Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

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

I am no longer discussing anyone who is not directly related to the assassination. I will only say that the video created by this anonymous Youtuber fails to demonstrate that he ever hit his target, even once. And he never claimed to have successfully matched the performance that Oswald would have had to achieve in order to hit Kennedy at 313, with 1.5 seconds of reload and aim time.

Rather than a character like this, I will go with legitimate tests by the FBI and the HSCA.

 

[Robert Harris]

But are they meaningful? Does that matter to you?

The truth is ALWAYS meaningful, my friend - always.

As a skeptic, I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

 

[Robert Harris]

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?

Yes, because preliminary information is often critical to understanding what is said later.

For example, much of what I said toward the end, about possible sniper locations is supported by the earliest part of the presentation. That's because my narrative was designed to follow the limo down Elm St. and I discussed possible sniper locations after that.

It is not important that I say a sniper may have been in a particular location. Everybody and his brother has a theory about that. What is important is the supporting evidence, and often, the preceding evidence in the presentation.

 

[JayUtah]

I am no longer discussing anyone who is not directly related to the assassination. I will only say...

So you want your evidence to stand, but you don't want to discuss factors that might affect the value of that evidence.

Further, you're picking and choosing which statements from your critics you are obliged to consider. How is that not you trying to set arbitrary rules to govern the debate in your favor? As I recall, you were in vocal opposition to that.

 

[Pooneil]

The truth is ALWAYS meaningful, my friend - always.

As a skeptic, I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

The sky was blue in Dallas on November 22, 1963, so LHO acted alone!


Care to put your "truth" forward in a meaningful context or theory to answer the question of who shot JFK.

 

[Robert Harris]

The media matters because this is the media in which you have engaged in the discussion, not YouTube.

So.. do you think that since this is a forum, I should only cite things I said in forums??

I have spent countless hours on Youtube, listening to lectures and discussion by Dawkins, Harris, Hitch, Krauss, DeGrasse, Sagon and the mindbogglingly sexy and intelligent, Cristina Rad.

I have (re)watched the entire, original Cosmo series as well as the new one. I also learned some very useful procedures about how to upgrade and repair my Macs.

And I have been entertained by Garfunkel and Oates, Wierd Al, and a lot of cats, and I've learned all kinds of guitar tricks from some of the best musicians on the planet.

It's been three years since I had cable.

So, what is your complaint about Youtube?

 

[Robert Harris]

The sky was blue in Dallas on November 22, 1963, so LHO acted alone!


Care to put your "truth" forward in a meaningful context or theory to answer the question of who shot JFK.

Have you watched the entire video yet?

After you do that, just tell me what it is that you don't understand. Please be specific.

 

[Robert Harris]

So you want your evidence to stand, but you don't want to discuss factors that might affect the value of that evidence.

OOPS!!

Too many "you"s in that sentence.

Let's stick with the case, shall we? I recently asked,

"Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?"

You replied,

Asked and answered. Your interpretation of his movement and the reasons for it are rife with assumption and subjectivity. That you repeatedly label it "fact" does not make those flaws go away.

When you said, "asked and answered", did you mean that you already told me whether you want to discuss Greer? I don't remember anythinkg specific that you said about that.

And would you please be specific about exactly what "assumptions" you think I have made, which are inappropriate?

Also, would you mind citing verbatim, what I said that you think was subjective?

It is easy to count the frames during which Greer turned from rear to front. Following 285, that works out to exactly, four, which means he made that turn in 2/9ths of one second.

Do you find that a more suitable description of his turn?

I would also be interested in discussing the slowdown of the limo, which was probably, the greatest mistake of this man's career. Perhaps we could list the different possible reasons for that blunder, in conjunction with the rapidity of his turn and his own testimony about what he was hearing then.

We might also factor in the fact, that he began that extremely rapid turn in the same 6th of one second that several people ducked and according to Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, Abraham Zapruder exhibited startle reactions.

Based on that very objective and empirical evidence, I think the most probable explanation is that he was startled by a gunshot - the same gunshot which caused the "concussion" he described, at the time of the second shot.

What do you think?

 

[JayUtah]

What do you think?

