Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

I sincerely apologize. I guess I got you mixed up with several others.

Perhaps now you will consent to read the thread. Your inattention to posts both present and past doesn't bode well for the air of superiority you seem to be flying through.

More importantly, please share with everyone, your proof that Oswald acted alone.

Do not shift the burden of proof.

 

[Robert Harris]

Jay, I just asked you question, in a post directly above your last one.

Would you please answer it?

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think he "required" an accomplice, just like a zillion other crimes and terrorist acts which probably could have been pulled off with fewer people.

Irrelevant.

I maintain there is a qualitative difference between a single-perpetrator crime and a conspiracy to commit a crime. If there is more than one shooter, there has to be a back story leading up to an agreement to commit a crime. This necessary back story often results in artifacts that investigations later uncover, and which ultimately prove the conspiracy when properly evaluated.

In contrast a "lone nut," to borrow a phrase from the fringe, requires only one person to think and act irrationally -- perhaps even dangerously. He may not externalize those thoughts. And he requires no coordination or planning other than to stake out his post and load his rifle. These kinds of buildups are practically invisible in foresight.

Hence if you propose a conspiracy rather than a lone perpetration, the standard of proof changes to require proof of the conspiratorial buildup, among other things.

But 2 or 3 shooters have a better chance of making the kill than 1, wouldn't you agree?

Do not beg the question.

There are a considerable number of factors that apply to crimes contemplated among several people, between two, or by one. If you would like to delve into them it would be productive, but do not attempt to simplify the issue in this way.

 

[Robert Harris]

Perhaps now you will consent to read the thread. Your inattention to posts both present and past doesn't bode well for the air of superiority you seem to be flying through.

If you think I have been refuted in a previous post, then prove it. Cite the refutation.

In the meantime, you can address the fact that Oswald could not possibly have fired any of the early shots or both of the final ones.

Have you read my article on that? If not, I will be happy to link it again for you.

Do not shift the burden of proof.

What a sadly lame excuse!

You have no evidence to support the LN theory and you know it.

Making up a lot of phony rules that relieve you of your obligation to support your side of the argument is about as pathetic as things get around here.

 

[Robert Harris]

Irrelevant.

I maintain there is a qualitative difference between a single-perpetrator crime and a conspiracy to commit a crime. If there is more than one shooter, there has to be a back story leading up to an agreement to commit a crime. This necessary back story often results in artifacts that investigations later uncover, and which ultimately prove the conspiracy when properly evaluated.

In contrast a "lone nut," to borrow a phrase from the fringe, requires only one person to think and act irrationally -- perhaps even dangerously. He may not externalize those thoughts. And he requires no coordination or planning other than to stake out his post and load his rifle. These kinds of buildups are practically invisible in foresight.

Hence if you propose a conspiracy rather than a lone perpetration, the standard of proof changes to require proof of the conspiratorial buildup, among other things.



Do not beg the question.

There are a considerable number of factors that apply to crimes contemplated among several people, between two, or by one. If you would like to delve into them it would be productive, but do not attempt to simplify the issue in this way.

LOL! What a crock of babblage!

Jay, in all seriousness, have you considered taking a course in critical thinking?

 

[JayUtah]

If you think I have been refuted in a previous post, then prove it. Cite the refutation.

Your claim is an inference based on begged questions and subjective judgment. Third time stating this. Your demonstrated inattention to my posts does not give you the right to demand reposes or links. Look at practically any of my posts in the past two pages.

In the meantime, you can address the fact that Oswald could not possibly have fired any of the early shots or both of the final ones.

It is not a fact. It is an inference based on begged questions and subjective judgment.

You have no evidence to support the LN theory and you know it.

Asked and answered. Do not interpret your critics' unwillingness to accept an inappropriate burden of proof as an admission of anything. As stated, you are demonstrably well aware of the conventional theory. You do not need it repeated.

As to my knowledge, I will be the authority on what I know and what I don't know -- not you.

Making up a lot of phony rules that relieve you of your obligation to support your side of the argument is about as pathetic as things get around here.

Asked and answered.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What a sadly lame excuse!

You have no evidence to support the LN theory and you know it.

