Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
You didn't look up the definition, did you? Even when I gave you a link.

And you wonder why your investigative methods are suspect?

A primary definition, and the one I am referring to is, according to the Apple/American Heritage dictionary,

Relating to or associated with a particular person

In Latin, it means "to the man" or "to the person"

I am both a man and a person. Attacks on me, are therefore, "ad hominem". It's disappointing that I should have to explain this to you.

Would you like to discuss the visible witnesses in the Altens photo, taken at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 255? SA Hickey is a classic example of someone whose testimony is totally consistent with the empirical evidence provided by that photo.

He said he heard only one noise, and then turned to the rear. He then turned back to the front, just before hearing two shots that were extremely close together.

In the photo, we can see quite clearly that he is still turned to the rear. He is yet to turn to the front and yet to hear those two shots, with "almost no time element" between them.

I think that's a lot more important than quibbling about dictionary definitions, don't you?
 
Last edited:
"Robert Harris" is not a suitable topic for discussion.
Maybe you should quit mentioning him then?

Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?
Would you like to address the already existing rebuttals to it?

Why do you suppose he slowed the limo as he simultaneously spun around so fast that alterationists claimed his turns were humanly impossible?

Alvarez has a theory on that. Perhaps we could discuss that too.
Or you could, you know, present a comprehensive alternative hypothesis for exactly what happened and how it fits all of the evidence with no anomalies using your arbitrary standards for evidence.
 
A primary definition, and the one I am referring to is, according to the Apple/American Heritage dictionary,

Relating to or associated with a particular person

In Latin, it means "to the man" or "to the person"

I am both a man and a person. Attacks on me, are therefore, "ad hominem". It's disappointing that I should have to explain this to you.
It's more ironic than disappointing since you've demonstrated that you still don't understand what it means in this context.

I think that's a lot more important than quibbling about dictionary definitions, don't you?
When things don't go your way, then it's quibbling? Maybe if this were another thing you stopped bringing up that results in your looking out of your depth?
 
Please point to any emotional reaction to your posts, in this thread.

I am not longer willing to discuss individuals, myself included.

No, it doesn't. That is _your_ interpretation, but aside from your own say-so, you have given no reason to anyone to agree with your conclusion.

I will be happy to take your accusation seriously, but not until you present a specific, evidence based argument which attempts to refute my analysis. Just blurting out that I am wrong, isn't impressive.

It's sad that you don't see that

See what? You haven't made a specific argument yet. Why don't you start with this article?

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

but that's what it is. This is a common problem with laymen who try to analyse data that should be left to professionals -- professionals who, I would like to point out, disagree with you.

You have not established that a preponderance of experts believe that Oswald acted alone. It's just not good enough to blurt out claims that you can't confirm.

As you know, I have based much of my analysis on real experts, like Dr. Stroscio and the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez. Stroscio, BTW, was the one who first discovered the shot at frame 285. He beat me by about two months.

And even if you were correct, that does not trump the facts and evidence - something you seem to have little interest in discussing.

And yet it has.

Your claim that Oswald could have fired all the shots is interesting. I believe I can prove you wrong. Would you like to debate the issue?

What has actually happened is that, unlike your previous attempts at CT sites which are receptive to your kind of thinking,

Sorry, I don't do ad hominem.

Let me know when you are up for an honest, objective discussion about the JFK assassination.
 
It's more ironic than disappointing since you've demonstrated that you still don't understand what it means in this context.

You seem to have overlooked my reply. I will repeat it for you.

A primary definition, and the one I am referring to is, according to the Apple/American Heritage dictionary,

Relating to or associated with a particular person

In Latin, it means "to the man" or "to the person"

I am both a man and a person. Attacks on me, are therefore, "ad hominem". It's disappointing that I should have to explain this to you.

It would be much more impressive if you simply admitted you were wrong, than to continue to argue, in contradiction to the dictionary, don't you think?
 
You seem to have overlooked my reply. I will repeat it for you.

A primary definition, and the one I am referring to is, according to the Apple/American Heritage dictionary,

Relating to or associated with a particular person

In Latin, it means "to the man" or "to the person"

I am both a man and a person. Attacks on me, are therefore, "ad hominem". It's disappointing that I should have to explain this to you.

It would be much more impressive if you simply admitted you were wrong, than to continue to argue, in contradiction to the dictionary, don't you think?
LOL. You're only making it worse for yourself. If you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is, just say so. You continue to demonstrate that you don't.
 
Nellie Connally

Nellie Connally's recollection that her husband was struck by a different bullet than the one that hit the President has long been cited by conspiracy theorists as a refutation to the single bullet theory. But when we look closely at her actions in the Zapruder film, a different story emerges. Her apparent rebuttal was clearly based on a misperception about when her husband was wounded.

