Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[I Ratant]

This is as you know irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

.
I recall talking to Mike, and David Lifton, and Jack White and Anthony Marsh on the Compuserve Conspiracy Forum 20 years ago.
Griffith for example lives in England, and has to collect any information from other sources. And then select what he will accept or not, before making statements.
Anthony was a very good source for material on the subject. He didn't understand a lot of it, but was generous sharing it.
I was able to construct a full-scale rendering of Dealey Plaza in AutoCad, which permitted me to go to any place there and look around, from the information Tony provided.
Jack White was just plain confused.
And Lifton equally so.
The originator of the publishing goldmine of Conspiracy Twinkie books, Mark Lane just plain lies about the testimony to the WCR. His zig-zag bullet idea as THE testimony of the FBI agent to the WCR is just plain flat wrong.
Look it up.
It goes downhill from there.

 

[I Ratant]

Michael Griffith posts on this forum as "bobtaftfan" - he tends to post and run.

.
We'd have real-time discussion on JFK on CIS, 20 years ago.

 

[JayUtah]

... and as I said, I have no opinion on the quality of this testimonies.

Too bad, because the quality of the testimony dictates the strength of the inference you've placed upon it. That inference drives the expectation against which you've attempted to rule on reality. I.e., the investigators should have been sniffing around for gunpowder, or talking to those who say they smelled it in suspicious places; they didn't, therefore it was an improper investigation.

Rumors and innuendo, however, are the stuff of all the conspiracy books. Every conspiracy theorist wants to make a big deal out of some outlying evidence or supposedly discarded testimony, pompously declaring how improper the official investigation must have been without it.

I'm stating that, with this testimonies in mind (false or true), I find it peculiar that there is no mention of the same in the TSBD, nor was it investigated. Why?

Perhaps because outlying, third-hand claims of smelling gunpowder are not credible on their face, either as direct evidence in favor of one conclusion or as suggestions for what else should be investigated. And because the investigators did not share your assumption that the smell of gunpowder should linger in the air for some time afterward.

Your case stands on one leg comprised of shaky inferences drawn upon unreliable testimony, and on another leg that is simply a begged question.

 

[manifesto]

I repeat:


1. There have been a lot of 'talk' of 'testimony' of smell of gunpowder in the motorcade, grassy knoll, etc, but not on the 6th floor of the TSBD where the alleged shooting took place.

2. I'm not saying that this is evidence for this and that. On the contrary, there is strong psychological factors in play here, pavlovian if you like, and all 'testimony' of smell should be treated with caution.

3. If the shooting took place in the TSBD, I find it very plausible though, that there would be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the shooting. Why? I've been in the military and know this from experience, mine and others. Is this proof of no shooting in the TSBD? Of course not, but I find it a bit peculiar that the investigators (FBI/Warren/HSCA) didn't reflect on this, or better, reproduced it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I repeat:


1. There have been a lot of 'talk' of 'testimony' of smell of gunpowder in the motorcade, grassy knoll, etc, but not on the 6th floor of the TSBD where the alleged shooting took place.

Well, there can be talk of testimony, but it is meaningless until you provide the testimony. Until you prove that it is reliable and relevant. Because had the been fired in the TSBD it is unlikely the smell would have been around as long as you claim, or worthy of note to those accessing the crime scene.

Feel free to prove me wrong by supplying precedents to show the authorities investigating would have specified the smell at other crime scenes and the absence is suspicious.

2. I'm not saying that this is evidence for this and that. On the contrary, there is strong psychological factors in play here, pavlovian if you like, and all 'testimony' of smell should be treated with caution.

So see above. Show that your original statements and those of how long the smell would linger, etc, hold water. Try to actually make a point rather than changing tact again.

3. If the shooting took place in the TSBD, I find it very plausible though, that there would be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the shooting.

But a plausible reason there might be one is not the same as a reason one should be expected. Or a reason to dismiss the lack of one as suspicious. There are plausible reasons, like the rifle pointing out a window that the smell would dissipate.

Why? I've been in the military and know this from experience, mine and others.

And the experiences of mine, and others here, have shown your assumptions are a possibility of little value.

Is this proof of no shooting in the TSBD? Of course not, but I find it a bit peculiar that the investigators (FBI/Warren/HSCA) didn't reflect on this, or better, reproduced it.