Making up a lot of phony rules that relieve you of your obligation to support your side of the argument is about as pathetic as things get around here.

Keep trying. Someone may fall for it.

Jay isn't one of those people, though.

 

[JayUtah]

LOL! What a crock of babblage!

Mockery is not an argument.

Jay, in all seriousness, have you considered taking a course in critical thinking?

I have taught logic and critical thinking at the college level. I make my living in engineering by analyzing highly complex proposals critically. I have been an adviser to Mythbusters and various documentary producers, and have been quoted in several publications including Newsweek and The New York Times Magazine on subjects of critical thinking and evaluation of conspiracy theories. My work on the Apollo hoax theory has been published in Science.

I am quite confident in my ability to critically analyze an argument. Calling your critics liars, insisting they are biased, and insulting their faculties does not help you.

 

[Robert Harris]

I will have to assume that your repeated references to your interlocutors as "liars" is your bumbling attempt to distract from your cowardly running away from presenting your own alternative hypothesis. Just like every other CTist.

I know this is an "international" forum. Is English your first language? Do you understand what this sentence means?

"I try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I will not call you a liar."

So why are you whining that I called you a "liar"?

I will even go so far as to say that you were not lying when you said that, but in all honesty, it's hard to keep a straight face.

And why are you continuing to post the false claim that I am "running away" from my beliefs about who was behind this crime??

I repeatedly told you that I would post about that in 1-2 days. Are you THAT desperate to attack me that you have to make up all these phony accusations, which you know are untrue?

 

[Robert Harris]

Your claim is an inference based on begged questions and subjective judgment. Third time stating this. Your demonstrated inattention to my posts does not give you the right to demand reposes or links. Look at practically any of my posts in the past two pages.

You have posted nothing that refutes me or even attempts to refute me. Nor have you cited any previous arguments which even address my analysis on the shots.

So what in holy hell are you talking about?

It is not a fact.
It is an inference based on begged questions and subjective judgment.

Ok, here is your chance to prove it.

Do you need another link to my article, or can you find it yourself.

Show everyone that you are capable of doing more than just blurting out nonsense that you couldn't prove to save your life.

Post your refutation.

 

[JayUtah]

You have posted nothing that refutes me or even attempts to refute me.

Your claim is an inference, not a fact. The proposition you assert is inferred from two premises. One premise is a begged question. The other is a subjective judgment.

Explain how that is not a refutation.

Post your refutation.

Asked and answered. You demand a refutation of a specific (affirmative) type. That is not the only kind of refutation possible. But it is the refutation most commonly demanded by conspiracy theorists because it requires no action on their part and considerable effort on the part of their critics. You are demonstrably unable to deal with the refutation that was provided, and apparently also even unwilling to acknowledge that it exists.

 

[JayUtah]

The begged question:

Of course, if Oswald fired all the shots, we would expect the limo passengers to have been exposed to the loudest and most startling sound levels when the earliest shots were fired. So why do we see no reactions then that are even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313??

The subjective interpretation, also an affirmed consequent:

Why are you evading the fact that I showed you another person who exhibited the same classic, startle reactions that Kellerman exhibited, in a situation in which we KNOW she was exposed to a loud and startling noise?

 

[uk_dave]

Mr. Harris, I once again note that you have not produced any sort of evidence, or even a hypothesis, as to what LHO did that required him to have an accomplice.

Well, he has presented his unique hypothesis that says footage of the event shows body language which he interprets as being caused by the sound of a fourth shot, and since LHO couldn't possibly have fired a fourth shot so quickly after the previous then LHO must have had help.

After that, it gets real fuzzy.

 

[JayUtah]

...body language which he interprets as being caused by the sound of a fourth shot

Hunt and Landis were once experts in the interpretation of body language by the standards of the early 20th century. Robert Harris is not, by any standard. While Harris invokes Hunt & Landis, it is the standard appropriation-of-authority ploy ("I am citing experts, therefore I am also an expert."), the judgment that the film shows a "startle response" is Harris' inexpert subjective opinion. His further inference that this is a response to a gunshot is one more level of inferential indirection.

