reason.  There could be a god who is playing sick games on us.  There could have been others around Oswald, and explosives planted in the twin towers, and terrorists hired by the US to fly planes into buildings.  I can offer reason to show these things are so unlikely that my y/x gives me a very high probability of being right, but I can't prove it.

And by the way, I have no experiments to offer on my hypothesis of the y/x thing.  Therefore there is no scientific basis behind it.  The only reason I've taken this conversation this far is because I'm really bored and this is really fun.

Quote from: "fester30"Forensic sciences have explained how all of this could happen.  All of the stuff you mentioned has been explained through science.  I won't get into details here, but there are plenty of websites with the information.  This is a great one for skeptics.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).  

When one has handled guns, one can see the point of my objections.

QuoteTo clear up the "these people" comment, I was pertaining to many conspiracy theorists and people who believe in ghosts and extra-terrestrials visiting Earth.  Just like religious people, sometimes you just can't get reason to get through.   Whenever you present what seems to be an air-tight case of reason, the reply is always that the government is covering it up, destroying the smoking gun evidence, god is all-powerful and can fool you, and ghosts are real because I know what I saw, and they live in a realm free of physics.

You're welcome to think that about me, but I think it's unfair that you should think that of me on the basis of the post in question.  You're stuffing an awful lot of words in my mouth with this paragraph.  Perhaps you should judge me by my words, rather than your preconceptions.  Just sayin', y'know.

QuoteThey could be right.  There could be another realm free of physics, therefore invisible to any possible detection by our current technologies, and outside of any science.  There could be extra-terrestrials living secretly in some mountain somewhere or in a trench in the ocean that we cannot detect that only abduct the dumbest people in America for some reason.  There could be a god who is playing sick games on us.  There could have been others around Oswald, and explosives planted in the twin towers, and terrorists hired by the US to fly planes into buildings.  I can offer reason to show these things are so unlikely that my y/x gives me a very high probability of being right, but I can't prove it.

Your elaborate straw-man here doesn't daunt me.  If you wish to answer what I posted, kindly stick to what I posted, and shitcan your little blue-sky thought-experiments.  If you have a problem with what I posted, argue what I posted.  Your attempts to paste several different positions on me which I have not advocated is apparent, and bespeaks a lack of focus.

QuoteAnd by the way, I have no experiments to offer on my hypothesis of the y/x thing.  Therefore there is no scientific basis behind it.  The only reason I've taken this conversation this far is because I'm really bored and this is really fun.

This "far"?  Is this what you kids call "far" nowadays?  You've only shot wide of an argument I didn't even mount.

Maybe next time you'll address the point, but if you're satisfied with this effort of yours, who am I to complain?  Go to bed feeling good about this exchange.  Just know that your "rebuttal", such as it is, is swatting at empty air.

I have handled guns.  From my youth into my current military service.  I have handled guns enough to know that a small arms round does not have enough momentum to actually move a human adult away from the shooter.  Any movement is due more to processes in the body such as reflexes, than it is to the bullet's momentum.  Mythbusters did a great demonstration on their show on this point.

 As for your points in the JFK case, any information I could give here is on the website I posted, so that if you care about it that much you can go look instead of me writing books in here.  

When I was discussing "these people," I was not targeting you, specifically.  At the time I mentioned "these people," I was still convinced you were messing with me.  I was referring to the kind of people that don't accept reason, like my father-in-law, and the many people like him I have met in my life.  I made a bad assumption, that people here, being atheists, would certainly have met the same type of people, and would know what I was talking about.  My arguments were constructed poorly, and it's only because I wasn't aware it was a real debate.  Again, I thought you were messing with me.

I don't know you personally, and was not making any assumptions as to what kind of person you are.  Again, I wasn't being serious.  I apologize for any offense I have caused, as that really wasn't my intention.  I have to remember that people cannot read my words and see my body language or facial expressions, or have any other decent way to divine my intent based solely upon what they read here.  I am also new here so it's not likely that anybody has a real decent read on my online personality.  I will try to be clearer in the future when I'm just playing around.

Quote from: "fester30"I have handled guns.  From my youth into my current military service.  I have handled guns enough to know that a small arms round does not have enough momentum to actually move a human adult away from the shooter.