Oh stop JAQing off. First show there is a need for them to do so. As it stands common sense and likely their own experience shows that the smell would not linger. Even if it did show it was worthy of being noted. Show there is a precedent for it being noted and suspicious by its absence. If it is not something that is commented on in any other case, why would it be mentioned here?

 

[RoboTimbo]

...all 'testimony' of smell should be treated with caution...

Why should it be treated with caution?

 

[manifesto]

Why should it be treated with caution?

One familiar but sudden sensory input (bang) may trigger another but false associated sensory input (smell). Pavlov ...

 

[RoboTimbo]

One familiar but sudden sensory input (bang) may trigger another but false associated sensory input (smell). Pavlov ...

So any testimony about smells around Oswald's sniper's nest would be equally suspect?

 

[manifesto]

So any testimony about smells around Oswald's sniper's nest would be equally suspect?

Well, it depends. If you expect to find the alleged nest at the 6th floor, yes. If you expect to find some evidence somewhere in the in TSBD, searching the floors bottom up smelling gunpowder on the 6th floor only, less so. No smell, no where in the TSBD minutes after the shooting is even more peculiar regarding this, but also the strong confirmation bias that drove the 'investigation' from the very beginning.

This wouldn't be to difficult to double blind.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This wouldn't be to difficult to double blind.

I'll be interested to see your results.

 

[manifesto]

I'll be interested to see your results.

No time nor resources. Take it or leave it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No time nor resources. Take it or leave it.

LOL.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Well, it depends. If you expect to find the alleged nest at the 6th floor, yes. If you expect to find some evidence somewhere in the in TSBD, searching the floors bottom up smelling gunpowder on the 6th floor only, less so. No smell, no where in the TSBD minutes after the shooting is even more peculiar regarding this, but also the strong confirmation bias that drove the 'investigation' from the very beginning.

This wouldn't be to difficult to double blind.

I ask again, have you ever smelled gunpowder from a freshly fired firearm?

 

[JayUtah]

I repeat:

No need to repeat your argument. It has been properly understood and fairly rebutted. In brief, this:

There have been a lot of 'talk' of 'testimony' of smell of gunpowder in the motorcade, grassy knoll, etc, but not on the 6th floor of the TSBD where the alleged shooting took place.

does not lead to

...I find it a bit peculiar that the investigators (FBI/Warren/HSCA) didn't reflect on this, or better, reproduced it.

As with all JFK conspiracy theories, yours latches onto some inconsequential and -- by your own admission -- unreliable bit of evidence and then tries to demand that the official explanation was fatally incomplete for not having dealt with it.

*yawn*

 

[JayUtah]

No time nor resources. Take it or leave it.

I leave it.

You have begged the question that some certain condition should arise. You have stated it would be easy to test, but you refuse to do it. Why would you think you wouldn't have the burden of proof for your claims?

 

[I Ratant]

One familiar but sudden sensory input (bang) may trigger another but false associated sensory input (smell). Pavlov ...

.
To say nothing of very large cars moving at parade idle suddenly zooming to max escape speed, with all the exhaust the cars will be spewing.

 

[JayUtah]

.
To say nothing of very large cars moving at parade idle suddenly zooming to max escape speed, with all the exhaust the cars will be spewing.

As the Italians say, appunto. The 1974 Ford Galaxy 500 I drove in school smelled like a Civil War re-enactment every time I put the hammer down.

 

[Tomtomkent]

As the Italians say, appunto. The 1974 Ford Galaxy 500 I drove in school smelled like a Civil War re-enactment every time I put the hammer down.

Which is odd as the small drill halls where I have known cadets to practise with rifles have not been cursed with a lingering smell at all.

 

[JayUtah]

Which is odd as the small drill halls where I have known cadets to practise with rifles have not been cursed with a lingering smell at all.

Indeed the ROTC practice range where I honed my marksmanship was fully enclosed and the size of a small bowling alley. It was always in use and never smelled like "gunpowder." It mostly smelled like 100-year-old basement.

Nitrocellulose doesn't smell like anything. The smell of "gunpowder" is whatever stabilizing, cleaning, and other additives the manufacturer has placed in it. The actual smell varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

My old Navy revolver replica, which I built from a kit, used a variety of black powder. That had a smell, owing largely to the sulfur.

 

[I Ratant]

As for "testimony", there are only two sources. WCR and HSCA.
If it didn't come from these sources, it's not "testimony".
Everything else would be recollection or speculation or lies.
And much of it is lies.