This is why he has to speculate about silenced weapons for other presumed gunshots that don't elicit his "startle response." He's desperately trying to shoehorn the evidence into his predetermined theory. He read a book once, and now he wants credit for it.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mockery is not an argument.

But like many evangelist claims, some statements are only worth mockery and ridicule.

I have taught logic and critical thinking at the college level. I make my living in engineering by analyzing highly complex proposals critically. I have been an adviser to Mythbusters and various documentary producers, and have been quoted in several publications including Newsweek and The New York Times Magazine on subjects of critical thinking and evaluation of conspiracy theories. My work on the Apollo hoax theory has been published in Science.

I won't even ask you to prove that, since we can all give ourselves whatever name we want, in this forum.

So, why is it that a guy with your skills won't even try to refute my analysis?

I am quite confident in my ability to critically analyze an argument.

Good! Then here's a chance to show off your skills.

You should have no problem explaining to everyone, why no one heard the shot at frame 223 and why no one reacted to the early shots as they did to the ones at the end.

And if you deny that there was a shot at frame 285, then perhaps you can tell us why three people simultaneously dropped their heads and two spun around at enormous speed, in the same 1/6th of one second, that Zapruder reacted, as confirmed by Dr. Alvarez. Just to refresh your memory, these are the reactions.

Please watch Greer, BTW. He turned so rapidly to the front as he simultaneously slowed the limo, that some people thought his turns were humanly impossible. Alvarez said he was also reacting to the same noise that startled Zapruder.

Tell me Jay - why do you think he slowed the limo? Was he "in on it"?

And this illustrates the three passengers who dropped their heads at that same instant.

and this demonstrates that each of the limo passengers began to react in the same 1/6th of one second that Zapruder did.

Calling your critics liars, insisting they are biased, and insulting their faculties does not help you.

Why would you think it is more important that I said someone lied or was biased, than whether they really are?

This is still an important issue historically and I have no respect at all, for people who do not deal with the issues honestly. That goes double for those who pretend to be skeptics.

 

[JayUtah]

But like many evangelist claims, some statements are only worth mockery and ridicule.

Repeatedly characterizing objections to your claims as religious belief does not help you.

So, why is it that a guy with your skills won't even try to refute my analysis?

Other people manage to see the refutation. Why can't you?

Good! Then here's a chance to show off your skills.

Already did.

You should have no problem explaining to everyone, why no one heard the shot at frame 285 and why no one reacted to the early shots as they did to the ones at the end.

For the umpteenth time, these are inferences based on begged questions and subjective judgment. I have identified each of those premises.

Deal with the refutation I actually presented. Do not keep fishing for the refutation you're already prepared to address.

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, he has presented his unique hypothesis that says footage of the event shows body language which he interprets as being caused by the sound of a fourth shot, and since LHO couldn't possibly have fired a fourth shot so quickly after the previous then LHO must have had help.

Hi! UK Dave.

It's just wonderful to have such an honest young man in the forum, who wouldn't misrepresent anyone.

And readers can see exactly how honest you are, by comparing my actual analysis with your description.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

What is it about this case, that turns otherwise rational, honest people into something out of the black lagoon?

 

[JayUtah]

This is still an important issue historically...

Explain then why real historians don't even pay attention to any of these conspiracy theories.

...and I have no respect at all, for people who do not deal with the issues honestly. That goes double for those who pretend to be skeptics.

By all means keep insulting your critics and calling them liars. That's what respectable historians do to achieve credibility.

 

[JayUtah]

What is it about this case, that turns otherwise rational, honest people into something out of the black lagoon?

More insults.

The rational, honest people to whom you refer remain rational and honest. They remain rational by not bowing to begged questions and not accepting subjective judgment as objective proof, and not mistaking inferences for facts. They remain honest by subjecting your claims to the same standard of proof they apply to the conventional theory, and also by applying your standard of proof to your theory.

You don't want a rational analysis. You want a cursory analysis that lets you have all kinds of holes in your theory. You don't want honestly. You want a substantially lower standard of proof for your claims, thus your constant whining about the "rules."

 

[JayUtah]

It's just wonderful to have such an honest young man in the forum, who wouldn't misrepresent anyone.

If you had read the thread as instructed, you would probably have realized that uk_dave is not your friend.