I think you're deliberately evading my questions.

 

[Robert Harris]

The sky was blue in Dallas on November 22, 1963, so LHO acted alone!

Well, so far, that's the best argument for the lone nut theory that I have heard around here!

 

[Robert Harris]

I think you're deliberately evading my questions.

Mr. Utah, I think I made it very clear that I do not respond to questions about "Robert Harris" or anyone else who is not associated with the case.

Do you have the same kind of aversion to discussing issues material to the conspiracy question? If not, please address the questions I asked. They are quite important to whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. I'll repost them for you:


I recently asked,

"Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?"

You replied,

Asked and answered. Your interpretation of his movement and the reasons for it are rife with assumption and subjectivity. That you repeatedly label it "fact" does not make those flaws go away.

When you said, "asked and answered", did you mean that you already told me whether you want to discuss Greer? I don't remember anything specific that you said about that.

And would you please be specific about exactly what "assumptions" you think I have made, which are inappropriate?

Also, would you mind citing verbatim, what I said that you think was subjective?

It is easy to count the frames during which Greer turned from rear to front. Following 285, that works out to exactly, four, which means he made that turn in 2/9ths of one second.

Do you find that a more suitable description of his turn?

I would also be interested in discussing the slowdown of the limo, which was probably, the greatest mistake of this man's career. Perhaps we could list the different possible reasons for that blunder, in conjunction with the rapidity of his turn and his own testimony about what he was hearing then.

We might also factor in the fact, that he began that extremely rapid turn in the same 6th of one second that several people ducked and according to Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, Abraham Zapruder exhibited startle reactions.

Based on that very objective and empirical evidence, I think the most probable explanation is that he was startled by a gunshot - the same gunshot which caused the "concussion" he described, at the time of the second shot.

What do you think?

 

[JayUtah]

Based on that very objective and empirical evidence, I think...

Belaboring your belief to be acting objectively and empirically does not make it so, especially when from that basis you launch entirely into speculation of why people moved in the way you say you observe. You have to invent silent gunshots to shoehorn the evidence into your "abrupt movement = gunshot" premise.

 

[JayUtah]

Mr. Utah, I think I made it very clear that I do not respond to questions about "Robert Harris" or anyone else who is not associated with the case.

Yet you can't resist doing so. At this point it's clear that it's an evasion tactic.

I find myself having to repeat my answers several times for you. No, I will not repeat myself ad nauseam. And no, I will not dissect the minutiae of your walls of screed when the rebuttal I gave is sufficient.

 

[Robert Harris]

Belaboring your belief to be acting objectively and empirically does not make it so, especially when from that basis you launch entirely into speculation of why people moved in the way you say you observe. You have to invent silent gunshots to shoehorn the evidence into your "abrupt movement = gunshot" premise.

Mr. Utah,

If my questions are too complex or confusing, please let me know and I will try to clarify them for you.

I recently asked,

"Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?"

You replied,

Asked and answered. Your interpretation of his movement and the reasons for it are rife with assumption and subjectivity. That you repeatedly label it "fact" does not make those flaws go away.

When you said, "asked and answered", did you mean that you already told me whether you want to discuss Greer? I don't remember anything specific that you said about that.

And would you please be specific about exactly what "assumptions" you think I have made, which are inappropriate?

Also, would you mind citing verbatim, what I said that you think was subjective?

It is easy to count the frames during which Greer turned from rear to front. Following 285, that works out to exactly, four, which means he made that turn in 2/9ths of one second.

Do you find that a more suitable description of his turn?

I would also be interested in discussing the slowdown of the limo, which was probably, the greatest mistake of this man's career. Perhaps we could list the different possible reasons for that blunder, in conjunction with the rapidity of his turn and his own testimony about what he was hearing then.

We might also factor in the fact, that he began that extremely rapid turn in the same 6th of one second that several people ducked and according to Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, Abraham Zapruder exhibited startle reactions.

Based on that very objective and empirical evidence, I think the most probable explanation is that he was startled by a gunshot - the same gunshot which caused the "concussion" he described, at the time of the second shot.

What do you think?