A 6.5mm round lands with about 1150 ft/lbs of force.  You sure you could shake that off?

For perspective, that's about two-and-a-half big diesels worth of energy landing on your head.

 

QuoteAny movement is due more to processes in the body such as reflexes, than it is to the bullet's momentum.  Mythbusters did a great demonstration on their show on this point.

They didn't explain how the bullet's momentum put a piece of JFK's occiput 20 feet behind and to the left of the head-shot.  They didn't explain why the doctors at Parkland, to a man, described an exit wound at the back of the head, when JFK was shot from behind.

 

QuoteAs for your points in the JFK case, any information I could give here is on the website I posted, so that if you care about it that much you can go look instead of me writing books in here.  

Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the issue.

QuoteWhen I was discussing "these people," I was not targeting you, specifically.  At the time I mentioned "these people," I was still convinced you were messing with me.  I was referring to the kind of people that don't accept reason, like my father-in-law, and the many people like him I have met in my life.  I made a bad assumption, that people here, being atheists, would certainly have met the same type of people, and would know what I was talking about.  My arguments were constructed poorly, and it's only because I wasn't aware it was a real debate.  Again, I thought you were messing with me.

"Still"?  I had only made one post when you wrote that.  

QuoteI don't know you personally, and was not making any assumptions as to what kind of person you are.  Again, I wasn't being serious.  I apologize for any offense I have caused, as that really wasn't my intention.  I have to remember that people cannot read my words and see my body language or facial expressions, or have any other decent way to divine my intent based solely upon what they read here.  I am also new here so it's not likely that anybody has a real decent read on my online personality.  I will try to be clearer in the future when I'm just playing around.

To be honest, being compared to hollow-earthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists didn't feel funny.  Your apology is appreciated.

A 6.5mm round lands with about 1150 ft/lbs of force.  You sure you could shake that off?
For perspective, that's about two-and-a-half big diesels worth of energy landing on your head.

International Journal of Legal Medicine  (Volume 109, Number 23) titled "On the physics of momentum in ballistics: Can the human body be displaced or knocked down by a small arms projectile?"
This is where one study in a peer-reviewed journal came from showing that the momentum effect on a human of a small arms round was negligible, and not enough to overcome the neurophysical responses.

Their study used 80kg human weight as a constant.  The human head weighs about 4.5kg, and the momentum of the Remington SPC round at muzzle is about 5.6kg m/s.
If the car JFK was riding in was going 5mph, then his head's momentum was 10.1kg m/s.  If it was going 10mph, then momentum of his head was about 20.1.  The momentum of his head was going faster, but admittedly not overwhelmingly so.  This would mean the bullet, if it hit the head and transferred all its energy at once (it didn't), would have affected his head at about 3 m/s.  Mitigating factors are his head still being attached to his body, the bullet entering the head, breaking up, and transferring that energy more slowly, and the neurophysical responses.  That's the best argument I can make at this point.  The information in the article is superior to mine.

Here's an interview with a rocket scientist who has studied physics of moving bullets, then later applied them to the JFK case.  The nature of the wounds, and direction of the head, can all be described by science, to be a shot from behind the limousine, not the front.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm)

 They didn't explain how the bullet's momentum put a piece of JFK's occiput 20 feet behind and to the left of the head-shot.  They didn't explain why the doctors at Parkland, to a man, described an exit wound at the back of the head, when JFK was shot from behind.

The fragment was not occipital, but the parietal.  The witness who collected the fragment did not say it was behind the limo, but south of it.  Stories putting it behind the limo were misconstrued.  These are all consistent with a shot behind and above the limo.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm)

To be honest, being compared to hollow-earthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists didn't feel funny.  Your apology is appreciated.

Wherever I may be wrong in any of these quickly, perhaps haphazardly constructed arguments, this is where I was off the reservation.  Please keep in mind they don't let me smoke weed in the military.  Not sure what that has to do with anything but it feels relevant .

