Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

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

I am not looking for help. I am looking for truth.

Other people manage to see the refutation.

What refutation?

Tell me about it. Why do I have to beg to hear about these devastating, phantom rebuttals?

Already did.

No sir. You have never discussed, let alone refuted my analysis on the shots.

For the umpteenth time, these are inferences based on begged questions and subjective judgment.

Nonsense!

The scientific analysis by Dr. Alvarez and later, the similarly quallified, Dr. Michael Stroscio, demonstrated that there was a loud and startling noise at precisely frame 285.

And I proved to you that people exhibited clear startle reactions, all beginning in the same 1/6th of one second that Zapruder reacted. Of course, you evaded all of that evidence.

I have identified each of those premises.

You "identified", based on your purely subjective and ridiculously biased OPINION.

I have shown you empirical, verifiable evidence which demonstrates that these reactions were simultaneous and representative of exactly what those people said they were hearing then - a pair of closely bunched, startling gunshots. The reactions came in a pair. Watch Kellerman and Greer duck and spin, in perfect tandem with one another, in reaction to each of those final shots.

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

You didn't post any "refutations", or if you did, they never appeared on my screen.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not shift the burden of proof.

You have NO evidence to support your claim that Oswald acted alone.

Stop trying to hide that fact behind some silly rules, fabricated by a pack of nutters, trying to dodge their responsibility to support their theory.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not looking for help. I am looking for truth.

You're looking for neither. You're looking for validation, if not outright adulation and worship. You want to be the guy who busted the JFK case wide open. This is why your article amps up the supposedly sociological and historical sensation of your findings.

Tell me about it. Why do I have to beg to hear about these devastating, phantom rebuttals?

You beg as a rhetorical ploy. As I said, others can see the rebuttals. If you want to pretend you cannot, it doesn't affect me in the least.

And I proved to you that people exhibited clear startle reactions...

Begging the question all over again does not establish it.

You "identified", based on your purely subjective and ridiculously biased OPINION.

I have made no subjective judgment. I've made no claim at all. Pointing out that your claim relies upon subjective judgment is not that. I'm prepared to allow readers to decide for themselves which of us, if either, is biased.

I have shown you empirical, verifiable evidence...

I daresay you don't know what either of those words means.

Let me ask you one question: Have you ever personally been to Dealey Plaza?

 

[JayUtah]

You have NO evidence to support your claim that Oswald acted alone.

Then what are you so desperately trying to undermine and explain away?

Stop trying to hide that fact behind some silly rules, fabricated by a pack of nutters, trying to dodge their responsibility to support their theory.

Stop whining. You have not stopped trying to shift the burden of proof since you arrived here. You want to be seen as a talented investigator, but you won't pay the price. I asked you to explain why your theory, among several similar ones, is categorically ignored by real historians. Why haven't you answered?

As some have said, maybe someone will fall for your claim. Not me.

 

[JohnG]

Welcome to the forum, Robert!

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.

Well, I don't know about Sagon, but I'm fairly certain my hero Sagan believed that Oswald acted alone.

He's a bonafied lunatic.

That's not really a thing...

LOL! What a crock of babblage!

...and neither is that.

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

Yikes. If you hang around here long enough and lose the attitude you may someday come to realize just how big a fool you've made yourself with that passive-agressive attempt at advice for that particular forum member.

Look, Robert, I'm sure IRL you're a perfectly nice guy and a credit to your community and all that, but you are completely out of your depth regarding skepticism/critical thinking in general and the JFK assassination in particular. Numerous people very much like you have visited this site (and the JREF forum before it) with the aim to school the poor benighted "pseudo-skeptics" on how they've been bamboozled by "The Man" regarding the JFK assassination. None of them made a convincing case. In fact few of them presented any sort of counter-theory at all. The few that tried came of with gems like the limo driver firing the fatal shot (yes, really).

Your opinions are nothing new and have been refuted numerous times in this thread and the two epic threads that preceded it. The only reason the thread continues is because once or twice a year someone like you shows up with a lot of opinions and attitude...and an unwillingness to read through earlier posts/threads.

 

[JayUtah]

In fact few of them presented any sort of counter-theory at all. The few that tried came of with gems like the limo driver firing the fatal shot (yes, really).

If memory serves, Harris was once in the "shot fired from the sewer" camp. That too has been thoroughly discussed.

...and an unwillingness to read through earlier posts/threads.