 

[Robert Harris]

Yet you can't resist doing so. At this point it's clear that it's an evasion tactic.

I find myself having to repeat my answers several times for you. No, I will not repeat myself ad nauseam. And no, I will not dissect the minutiae of your walls of screed when the rebuttal I gave is sufficient.

Mr. Utah, I'm quite certain that you never answered these questions. Would you please do so - with specificity?

I recently asked,

"Would you like to talk about Bill Greer's testimony and visible reactions?"

You replied,

Asked and answered. Your interpretation of his movement and the reasons for it are rife with assumption and subjectivity. That you repeatedly label it "fact" does not make those flaws go away.

When you said, "asked and answered", did you mean that you already told me whether you want to discuss Greer? I don't remember anything specific that you said about that.

And would you please be specific about exactly what "assumptions" you think I have made, which are inappropriate?

Also, would you mind citing verbatim, what I said that you think was subjective?

It is easy to count the frames during which Greer turned from rear to front. Following 285, that works out to exactly, four, which means he made that turn in 2/9ths of one second.

Do you find that a more suitable description of his turn?

I would also be interested in discussing the slowdown of the limo, which was probably, the greatest mistake of this man's career. Perhaps we could list the different possible reasons for that blunder, in conjunction with the rapidity of his turn and his own testimony about what he was hearing then.

We might also factor in the fact, that he began that extremely rapid turn in the same 6th of one second that several people ducked and according to Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, Abraham Zapruder exhibited startle reactions.

Based on that very objective and empirical evidence, I think the most probable explanation is that he was startled by a gunshot - the same gunshot which caused the "concussion" he described, at the time of the second shot.

What do you think?

 

[Belz...]

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

No, I said that your conclusions were only your layman's interpretation, and did not constitute facts. Then you tried to ask me to defend the official narrative, which, as I pointed out, is shifting the burden of proof. I am speaking about your methodology and mindset. We can evaluate any evidence you present after we solve that very basic problem.

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?

You seem to like that word a lot, "attack". I don't know why.

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

My expertise is computer programming. I don't think I will be an expert witness on this topic.

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?

I don't think that's very relevant. First, she could simply be mistaken. You'd have to present much stronger evidence to support her contention. And also explain why it's relevant.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Ah, now THAT is an ad hominem attack.

 

[Belz...]

OOPS!!

Too many "you"s in that sentence.

Again, you do not understand what personalisation is. Hint: it isn't about the number of second person singular personal pronouns in the post.

 

[JayUtah]

Mr. Utah, I'm quite certain that you never answered these questions.

I did. You have a history of ignoring posts that aren't the kind of rebuttal you were hoping for. Do not keep fishing.

 

[Robert Harris]

Belaboring your belief to be acting objectively and empirically does not make it so, especially when from that basis you launch entirely into speculation of why people moved in the way you say you observe. You have to invent silent gunshots to shoehorn the evidence into your "abrupt movement = gunshot" premise.

Mr. Utah, I have asked you very specific questions, and in some cases have claimed that particular descriptions are based on empirical evidence - or in this case, visible, measurable movements in the Zapruder film.

Rather than throwing around these sweeping, ambiguous accusations, why don't you cite verbatim, the claims I made which you feel I have misidentified as "empirical".

As for your claim that I "invented" silent shots, I am open to a better explanation for why almost no one heard more than one of the early shots - and particularly, the people in the limo, who without exception (other than JFK of course) said they heard only a single shot, prior to the very end of the attack, or prior to events which occurred well after frame 223, such as Mrs. Connally's turn to the rear, seeing JFK in distress.

And while we are discussing that, perhaps you can explain why no one reacted to the early shots as they did following 285 and 313. Tell me sir, do you see anyone reacting like this, prior to frame 285?

The HSCA tests confirmed that Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 decibels at street level, which as I'm sure you know, is 16 times louder than 90db, the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur as well as permanent hearing loss, with extended exposure.

How could those passengers, NOT have reacted dramatically to such an unexpected and outrageously loud, high powered rifle shot?

And how could so many people have failed to even notice one of those shots??

This is the important stuff, Mr. Utah. It is a million times more important than our petty bickering and insults.