I have got to learn how to do that quote stuff the right way

Quote from: "fester30"Here's an interview with a rocket scientist who has studied physics of moving bullets, then later applied them to the JFK case.  The nature of the wounds, and direction of the head, can all be described by science, to be a shot from behind the limousine, not the front.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm)

I note he also says:

QuoteMacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms. This body recoil is one favorite. Another is the "puff of smoke from the grassy knoll"; the theory here seems to be that someone shot Kennedy with a flintlock (modern firearms don't make a puff of smoke on firing as black powder rounds do).

This is questionable at best, because the shooter is tensed against the recoil, but an unsuspecting victim isn't.  Also re: "the puff of smoke": modern powder, although called "smokeless", still produces smoke.   Additionally, ammunition 50 years old can hardly be regarded as "modern."

Also, is he alleging that prey animals don't always fall away from the shooter?  I've never had one fall towards me.  But then, I'm not a regular hunter.

QuoteThe fragment was not occipital, but the parietal.  The witness who collected the fragment did not say it was behind the limo, but south of it.  Stories putting it behind the limo were misconstrued.  These are all consistent with a shot behind and above the limo.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm)

Hmm, Lifton, in Best Evidence reports it as the occiput.  You may be right in what portion of the skull it is. However. the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's right parietal are opening up in an exit wound (as your own source claims: "See fig. 29, a scale drawing of the frontal and right side[/i] of a human skull, which shows the displaced bone fragments and the extensive fragmentation of the skull." [Emphasis added -- Thump]) as a result of wounding; however, "south of the limo" is to the left of the limo, as anyone who has been to Dealey Plaza knows, and as can be seen from your map (Harper reports finding it left and front).  How did a bone from the exit wound on the right side of his head wind up on the left side of his car?  

QuoteWherever I may be wrong in any of these quickly, perhaps haphazardly constructed arguments, this is where I was off the reservation.  Please keep in mind they don't let me smoke weed in the military.  Not sure what that has to do with anything but it feels relevant .

Yeah, I don't smoke weed anymore myself.  I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it's cool.  Also, thanks for your service.

Finally, to make a quote, either press the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you wish to quote, or simply copy the desired text to your clipboard, then make quote-tags for it by typing "[ quote]" to open the quote-block and "[/ quote]" to close it.  Please note that you cannot include the space between the bracket and the word "quote" as I have here; I do that so that the code will display.

Okay gonna try this quote thing

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This is questionable at best, because the shooter is tensed against the recoil, but an unsuspecting victim isn't.  Also re: "the puff of smoke": modern powder, although called "smokeless", still produces smoke.   Additionally, ammunition 50 years old can hardly be regarded as "modern."

Also, is he alleging that prey animals don't always fall away from the shooter?  I've never had one fall towards me.  But then, I'm not a regular hunter.

I've never bought into the recoil thing.  I look at momentum.  The bullet could have added about 3 meters per second (about 10 ft per second) of momentum to Kennedy's head if it was a Remingtom 6.8mm SPC (didn't look up what kind of bullet it was, but this is just for example of a small arms round with high muzzle velocity and a weight somewhere between huge bullets and tiny ones), and if Kennedy's head was 4.5kg, and if the car was going 10mph, and if the bullet transferred all its momentum at impact.  The bullet went through, so the amount of momentum transfer was much less.  The recoil thing is bunk in my opinion (not a physics or ballistics expert) because of the shooter's tension, like you said, and the fact that many weapons have recoil dampening or transfer of recoil energy into the reloading process.  Also, I've seen an elephant gun knock someone on their ass with the recoil.  This has nothing to do with anything in this argument except that it was really awesome and hilarious to see.  If you haven't seen it, here it is.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y7KjanpWOk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y7KjanpWOk)

QuoteHmm, Lifton, in Best Evidence reports it as the occiput.  You may be right in what portion of the skull it is. However. the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's right parietal are opening up in an exit wound (as your own source claims: "See fig. 29, a scale drawing of the frontal and right side[/i] of a human skull, which shows the displaced bone fragments and the extensive fragmentation of the skull." [Emphasis added -- Thump]) as a result of wounding; however, "south of the limo" is to the left of the limo, as anyone who has been to Dealey Plaza knows, and as can be seen from your map (Harper reports finding it left and front).  How did a bone from the exit wound on the right side of his head wind up on the left side of his car?