This I can't emphasize enough. Newcomers to the forum are likely to read threads on interesting topics from the beginning. They won't drop in right as some particular proponent decided to make an appearance. Hence the notion every JFK theorist advances, that the discussion must reset for him because he has lately arrived, tends to look rather silly when viewed in the lurker context.

And yes, this thread has persisted with the same cast of characters literally for years. A new proponent shows up, plays the same shell game, repeats the same tired claims, and eventually flees in the belief that he has somehow prevailed. The thread title is apt: it never ends.

 

[Robert Harris]

You're looking for neither. You're looking for validation, if not outright adulation and worship.

I'm sorry you have to resort to ad hominem smears. That's a poor substitute for dealing with the facts and evidence.

You want to be the guy who busted the JFK case wide open.

What a wonderful mind reader you are.

As the greatest thing since Kreskin, perhaps you can also explain why I have stated numerous times, that I was not the person who discovered the shot at frame 285. That was done by Dr. Michael Stroscio, who suggested in a paper from 12/1964, that the startling noise which Alvarez speculated was a siren, was actually the gunshot that caused James Tague's minor wound.

If you had read the article I linked for you, you would have known that and not have had to make an ass out of yourself by making such an ugly, dishonest accusation.

This is why your article amps up the supposedly sociological and historical sensation of your findings.

Please cite the part where I did that - verbatim.

You beg as a rhetorical ploy.

Beats the hell out of endless, incoherent babblage.

As I said, others can see the rebuttals.

What is the best "rebuttal" you have seen so far?

Please be very specific.

If you want to pretend you cannot, it doesn't affect me in the least.

Tell everyone about the best rebuttal you've seen so far.

I have made no subjective judgment. I've made no claim at all.

That's strange. How did you manage to "refute" me if you made "no claims at all"?

Pointing out that your claim relies upon subjective judgment is not that.

You think Dr. Alvarez's analyses are the product of "subjective judgement"??

You think the fact that these people ducked and spun around at ridiculous speed, all simultaneous with Zapruder's reactions is "subjective"??

That's quite an amazing claim, since I just showed you empirical evidence of the simultaneous nature of their reactions. Are you actually going to claim that all that was a coincidence?

I daresay you don't know what either of those words means.

Have you noticed how dependent you have become on these lame smears and insults?

Let me ask you one question: Have you ever personally been to Dealey Plaza?

Yes I have - several times.

Why do you ask?

 

[Robert Harris]

Then what are you so desperately trying to undermine and explain away?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for breach of rule 0 and rule 12

You claimed that my analysis was based entirely on subjective opinion.

I asked you if you considered the analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio to be "subjective".

I also asked if you thought my claim that these people dropped their heads and spun around in perfect unison with Zapruder's reaction, was based on subjective opinion, rather than empirical proof.

Please address those questions.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry you have to resort to ad hominem smears. That's a poor substitute for dealing with the facts and evidence.

You opened the door to the question of your motives. Don't whine because people come to different conclusions than you regarding what you are trying to accomplish.

What a wonderful mind reader you are.

I don't claim to read minds. Luckily I don't have to in order to understand how conspiracy theorists work. I have a long and well-documented history addressing them. If you would but read the thread and its predecessors, you'd know that. But I don't think you will.

What is the best "rebuttal" you have seen so far?

Please be very specific.

Your claim is an inference based on subjective judgment and begged questions.

That's strange. How did you manage to "refute" me if you made "no claims at all"?

You really don't know the difference between a refutation and an affirmative claim? That explains a lot.

You think Dr. Alvarez's analyses are the product of "subjective judgement"??

Yes, as well as your use of it. Perhaps many of the readers don't understand the complex interplay between the findings of Hunt & Landis and Strauss. In addition, Alvarez' speculative attribution of the claimed reactions to various sources is not sacrosanct.

You think the fact that these people ducked and spun around at ridiculous speed, all simultaneous with Zapruder's reactions is "subjective"??

I think your attribution of it to an otherwise unaccounted gunshot is a subjective judgment, as well as the timing. The fact that in other cases you have to resort to speculating about silenced gunshots in order to cram the evidence into your theory is ample demonstration of your desperation.

Have you noticed how dependent you have become on these lame smears and insults?

Have you stopped beating your wife? You may whine all you like about your allegedly shabby treatment at the hands of what you seem to call pseudo-skeptics. You attempted to smear me based on what you characterized as presumptive judgment about your approach. Yet you refrained from commenting when I identified all the parts of your subsequent posts that fell directly in line with that characterization.

You may think highly of your findings, but you are just another conspiracy theorist. History ignores you.

Why do you ask?

People who visit there are surprised at how many noises there are to react to, and how they echo about the area. Most conspiracy theories are directed toward people who have never visited the area.

Reconcile those propositions with your claims.

 

[JayUtah]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Please address those questions.

Wow, just how desperate are you? As I mentioned earlier, you first have the burden to show you are worth being taken seriously. Do you really think poking and prodding while I compose a response is really conducive toward that end? You found someone who will talk to you at all, and you hound them relentlessly to respond to you within minutes or seconds in the middle of the night. And you have the audacity to indirectly accuse that person of a mental disorder.

Yes, I think any question regarding your motives (i.e., a plea for attention, denigration of your critics) is well settled by your latest expression of obsession.

 

[Robert Harris]

Apologies

I realize that I have permitted myself to be dragged down into the muck, by the local trolls here, and have started to sound like them, myself. Please accept my apology for that.

I guess I didn't expect this kind of ad hominem smears and dishonesty to exist in such a highly regarded forum as this one, and was caught a bit off guard.

From this point on, I will only discuss the facts and evidence associated with this crime. Neither I, nor my adversaries should ever be a topic of discussion.

I will also not waste time on those who do nothing more than make up excuses for why they won't present evidence to support their own theories. When they do that, they only reinforce the fact that they are wrong.

One other thing. I'm surprised that no one has replied to this article, which demonstrates quite conclusively, that CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally and probably JFK. Is it possible that everyone here agrees with me??

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

And this presentation demonstrates how members of the Secret Service, tacitly confirmed the shot at frame 285. In expressing their rather surprising disagreement with the SBT, Clint Hill and others, demonstrated that they made the same mistake that Nellie made, thinking that the 285 shot wounded Governor Connally. Like her, they didn't realize that the gov. was hit earlier, by a silent shot at frame 223.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqqWwG_bbE

 

[Robert Harris]

You opened the door to the question of your motives. Don't whine because people come to different conclusions than you regarding what you are trying to accomplish.

You claimed that my analysis was based entirely on subjective opinion.

I asked you if you considered the analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio to be "subjective".

I also asked if you thought my claim that these people dropped their heads and spun around in perfect unison with Zapruder's reaction, was based on subjective opinion, rather than empirical proof.

Please address those questions.

 

[Hans]

why they won't present evidence to support their own theories.

Hello Robert

I lurk and have for many years an I can assure you that you will never, ever be able to shift the burden of proof.

Never

Ever

EVER

 

[Robert Harris]

You opened the door to the question of your motives. Don't whine because people come to different conclusions than you regarding what you are trying to accomplish.

How could I have "opened the door"? Your accusation was not made in response to anything I said. In fact, it was made at the top of your post.

I don't claim to read minds. Luckily I don't have to in order to understand how conspiracy theorists work.

You seem to have a real "us and them" problem. Have you ever considered that some people simply want to learn about this crime and figure out what happened?

How do you separate the honest researchers from the scammers, Jay?

Or do you just presume that everyone who disagrees with you is sewage?

That kind of bigotry and stereotyping is sadly, all too common in this country, and I suppose many others. What would be wrong with giving people the benefit of the doubt, until they do something that you are certain, is genuinely foul?

Even before I posted nothing other than an introductory greeting, you claimed to have me pegged, knowing exactly what I was going to say and all the terrible sins I was going to commit.

But you must know by now, that NO ONE has ever presented the analyses and conclusions that I have. You should also know that I disagree with almost as much of the CT dogma that you do. I really, really do.

I ran a forum for several years, and finally closed it down, because it had become infested with absolute idiots, and I found myself spending 6 hours a day, debunking everything from "Jackie did it", to the "10 trillion to one odds that such and such witness would die".

We need to stop wasting time and start talking about several levels of evidence, each pointing to a single conclusion.

1. The simultaneous reactions of the limo passengers.

2. The scientific analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio.

3. The very large consensus of witnesses who reported only one early shot at then closely bunched shots at the end.

4. The total absence of visible startle reactions to the early shots and the apparent fact that one of them seems to have been totally inaudible.

It's just not good enough to blow all this off, with sweeping generalizations and claims that it's all about subjective opinion. It isn't. The people ducking and spinning are easily measurable, as is the time between events, thanks to the Zapruder film.

And the scientific evidence is certainly not based on subjectivity as anyone who has read Alvarez's paper, knows.

Let's stick with the facts and evidence, Jay.

The other crap is just a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[Belz...]

Conspiracists invariably opt for the absolutist approach. They tacitly argue that the conventional hypothesis has to be credible to some arbitrary standard of proof. Then they overtly claim that if it fails to meet that standard it must be set aside no matter whether any other hypothesis exists. It is absolutely untenable, according to them.

Then having dispatched the conventional hypothesis, they consider some other hypothesis either as the default that holds upon failure of the conventional one, or else as one that meets only prima facie plausibility and can rise no further.

They're kind of like creationists in that fashion.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, I finally my points are about to be addressed !

LOL!!

Well, that bodes well.

Gotta love how you guys have already refuted what I never said and what you have no idea that I am going to say.

Perhaps you should read that again, because what you just posted there has no relation to what you quoted.

Are you so incapable of refuting the proof I presented, that Oswald could not have fired all the shots, that you are desperately hoping that you can refute something I else that I say in the future?

What proof ? You just claimed that he couldn't have. If I tell you that I can fly by flapping my arms like a bird, is that proof that I can ?

You have NEVER proven that Oswald acted alone

And that, sir, is why I said what you quoted but didn't respond to, above: even after having been told about the burden of proof, which should at the very least make you understand that, as the consensus, the "official narrative" no longer needs to be proven, you continue to act as if no one has ever told you that. This doesn't mark you as a particularily honest poster.

And not only are you incapable of proving the Oswald did act alone, you are incapable of proving that he COULD have acted alone.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about ? He had a rifle and fired three shots, missing his target twice, in eight seconds. That's not exactly crack shot, Hollywood-level marksmanship, there. What, exactly, do you think is impossible, here ?

That is flatly untrue, as numerous polls have proven.

Popular polls ? Well, golly me, laymen disagree with experts. I guess we should consider their opinion on the matter, too !

 

[Belz...]

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.

Ah, so there you admit that he _could_ have fired the shots in the alloted amount of time. It's strange that you require us to convince you of something you already have concluded, then.

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

A thousand, even better ! Are you trying to argue that, because more people would have more chance to succeed, then that's what happened ? This only works IF it's a conspiracy in the first place. Don't you see that you are using circular arguments ?

What a sadly lame excuse!

No. It's your burden of proof, and here's why: Take any "official" explanation about any similar event, one you actually believe, this time. Do you think that it's your job, after, say, a court has delivered a verdict and sentence, to "prove" the case to everyone who tries to come up with an alternative ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm sorry you have to resort to ad hominem smears.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

.

Beginnings of two sequential posts. Just sayin'.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry you have to resort to ad hominem smears.

Why am I not surprised that you don't know what an ad hominem is ?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Beam in your eye, Bob.

I realize that I have permitted myself to be dragged down into the muck, by the local trolls here

That's not an apology. That's a different kind of insult. "Troll", now, being a person who refuses to be swayed by your clumsy debating tactics. YOU have a burden of proof, which you have not met, and that has been the story so far. Man up, debate like a rational person, or expect derision.

Your accusation was not made in response to anything I said.

That is a lie. You said you looked for the truth, and Jay disagreed, echoing my own opinion, which I did not post because his response was better than the one I had prepared. It's a direct response to what you said. You brought your motives into the conversation, but didn't expect anyone to respond to it ?

You seem to have a real "us and them" problem.

Coming from a conspiracy theorist, that is a hilarious statement.

 

[Tolls]

So, under the current standing idea (Oswald did it by himself), which has plenty of evidence behind it, we have approximate timings of:
155(ish), 223, and 313
Note that the timing of the first shot could well be before 150, as there is some analysis to that effect.

Robert is saying there is another shot at 285 (or thereabouts) based on the movements in the car. I have yet to see anything that actually shows it is possible to interpret the movements as being reactions to a specific sound, and not simply reactions to the events in the car caused by both the first shot and the later (223) shot that struck both JFK and Connally.

So really Robert needs to have something more than an "it looks like" to show the existence of this extra (sub sonic) shot.

As a note, the work done by Landis and Hunt was about startle reactions...these are not large motion reactions, which are all that are visible on a film like the Zapruder one. So you cannot in good conscience apply the startle times to these larger motions.