Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, that didn't last long.

 

[Robert Harris]

All CTists have run true to form. This one is dishonestly ignoring all questions just like the others. When will we get an honest one who has courage to state their case? This current one is certainly disappointing.

Hi, RoboTimbo,

I am new to this forum, but I do have some experience in researching the JFK case, and I feel confidant that that although Oswald was probably involved in the attack, he didn't act alone.

FWIW, I also happen to be a lifelong atheist, whose heroes are people like Dawkins, Harris, Sagon, etc. As such, I am a huge fan of reason and empirical evidence.

And whatever other flaws you may find in my postings, I assure you, that I will never evade relevant evidence and questions.

And speaking of questions, may I ask one for you guys? How many of you believe that not only was Oswald guilty, but that he had no accomplices?

And if not, why not?


Thanks in advance

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hi, RoboTimbo,

I am new to this forum, but I do have some experience in researching the JFK case, and I feel confidant that that although Oswald was probably involved in the attack, he didn't act alone.

FWIW, I also happen to be a lifelong atheist, whose heroes are people like Dawkins, Harris, Sagon, etc. As such, I am a huge fan of reason and empirical evidence.

And whatever other flaws you may find in my postings, I assure you, that I will never evade relevant evidence and questions.

And speaking of questions, may I ask one for you guys? How many of you believe that not only was Oswald guilty, but that he had no accomplices?

And if not, why not?


Thanks in advance

Hi Robert and welcome!

What accomplices do you think Oswald had and what part did they take in the assassination?

 

[Robert Harris]

Perhaps we could answer questions in the order they are asked.

Do you think Oswald acted alone and if so, why?

Thank you for the warm welcome, BTW.

I do hope however, that we can refrain from stereotyping our adversaries.

I probably agree with you on more particular issues than I do with most conspiracy advocates, and I find it insulting to be accused of sharing the worst traits of others, simple because I agree that Oswald did not act alone.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm agreeable. Since you're late to the party, could you answer some of the ones that other CTists have left unanswered from the previous years?

 

[Robert Harris]

I'll be happy to answer any question, but let's take them one at a time.

Do you think Oswald acted alone and if so, why?

As to who Oswald's accomplices were, I do not have a list of names for you, although I am extremely suspicious of James Braden, who was on the third floor of the Daltex building, had connections with David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, who confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination, and was at the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby, the night before the assassination.

He also lied in his HSCA testimony, claiming he was with his parole officer during the assassination - a claim the parole officer flatly denied.

But a list of names is not required, to demonstrate that Oswald could not have fired all the shots. Tests conducted by the FBI and the HSCA, confirmed both the amount of time required to recycle and aim the weapon and how loud it would have been to the ears of the limousine passengers.

There is quite a bit more to this, and I will posting it in a more complete article here, a bit later.

 

[JayUtah]

And speaking of questions, may I ask one for you guys? How many of you believe that not only was Oswald guilty, but that he had no accomplices?

I believe the best explanation at this time is that Oswald killed Kennedy and that he acted alone.

And if not, why not?

I have yet to see a compelling case for any accomplice or alternative. And I have been presented with a number of attempts, all of which I find far less than convincing. If you want to know why, read the thread and its two multi-hundred-post predecessors.

 

[BazBear]

Perhaps we could answer questions in the order they are asked.

Do you think Oswald acted alone and if so, why?

Thank you for the warm welcome, BTW.

I do hope however, that we can refrain from stereotyping our adversaries.

I probably agree with you on more particular issues than I do with most conspiracy advocates, and I find it insulting to be accused of sharing the worst traits of others, simple because I agree that Oswald did not act alone.

Welcome to the forum Robert.


The generally accepted narrative, which is backed by a ship load of physical and testimonial evidence, is that Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK. As it appears you are making the extraordinary claim that Oswald did not act alone, I'd say that puts the burden of proof on you to explain why you believe that.