In the autopsy xrays and subsequent drawings, the occipital bone was still in his head.  There weren't any bones knocked backward.  In fact, there are some grainy still frames taken from videos that show the spray from his head going up and forward.  This point was just to demonstrate the shot couldn't have come from in front of the limo (grassy knoll).  The exit wound was very clearly not in the back of the head, but instead that was where the entrance wound was.  As for where Harper found the bone, that's not really good evidence for either argument, as it was found 24 hours later.  Conspiracy theorists love to tell me when I point out the bone was not behind the location of the injury, that some animal or something could have moved it.  I wouldn't be able to offer an explanation.  His head was turned left, the shot came from behind, the bone should have either fallen in front of where the car was, or even in the car if they were both going in the same direction.  But the angle from where his head was positioned, the entrance wound, and the exit wound, would indicate the general direction of the depository, and above ground level.  I admit that means it could have been from the fourth floor of the same building, instead of the sixth.

Here are some pictures of spray from his head, going upward and forward.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm)  The exiting bullet, at the very least, shot something up in the air.  This doesn't prove the bullet came from below, but that when it was exiting, it did not hit perpendicular with the portion of skull that it exited through, driving the fragment up instead of out.  His head was tilted forward (which left very little room for it to tilt farther forward when hit), and turned slightly to the left.  This could explain the fragment in a weird place, but I wouldn't accept that without someone smarter than myself doing that smart person work to show it.

There were two bullets that did all the damage.  One was in tact, one was in fragments.  The intact bullet was Oswald's type of bullet, fired from Oswald's gun.  The fragments were tested and originally found to be of the same composition.  Subsequent evidence(http://politicalassassinations.wordpres ... ssination/ (http://politicalassassinations.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/bullet-evidence-challenges-findings-in-jfk-assassination/)) shows that that composition doesn't definitively say it was a bullet from the same lot.  The chemical analysis done by Warren Commission was not sufficient enough to say that the bullet fragments were certainly from Oswald's gun, and in fact could have come from many shooters.  This 2007 study by Texas A&M doesn't prove either possibility.  The study simply calls for more analysis of the actual fragments.  In this case, it could have been a second shooter, from perhaps another floor of the depository, and using ammunition with a similar lead composition.

The "puff of smoke" ideas on many conspiracy theory websites show some witness testimony of a puff of smoke, but ignores the witnesses who saw steam or motorcycle exhaust.  Overall, the witness testimony about the "puff of smoke" is very diverse.  When Oliver Stone was making his movie, he could not find any period weapons or ammunition that made a puff of smoke as large as the descriptions documented from "puff of smoke" witnesses, so he had smoke blown from bellows to make the effect in the movie.

QuoteYeah, I don't smoke weed anymore myself.  I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it's cool.  Also, thanks for your service.

Not getting at anything.  Like I said, I didn't see what that had to do with anything, but it felt relevant.  I was just being a goof.  And you're welcome.

QuoteFinally, to make a quote, either press the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you wish to quote, or simply copy the desired text to your clipboard, then make quote-tags for it by typing "[ quote]" to open the quote-block and "[/ quote]" to close it.  Please note that you cannot include the space between the bracket and the word "quote" as I have here; I do that so that the code will display.

Thank you.  Okay now time to press "submit" and see if it works
p.s. this is fun.  At first I was hesitant to really get into all this because I was afraid people would get mad like I was hijacking the thread or going off topic or something.  Then I realized the topic does happen to be conspiracy theories, so that fear didn't make much sense.

None of this explains how the right side of his skull wound up at least 25' left of his car at the time of the fatal headshot.  I'm pretty sure an animal didn't carry it there; they're not real thick in that part of the woods.

As far as two bullets doing all the damage, I don't believe that CE 399 can have transited JFK and Connolly (twice), thereafter winding up in his thigh, and yet come out looking like the round on the left --

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maryferrell.org%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F5%2F5e%2FPhoto_hsca_ex_294.jpg&hash=31cd9cf375891897393e437318602d63a5e2a152)

-- particularly if it has, as you've stated earlier, impacted JFK's spinal column.  By way of comparison, the 2nd and 3rd from the left were both fired into cotton wadding, the fourth from the left fired into a goat's rib, and the rightmost fired into a cadaver's wrist.