Let's first look at the sequence of events that she recalled. This is from her Warren Commission testimony, as she describes the "frightening noise” she heard that day,

Mrs. CONNALLY. ..I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was - he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.

Mrs. Connally heard a single noise, which provoked her to turn to her right. Then she describes looking to the rear and seeing the stricken President, whose arms have risen upward. It is only after that, that she hears the second of three shots, which she believed, wounded her husband.


In the Zapruder film, we see her begin to turn to her right at about, Z230. But before turning completely toward the President, she stops briefly, to examine her husband. From the Zapruder side of Elm St. we can see Governor Connally's contorted face and obvious reactions to his wounds, but during those critical seconds, his back was turned to his wife. Unaware that he has been wounded, she continues her turn to the rear, to check on the President.

She continues her turn at about Z249, and can probably see JFK by about frame 257. Of course, his arms have risen, exactly as she described in her testimony.

Watching John Connally during these same frames, we can see that in his pain, he twists sharply to his right, coincidentally, leaning in the general direction of the President. He will then turn back to his left, leaning toward the front. Mrs. Connally was aware of his actions, but misunderstood them, as her testimony demonstrates,

John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, "no, no, no,' and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President - I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right - the second shot was fired and hit him.

Of course, Governor Connally was not turning to check on the President. He had just suffered a massive chest wound, and was undoubtedly, turning and twisting involuntarily. In the Zapruder film, we can see him first begin to swing right, toward President Kennedy at about frame 235. He leans back to his left again by frame 285. During those same frames, his wife remains oblivious to his condition, glancing briefly to the front, (probably in response to Jean Hill who was shouting for JFK to turn for a picture), then back toward President Kennedy.

She never focuses on her husband again until frame 292. At that point, she twists abruptly back toward him, not coincidentally, at the precise instant that Mrs. Kennedy started to spin abruptly toward her own husband. Immediately after that, she pulls her husband down into her lap. Of course, this is when Mrs. Connally incorrectly believed her husband was first hit. This annotated segment makes it easy to see exactly when these things happened, including the instant when Mrs. Connally reacted to the shot that she believed, wounded the governor.

Keep a close eye on the frame numbers.

annotated.gif


Another important corroboration came from her oft repeated statement that she never again looked back at JFK after the shot that she believed, hit him.

I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband was shot.

After frame 223, when the SBT shot was fired, she turned back to the rear TWICE. But we never see her do that again, after frame 285.

Mrs. Connally's story is quite simple. She heard one report, then turned to see what happened, first briefly checking her husband who appeared to also be turning to look to the rear. Then she spotted the stricken President. At that point she has heard one "frightening noise” and seen one victim. There was no logical reason to suspect that her husband was hurt. But then she heard that second shot, and saw (for the first time) her husband's wounds. It was understandable that she thought he was first wounded, then.

We can further confirm her error through the extremely revealing fact that Governor Connally and his wife disagreed on one critical point. The Governor testified,

...I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no"

Mrs. Connally remembered differently. She testified,

I recall John saying "Oh, no, no, no, no". Then there was a second shot, and it hit John...

Obviously, she thought he was shouting only because the limousine was under fire, and that he was hit after the point when he shouted "Oh, no, no, no". Nellie was not the only one to get this false, but perfectly understandable, impression. Other witnesses and Secret Service agents also made the same error.

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

This fairly brief annotated Zapruder segment, demonstrates exactly when Mrs. Connally and others in the limo reacted. Watch closely and ask yourself one VERY critical question. When do you see her react to the shot that she believed, hit John Connally?

annotated.gif
 
A primary definition, and the one I am referring to is, according to the Apple/American Heritage dictionary,

Relating to or associated with a particular person

In Latin, it means "to the man" or "to the person"

I am both a man and a person. Attacks on me, are therefore, "ad hominem".


I'm stunned, indeed. If only there was some appropriate award I could bestow upon you.
 
I'm sorry you have to sink to the level of ad hominem attacks.

I'm sorry that the definitions of terms escape you.

Attacks on me, are therefore, "ad hominem".

No.

If this is the sort of investigation skills you've brought to bear on the JFK topic, it's no wonder you've reached the wrong conclusions.

I am not longer willing to discuss individuals, myself included.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have made it personal in the first place. Making personal quips and then claiming to be "no longer willing" to discuss them is cowardly.

I will be happy to take your accusation seriously, but not until you present a specific, evidence based argument which attempts to refute my analysis.

And _AGAIN_ you shift the burden of proof. I've explained to you before why this approach is doomed to fail. No serious professional will employ it because it entails chasing after every fringe idea ever put forth. It is YOUR job to demonstrate, not just state, your case. Saying that their reaction somehow support your interpretation is NOT enough.

It's just not good enough to blurt out claims that you can't confirm.

The irony of that statement is deafening.