I've seen many JFK conspiracy theorists make this claim. So far, I've not see any one of them make a convincing case; please note that a convincing case must account for all of the evidence, and must do so to better degree than the generally accepted conclusion.

 

[BazBear]

I believe the best explanation at this time is that Oswald killed Kennedy and that he acted alone.



I have yet to see a compelling case for any accomplice or alternative. And I have been presented with a number of attempts, all of which I find far less than convincing. If you want to know why, read the thread and its two multi-hundred-post predecessors.

Ehh ninja'd by Jay

 

[JayUtah]

But a list of names is not required...

Yes it is.

...to demonstrate that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.

No. Read at least the last few pages of the thread. Do not attempt a disingenuous argument where you dismiss Oswald based on one standard of evidence and then are unwilling to present an alternative theory and defend it to the same standard.

Despite your cherry-picking of the HSCA evidence, the committee concluded that Kennedy was killed by bullets fired only by Oswald. Don't assume your soon-to-be critics are unfamiliar with the HSCA and Warren Commission findings as well as most of the popular conspiracy claims and the books they're lifted from. You are likely to find most of your critics here to be better informed than you. As skeptics, we are willing to change our minds if the evidence directs us to, but not until. And evidence against Oswald does not constitute evidence for some accomplice -- named or unnamed.

There is quite a bit more to this, and I will posting it in a more complete article here, a bit later.

No, read the thread first.

I'm entirely serious. You're spooling up to make exactly the same kind of argument every conspiracy theorist attempts, and which is entirely unconvincing. Here's why it's unconvincing, and why this thread persists for so long going over the same topics. Do not make the same mistakes as your many predecessors.

First, if you have no alternative theory as to who killed Kennedy, you are likely to be dismissed outright. This is a board (and thread) populated largely by skeptics. As skeptics, we believe that the best theory is that which explains the most observations while requiring the fewest loose ends or assumptions. You must have a competing theory, and be willing to defend it. Simply pretending to exonerate Oswald based on eroding faith in the various affirmative cases made against him is not logically valid or rhetorically persuasive if you have no alternative.

Second, do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. Every single conspiracy theorist tries to recruit his critics to stand as proxies for the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or the conventional narrative in general, in order to distract from his own generally weak case. The evidence is easily available and the conclusions commonly drawn from it are a matter of public knowledge. As the challenger to all that, you bear the burden of proof. Especially if you allege there was an accomplice or an alternative suspect -- that is an affirmative claim no matter how you slice it, and you will be rigorously held to the burden to prove that case.

Third, your burden of proof is exactly that which you propose for the conventional narrative. We are well attuned to the "reasonable doubt" method of attempting to style the debate as a mock criminal trial, and the various "just asking questions" methods of weaseling out of any intellectual responsibility. Do not try to put some double standard into play. Do not try to propose an absurdly low standard of proof for your own claims.

Fourth, don't assume the discussion began anew the moment you showed up. This is the third split of a thread in which most of us have participated for several years. If you want to know what we think, read the thread. The first question on the table is not your demand for others to mount a case against Oswald. As a newcomer, it is your duty to inform yourself of the state of the discussion to date and to behave accordingly.

I believe the most parsimonious interpretation of the consilience of evidence is that Oswald acted alone. The reason I believe that is because I have surveyed the evidence and can find no more compelling case for any other individual. I persist in this belief because I have been presented with numerous alternative arguments, all of which I have found especially disingenuous and unconvincing for reasons including those named above.

 

[Robert Harris]

Welcome to the forum Robert.


The generally accepted narrative, which is backed by a ship load of physical and testimonial evidence, is that Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK. As it appears you are making the extraordinary claim that Oswald did not act alone, I'd say that puts the burden of proof on you to explain why you believe that.

I've seen many JFK conspiracy theorists make this claim. So far, I've not see any one of them make a convincing case; please note that a convincing case must account for all of the evidence, and must do so to better degree than the generally accepted conclusion.

Thank you for the warm (sort of) welcome

So, is it fair to say that you have no specific evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter?

If not, then please describe it.

 

[abaddon]

Thank you for the warm (sort of) welcome

So, is it fair to say that you have no specific evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter?

If not, then please describe it.

Oh wonderful. If only the reversal of the burden of proof had never been seen before.

 

[Ranb]

But a list of names is not required, to demonstrate that Oswald could not have fired all the shots. Tests conducted by the FBI and the HSCA, confirmed both the amount of time required to recycle and aim the weapon and how loud it would have been to the ears of the limousine passengers.

Really? I've yet to read any reliable source that says a person can't fire a Carcano three times and cycle the bolt twice in the 5-8 seconds that Oswald was supposed to have.

I own a 6.5mm Carcano similar to the one that was found in the TSBD. It is in hideous condition but still functions entirely well enough to shoot a target slowly moving away at a small angle at close range. Keep in mind that all Oswald had to do was point the rifle at the car occupants and fire away. Hitting two people at 80-90 yards from the 6th floor should be well within the capability of anyone who made it through Marine Corps boot camp; good or bad shot.

Keep in mind that the Carcano bolt is one of the more smooth ones out there, not as good as the Enfield, but better than any Savage, Remington or Winchester I've handled.

I'd like to see what you have that says someone else was involved.

Ranb

 

[AdMan]

Thank you for the warm (sort of) welcome

So, is it fair to say that you have no specific evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter?

If not, then please describe it.

Robert, it looks like you simply don't understand who has the burden of proof here.

 

[abaddon]

I'll be happy to answer any question, but let's take them one at a time.

Do you think Oswald acted alone and if so, why?

As to who Oswald's accomplices were, I do not have a list of names for you, although I am extremely suspicious of James Braden, who was on the third floor of the Daltex building, had connections with David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, who confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination, and was at the Cabana hotel with Jack Ruby, the night before the assassination.

He also lied in his HSCA testimony, claiming he was with his parole officer during the assassination - a claim the parole officer flatly denied.

But a list of names is not required, to demonstrate that Oswald could not have fired all the shots. Tests conducted by the FBI and the HSCA, confirmed both the amount of time required to recycle and aim the weapon and how loud it would have been to the ears of the limousine passengers.

There is quite a bit more to this, and I will posting it in a more complete article here, a bit later.

This old trope. Once again for the record...

Carcano, six shots in 5.1 seconds.

So no, it's bollocks to suggest it is impossible to crack off 3 shots in the time available.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes it is.

Why exactly, is a "list of names" required?

Should we assume that the last hundred or two, terrorist acts never happened if we don't have a "list" of the perps' names?

No. Read at least the last few pages of the thread.

OK, I read 'em and your argument still makes no sense at all to me. Perhaps you could be more specific.

Do not attempt a disingenuous argument where you dismiss Oswald based on one standard of evidence and then are unwilling to present an alternative theory and defend it to the same standard.

Excellent advice! I couldn't agree more.

Despite your cherry-picking of the HSCA evidence, the committee concluded that Kennedy was killed by bullets fired only by Oswald.

Whoa!!

Why would you accuse me of cherry picking when I stated that the FBI and HSCA conducted tests which defined specific attributes and limitations of the alleged murder weapon? As you will see a bit later, those tests constitute verifiable, objective evidence which will be extremely important.

And I couldn't care less about the thoroughly discredited acoustic evidence the HSCA used to form its conclusions. I'm rather surprised that you do.

Don't assume your soon-to-be critics are unfamiliar with the HSCA and Warren Commission findings as well as most of the popular conspiracy claims and the books they're lifted from.

Good idea! I'll also stop beating my wife and eating without utensils!

You are likely to find most of your critics here to be better informed than you.

That's great. I am eager to learn from such experts.

As skeptics, we are willing to change our minds if the evidence directs us to, but not until. And evidence against Oswald does not constitute evidence for some accomplice -- named or unnamed.

Can't argue with that.

BTW, have you found evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter?

No, read the thread first.

Perhaps you could email me a list of instructions. I will certainly do my best to follow them.

I'm entirely serious. You're spooling up to make exactly the same kind of argument every conspiracy theorist attempts, and which is entirely unconvincing.

As a skeptic myself, I find it hard to accept that you know in advance, what I am going to say. Didn't the Psychic Hotline close down, some time ago

Hey! I have a wild and crazy idea. Why don't you wait and see what I have to say before you start swinging your ball bat?

Here's why it's unconvincing, and why this thread persists for so long going over the same topics. Do not make the same mistakes as your many predecessors.

Sigh... this is all starting to lose it's humorous appeal.

First, if you have no alternative theory as to who killed Kennedy, you are likely to be dismissed outright.

Not by honest members of the forum. Even without an alternative theory, it would be possible to prove that Oswald didn't act alone. For example, if I can prove that shots were fired that were substantially less than 2.3 seconds apart, that would constitute proof that Oswald didn't fire all the shots.

As it happens however, I have a very strong, alternative theory, but that is not the critical issue.

You seem to be trying to raise the bar, waaay higher than it belongs. That is not how critical thinkers do things.

This is a board (and thread) populated largely by skeptics.

I kinda got that from the name.

As skeptics, we believe that the best theory is that which explains the most observations while requiring the fewest loose ends or assumptions.

I certainly hope you are wrong about that. I seriously doubt that most skeptics think that way. They do not make up all kinds of rules and restrictions, but prefer to cut to the chase and evaluate the empirical evidence and verifiable facts.

ONE SIMPLE FACT can prove a theory wrong - your theory, mine, anyone's.

And YOUR THEORY requires that you be able to prove that Oswald COULD have fired all the shots.

You must have a competing theory, and be willing to defend it.

With all due respect sir, your claim does not improve with repetition.

Simply pretending to exonerate Oswald based on eroding faith in the various affirmative cases made against him is not logically valid or rhetorically persuasive if you have no alternative.

It might be helpful to actually read the posts you are attacking. If you did, you would realize that I said Oswald was probably guilty

Second, do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. Every single conspiracy theorist tries to recruit his critics to stand as proxies for the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or the conventional narrative in general, in order to distract from his own generally weak case.

Those dirty bastards!!

And to think, 75% or so of all Americans pull that dirty trick!

The evidence is easily available

What exactly, is the best evidence you have seen, which isolates Oswald as the only shooter?

and the conclusions commonly drawn from it are a matter of public knowledge.

You certainly know your stuff. Those websites are quite a discovery, eh?

As the challenger to all that, you bear the burden of proof.

No I don't. Forget that most people, most researchers, and the head of the HSCA believe this was a conspiracy. Forget that you represent a very small minority.

What others believe is irrelevant. What matters are the verifiable facts and evidence - nothing more and nothing less. My burden of proof is no greater than yours.

And since you cannot prove that Oswald acted alone, you aren't getting off to a very impressive start.

Especially if you allege there was an accomplice or an alternative suspect -- that is an affirmative claim no matter how you slice it, and you will be rigorously held to the burden to prove that case.

You can rigorously hold anything that makes you happy.

I will be discussing facts and empirical evidence associated with the question of whether Oswald could have fired all the shots.

Third, your burden of proof is exactly that which you propose for the conventional narrative.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

We are well attuned to the "reasonable doubt" method of attempting to style the debate as a mock criminal trial, and the various "just asking questions" methods of weaseling out of any intellectual responsibility.

Nothing gets by you, does it?

Is it possible though, that you are telling me not to "ask questions" because you are intending to do the "weaseling"

Do not try to put some double standard into play.

OK, with all due respect, I've had enough phony rules to last a lifetime.

I will discuss facts and empirical evidence related to the most important issues. You can do whatever it is that makes you happy.

 

[Robert Harris]

This old trope. Once again for the record...

So no, it's bollocks to suggest it is impossible to crack off 3 shots in the time available.

Who exactly, fired those shots? What is his name?

And how did he corroborate his time?

I encountered "Mag30th" several years ago. He threatened to send his relatives down to Florida to beat me up, and in another post said he wanted to jam his rifle up my rectum.

I reported him to both the Los Angeles and Pinellas county police.

He's a bonafied lunatic.

Why would you cite something like this as "evidence", especially since, we have legitimate, verified tests by the FBI and the HSCA??

The HSCA recruited 8 sharpshooters from the Washington DC police department,who along with 2 others, attempted to fire an accurate shot within 1.66 seconds. They tried repeatedly, firing with and without the scope, but they failed every time.

And they were firing at oversized targets, considerably closer to them than the limo was to Oswald at frame 313.

They DID fire faster when they reloaded and fired blindly, with no attempt to acquire a target, but it is absurd to believe that Oswald or anyone else, fired the shot at 313, the one perfect shot of the day, at the greatest distance, without aiming, especially since the limo had slowed to about 8 mph at that point.

FBI supervisor Frasier testified that when he brought his time down to 2.3 seconds, he was firing,

"as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think."

Keep in mind too, that these guys tried over and over and over again to bring their time down. The guy who fired the 313 shot, only had ONE chance. It is just insane to think that Oswald could have outperformed all of them.

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh wonderful. If only the reversal of the burden of proof had never been seen before.

The burden of proof is shared equally.

I say that in spite of the fact that you are in a small minority and want to contradict the head of the HSCA, who wrote that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before Marcello confessed to an FBI informant, that he did it.

This is about facts and evidence - no more and no less. There is no need for artificial rules, obviously intended to "win" debates.

The fact that you have no evidence to prove that Oswald acted alone, does not constitute proof that Oswald had accomplices, but it is something we all need to keep in mind, and it should be a reminder, that no honest person has the right to claim with certainty, that he acted alone.

 

[Robert Harris]

Really? I've yet to read any reliable source that says a person can't fire a Carcano three times and cycle the bolt twice in the 5-8 seconds that Oswald was supposed to have.

Of course. That has been proven conclusively.

I own a 6.5mm Carcano similar to the one that was found in the TSBD. It is in hideous condition but still functions entirely well enough to shoot a target slowly moving away at a small angle at close range. Keep in mind that all Oswald had to do was point the rifle at the car occupants and fire away. Hitting two people at 80-90 yards from the 6th floor should be well within the capability of anyone who made it through Marine Corps boot camp; good or bad shot.

Yes, I own one too, although it's on loan at the moment.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that Oswald could have fired three shots in 8 seconds.

Keep in mind that the Carcano bolt is one of the more smooth ones out there, not as good as the Enfield, but better than any Savage, Remington or Winchester I've handled.

I'd like to see what you have that says someone else was involved.

Ranb

Hmm.. I seem to have used too many smileys, not realizing that I would be cut off from posting urls.

Let me see if I can send it to you in a message.

 

[Robert Harris]

I am going to take a short break, perhaps until I am able to posts URL's again. In the meantime, please do not accuse me of evading anyone. Also, if there are several dozen posts I need to reply to when I get back, I may not get that done in the first 5 minutes.

I am going to be sharing a great deal of evidence with you, very soon. None of it will come from dubious sources, even by your standards. And whatever else you may think of it, it will be MUCH different from what you have been hearing from other conspiracy people. So PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME that I believe what anyone else believes, unless I say so.

I have been doing this for a very long time, which really doesn't matter, since I only invested a few hours discovering the only two things of major importance that I discovered over the last twenty years. And one of them was actually discovered first, by Dr. Michael Stroscio, a brilliant physicist who wrote a detailed paper, analyzing the work of Dr. Luis Alvarez.

One last thought. Although we might legitimately assume that Oswald was guilty, we have no logical reason to also assume that he acted alone. So, as skeptics, why don't we summon all the objectivity that we can muster, and evaluate the evidence with an open mind?

At the very least, perhaps we can come into the forum with swords sheathed. (Can't do smileys, sorry)