To save a lot of tail-chasing, I will go back to my original statement:  to say that there is absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy is incorrect.  I don't know that there was a conspiracy, but I certainly see reason to believe there may have been one.  That was my point, and I appreciate being able to expound upon it.

eta:  Also, this quote:

QuoteHis head was turned left

... is plainly wrong.  Watch the movie again.  He is looking, more or less, forward.

I don't remember saying spinal column.  I said his back muscles, if the neuromuscular response idea is correct, reacted to the head shot by tensing up and tightening up.  As for the bullet hitting the wrist.  The one you show was going about 2000 feet per second when it hit.  It had gone through Kennedy's back, front of the neck, and Connelly's body, before hitting the wrist.  Here's a picture of the same kind of round hitting a wrist at 1000 feet per second.  
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmcadams.posc.mu.edu%2Fbullet1.jpg&hash=704de383d81651b76a10a97d6a11f6467617563b)  
Hope I did that image thing right.  I honestly don't know where anybody gets the idea that they know how fast the bullet was traveling (in this case someone's theory is 1000 feet per second) by the time it hit Connelly, other than shooting many bullets at different muzzle velocities to see which one more closely matches the resulting bullet.  So this is all whether you believe a bullet slows that much going through two bodies, including tumbling a little in Connelly, without fragmenting.  At least I'm being honest about each piece of evidence, and what weaknesses, individually, I feel each piece has.  I believe that although there are a few things that can't be explained 100%, that doesn't prove the other view of things.  While there can be questions raised about some things, I don't see one piece of actual evidence that proves there is any other gunman, while there is certainly plenty of evidence that proves, at the very least, that Oswald shot Kennedy twice, even if there were multiple different bullets that hit Kennedy at the exact same time as the second shot (from the A&M study that showed it was impossible without examining the fragments again to rule out the possibility that the fragments came from more than one bullet).

When looking over the bigger picture, I see a whole lot of evidence for one guy acting alone, and a few suggestions of possibilities that maybe he didn't.  Someone else may not see it that way.  While I may turn out to be wrong, I'll stick with the simplest solution.  

One thing I appreciate about your arguments is at least you stick to arguments about evidence.  I must admit I probably prejudged you a little at first, considering this is the first conversation I've literally EVER had with a person positing the possibility of a conspiracy that went this way.  Every single other conversation has ended in the person I'm debating telling me that the government, or FBI, or LBJ's buddies, or the mafia, was covering stuff up, hiding evidence, and planting evidence.

YES!  The picture worked!  I feel like I'm learning more at this forum than I learned in my last sociology class!

Here's one I read just a couple weeks ago... I guess it's been going on for a while.
The descendants of John Wilkes Booth want to exhume the body of Edwin Booth.  They believe there's a chance that the body buried in the grave of John was not him.  They believe John actually got away and lived the rest of his life in secrecy.  In exhuming Edwin, they are hoping to do a DNA test to compare to a sample taken from the vertebre of the man who was killed in the barn.  If the DNA are a family match, then the man who was killed in the barn was John.  Otherwise, John appears to have gotten away with killing President Lincoln.

Why does this possibly involve a conspiracy?  Well, when John Wilkes Booth was cornered in a barn, and then killed by Sergeant Corbett, as he was exiting the barn which by that point had been set on fire, there were many witnesses there that were a part of the party who were tracking him down.  Lieutenant Edward Doherty wrote the official account of the entire affair.  If the man wasn't Booth, then there was a big coverup.  Reasons for a coverup?  Perhaps the men who were chasing him, upon realizing it wasn't, did not want to look bad, so they lied.  This is unlikely because the body was carried back to be buried under the penetentiary in D.C.  There would have been others, not in on the original coverup, to see Booth's body, and have to be brought in on it.  Also, if they lied, they were taking the chance that the real Booth would be captured and they would be fools.

If Booth got away, perhaps there was the fear that he would be seen as a conquering hero.  The government covered it up so that nobody would know he got away.  Problem I have with this idea is that I doubt he would have stayed quiet, as he was trying to raise up the south again.  Also, if the U.S. gov't lied, again they would be hoping Booth would just lay low and never tell anybody who he was.

I don't buy it, but the exhumation hasn't happened yet.  Guess we'll find out soon.