As you know, I have based much of my analysis on real experts, like Dr. Stroscio and the Nobel prize winning physicist, Dr. Luis Alvarez. Stroscio, BTW, was the one who first discovered the shot at frame 285. He beat me by about two months.

What is the relevance of their expertise to the topic at hand ?

And even if you were correct, that does not trump the facts and evidence

No. If I'm correct, what you have presented is NOT evidence at all. You are continuing to misunderstand my points. I would advise you to pay attention to what people post, specifically by reading slowly and with the assumption that there's something of value in there.

Your claim that Oswald could have fired all the shots is interesting. I believe I can prove you wrong.

Go right ahead.

Sorry, I don't do ad hominem.

You do, but since you have no idea what those are, I doubt you realise it.
 
The statements are hardly "random". The Warren Commission confirmed that "most" relevant witnesses said the same thing.

I went into great detail about the shooter locations in this presentation which I previously linked.

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

They are random in the sense of a random draw from a bag. Put some context with them and a theory to which they are relevant if you want to make them into something meaningful.

Pardon me if I don't think of a hand off to YouTube as an answer to what is really a simple question. Where were the shots aimed at JFK fired from? Specific locations or rough directions and estimated distances will do as a start.
 
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 think that Oswald acted alone, because I know no evidence to the contrary.

Edit:

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.

To the best of my knowledge there was a test conducted by the NBC and the result was, that it was possible to fire the shots in the given time.
 
Last edited:
They are random in the sense of a random draw from a bag.

They are truthful. That is all that matters to me.

Put some context with them and a theory to which they are relevant if you want to make them into something meaningful.

There is all kinds of context in that presentation. Watch all of it.

Pardon me if I don't think of a hand off to YouTube as an answer to what is really a simple question.

Youtube has worked quite well. After more than 12 million views of my presentations, I have been messaged with positive responses by academics, doctors and scientists. That includes more than a few ex-nutters.

But why would the media matter? The facts and evidence wouldn't change, if I flashed the video onto an old cardboard box.

Where were the shots aimed at JFK fired from? Specific locations or rough directions and estimated distances will do as a start.

I thought you said you watched that part of the presentation?

Watch it again; perhaps you were in the wrong section.
 
I'm sorry that the definitions of terms escape you.

Mr. Belz, I am a bit confused here. You attacked my work in a vague, nonspecific manner and when I asked you to be specific, you said I was trying shift the burden of proof.

I think that if you attack someone's articles or presentations, you bear an obligation to be specific about what you are attacking, don't you?

BTW, I would appreciate your expert advice on something, if you would be so kind.

Did you read the article on Nellie Connally? She said she heard the shot that she believed, wounded her husband, AFTER looking back at JFK. Looking at the Zapruder film, when do you think she turned far enough to see Kennedy?

And when do you see her react as she described in her testimony, to the second shot which she thought hit her husband? Perhaps this short Zapruder segment will be helpful to you.


nellie2.gif
 
Last edited:
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??

Argumentum ad hominem noted. Why is the mental state of the tester important for the results of his test?
 
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.

Would you refer to the part of the report where this is stated, please?
 
There is all kinds of context in that presentation. Watch all of it.



Youtube has worked quite well. After more than 12 million views of my presentations, I have been messaged with positive responses by academics, doctors and scientists. That includes more than a few ex-nutters.

But why would the media matter? The facts and evidence wouldn't change, if I flashed the video onto an old cardboard box.



I thought you said you watched that part of the presentation?

Watch it again; perhaps you were in the wrong section.

The media matters because this is the media in which you have engaged in the discussion, not YouTube. How about something like this... "At n:nn in my YouTube documentary I provide the answer to your question based on a discussion that runs from n:nn to n:nn." Then go on to make the salient points in answer to my question here, in print, that the documentary fully develops. Really is that too much to do as documentary producer when asking someone to spend time on his work?
 
Last edited:
Would you refer to the part of the report where this is stated, please?

I never said it was in the HSCA report. He said it in his book on the assassination, written shortly after the HSCA closed down. I do not currently have that book, but this might be helpful to you,

Tovin Lapan for the Las Vegas Sun (quoting Blakey):

"I think the mob set Oswald up as a patsy. It's not that I think (Oswald) didn't shoot (Kennedy), but that I think he was set up so (investigators) would focus on the Cuban connections (and not the mob). "

David Talbot for Salon:

"[Blakey] would emerge as the Warren Report's most authoritative critic and a firm believer that Kennedy had died as the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by [New Orleans Godfather Carlos] Marcello and his Mafia ally, Santo Trafficante, the Florida godfather who had been driven out of the lucrative Havana casino business by Castro and who had been recruited in the CIA plot to kill the Cuban leader."

You should also find this interview with Blakey by PBS, to be quite interesting. In it, he speaks a lot about Marcello.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom