Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

Mr. Utah, I have asked you very specific questions...

And I explained how and why they are irrelevant to my rebuttal. Do not keep fishing for the discussion you planned to have. Deal with the actual discussion.

 

[BStrong]

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/

Just a note on Marcello.

Compared to Giancana and Trafficante, Carlos Marcello was a man of peace. He was noted more for his ability to get things done by coercion rather than violence, and his own comment on the subject was that he "knew how everybody likes their coffee."

The problem with all the "Mafia did it" theories is that the mob has never been known for subtly in their business when it comes to killing, and there's been no history of documented instances of LCN setting up individuals as "patsies" when they decide to do away with someone or retire one of their own.

They can and will disappear a target, but there's not one example that stands up to scrutiny that documents the use of a "patsy" in any of their business dealings wrt murder.

I'm Sicilian, my folks are from NOLA, and I was raised to believe that LCN did it, but my training and experience in the world have taught me better.

ETA for Robert - a thread I started a few years back about my family and the JFK assassination:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8512982&postcount=1

 

[Robert Harris]

:

Again, you do not understand what personalisation is.

Sorry my friend, but I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

What IS suitable are the questions I asked you.

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.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Will you be answering these questions soon, or would you prefer to evade them? I don't want to pressure you.

 

[Pooneil]

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

Your continued misreading of my posts is a clear demonstration of why no one should accept your interpretation of anything nor go to your YouTube site. You choose an interpretation that is at odds with the plain words of my questions that gives you an excuse not to provide a plain answer.

Sorry my friend, but I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

I have spent countless hours on Youtube...

I have (re)watched the entire...

And I have been entertained by ...

It's been three years since I had cable.

If you don't want the discussion to be about you, then answer the question of where the shots aimed at JFK were fired from. Then we can talk about that.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry my friend, but I am not a suitable topic for discussion.

I'm equally sorry, but you do not get to decide what is a suitable topic for discussion.

I get the clear impression that you're using this "saying 'you' is attacking me" nonsense in order to dodge some very difficult questions and criticisms of your methods and arguments.

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

I have answered this already. Did you skip the rest of my post ? My expertise is computer programming.

Will you be answering these questions soon, or would you prefer to evade them? I don't want to pressure you.

I HAVE answered your question. Why did you snip it from the quote and acted as if it weren't there ? Here it is:

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.

 

[Robert Harris]

And I explained how and why they are irrelevant to my rebuttal.

I realize that sir. But they are extremely relevant to the question of conspiracy, which I'm sure is at the top of your priority list.

But I don't want to pressure you. Let's try a simpler question.

Would you please tell me if you see any inaccuracies in this brief presentation I made, which itemizes Roy Kellerman's reactions following frame 285. In particular, I am interested in your opinion as to whether he shrugged his shoulders upward for a fraction of a second, which would be a textbook startle reaction as defined by Hunt & Landis.

Also, would you agree that he raised his left hand to his ear for about 5/18ths of one second, as he was simultaneously dropping his head?

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

 

[Robert Harris]

I did.

Perhaps I am having technical issues. Would you be so kind as to cut 'n paste your reply in your response to this post?

I am very much interested in what you said.


Thanks in advance.

 

[BazBear]

Robert, you continue to portray your subjective interpretation of the Zapruder film as objective and empirical evidence. It is no such thing, no matter how much you wish it was.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm equally sorry, but you do not get to decide what is a suitable topic for discussion.

I'm afraid I do, sir.

I get the clear impression that you're using this "saying 'you' is attacking me" nonsense in order to dodge some very difficult questions and criticisms of your methods and arguments.

I do not deal in ad hominem attacks sir. They are in violation of the forum rules, and quite frankly, discussions about "Robert Harris", bore me to tears.

I have answered this already. Did you skip the rest of my post ? My expertise is computer programming.

No sir, you evaded the question. I asked when she looked back at JFK and you said,

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.

To properly answer the question, you would need to provide an approximate frame number. As to the relevance of this, we will talking about that at length, assuming you are willing to actually discuss the case, rather than your adversaries.

 

[Robert Harris]

Robert, you continue to portray your subjective interpretation of the Zapruder film as objective and empirical evidence. It is no such thing, no matter how much you wish it was.

Please be specific about what I said that you believe is subjective. Please cite me verbatim.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... do you see anyone reacting like this, prior to frame 285?

[qimg]http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif[/qimg]

No. I don't see the occupants of the limo sway forward until they all do it in unison, indicating to me that the car is slowing down.

 

[JayUtah]

I realize that sir. But they are extremely relevant to the question of conspiracy, which I'm sure is at the top of your priority list.

No, do not keep trying to have your pre-planned discussion.

 

[Robert Harris]

Just a note on Marcello.

Compared to Giancana and Trafficante, Carlos Marcello was a man of peace. He was noted more for his ability to get things done by coercion rather than violence, and his own comment on the subject was that he "knew how everybody likes their coffee."

The problem with all the "Mafia did it" theories is that the mob has never been known for subtly in their business when it comes to killing, and there's been no history of documented instances of LCN setting up individuals as "patsies" when they decide to do away with someone or retire one of their own.

They can and will disappear a target, but there's not one example that stands up to scrutiny that documents the use of a "patsy" in any of their business dealings wrt murder.

I'm Sicilian, my folks are from NOLA, and I was raised to believe that LCN did it, but my training and experience in the world have taught me better.

ETA for Robert - a thread I started a few years back about my family and the JFK assassination:

I enjoyed your post. It was fascinating and informative. But I do have to question your opinion about Marcello, or at least Marcello when was he was out of his mind, pissed off. Beside being mercilessly harassed by Bobby Kennedy, Marcello experienced probably the greatest humiliation of his life when Bobby had him dragged out of his home in the middle of the night and flown to Guatemala, where he was dumped in the jungle with little more than the shirt on his back.

Bobby's actions were not exactly legal, but he undoubtedly got a great laugh out of it, in part because Marcello had falsely claimed that his home country was Guatemala, a place he had never even visited. An informant claimed that he swore he would kill JFK, after that.

Hey! This was a billionaire who was used to getting anything he wanted at the snap of fingers. He just wasn't a happy camper after that.

Marcello confessed (unwittingly), to an FBI informant, Jack Laningham, that he did indeed, order the assassination and that he only wished that he could have killed JFK, personally. Anthony Summers BTW, interviewed FBI people who confirmed what Laningham said and stated that they believed him, but did not (for no apparent reason) believe Marcello.

Some of this was covered by CNN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k

and Fox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw

 

[Robert Harris]

No, do not keep trying to have your pre-planned discussion.

Jay, I have bent over backward and into a moebius (sp?) strip trying to have a civil, honest discussion with you about the facts and evidence associated with this crime.

But you seem so eaten up with hate and bias toward anyone who disagrees with you, that it's not going to be possible.

I am here to talk about the Kennedy assassination. If you aren't you really should find another forum.

If you are, then let's cut the crap and get down to business.

 

[JohnG]

Jay, I have bent over backward and into a moebius (sp?) strip trying to have a civil, honest discussion with you about the facts and evidence associated with this crime.

But you seem so eaten up with hate and bias toward anyone who disagrees with you, that it's not going to be possible.

Hate? I see no evidence of that in Jay's posts. In fact he's always been one of the most even-tempered people in this forum. He just doesn't put up with nonsense, prevarication or fuzzy thinking.

 

[JayUtah]

I am very much interested in what you said.

Your actions here demonstrate differently.

Your argument is composed of two steps: observations taken from photography and eyewitness recollection, and inferences drawn upon those observations.

You point to the observation -- your frame-counting and blurring -- label it empirical and objective, and call it good. But then you apply subjective judgment, interpretation, and assumption, and according to those processes infer things about the observations that simply do not follow inevitably. Then you label those inferences facts. When challenged, you fall back to the observations themselves and ignore the step that's being questioned and thinking that the rigor of one of your steps automatically extends to the whole line of reasoning.

In short, you keep trying to focus the discussion on what you perhaps think is the strongest part of your line of reasoning. You are utterly oblivious that your critics are rightly focusing on the weakest parts of your argument. Constantly trying to divert attention away from that scrutiny doesn't suddenly make those weak parts strong.

You want to drill down in nit-pick fashion on a frame or two of film here and there. This is common conspiracy rhetoric, to focus on debatable minutiae while ignoring more fundamental errors, or to emphasize tenable elements of a line of reasoning rather than rehabilitate the untenable ones. Until you are willing to listen to where people are telling you that you are making subjective judgments and assumptions, and be willing to convert those points to truly objective ones, you will make no headway. And people have been listing them left and right. You simply ignore them and insist that your line of reasoning is fully objective from end to end.

And we haven't even discussed how parsimony treats one of your central tenets: that certain observed movements are invariably tied to gunshots. There are only a few datapoints in this evidence to work with, and already you have to approximate the fit by speculating that some of the shots were silent, ostensibly because you can't deny they occurred but you can't make them fit your flinch schedule. You interpret that misfit as evidence that there "must" have been silent gunshots. You seem unaware that a more parsimonious interpretation is that your claims of being able to detect gunshots by what happens in the video is not as reliable as you insinuate.

 

[Robert Harris]

No. I don't see the occupants of the limo sway forward until they all do it in unison, indicating to me that the car is slowing down.

Thank you for addressing a material issue related to the JFK assassination. That seems to be a rare thing around here. Your argument BTW, is well worth considering.

Dr. Alvarez did a frame by frame analysis and determined that the limo slowdown didn't begin until well after 290-292, when the limo passengers reacted, but I wanted to confirm that. Fortunately, a really bright guy from New Zealand created a version of the Zapruder film, which presents a panoramic view that gives us a much better perspective on when the slowdown took place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDAg5c4x5U

Also, some of the reactions, like Kellerman raising his hand to his ear, and hunching his shoulders, and Greer spinning around at high speed, don't seem to be consistent with a rapid slowdown.

But IMO, the panoramic view makes it easy to see that the slowdown began at about frame 300 or a tad after.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hate? I see no evidence of that in Jay's posts. In fact he's always been one of the most even-tempered people in this forum. He just doesn't put up with nonsense, prevarication or fuzzy thinking.

LOL!! Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

Hey! I'm sure he's the greatest guy since Jesus, so long as you agree with his JFK theory.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay, I have bent over backward and into a moebius (sp?) strip trying to have a civil, honest discussion with you about the facts and evidence associated with this crime.

What part of that involved the insinuation that I was mentally ill?

But you seem so eaten up with hate and bias toward anyone who disagrees with you...

Now that's an ad hominem argument. I urge you to discover why it is.

I am here to talk about the Kennedy assassination. If you aren't you really should find another forum.

No, you are here to perform a pre-planned pseudo-validation of your beliefs. You still haven't figured out the implications of the eminently predictable approach you've taken.

If you are, then let's cut the crap and get down to business.

As soon as you quit trying to guide the discussion down a path that avoids the real problems with your theory, that can happen. But as JohnG notes, I have a well-earned reputation for not letting conspiracy theorists get away with common rhetorical tactics. And I am well aware of what those are. If it upsets you to have your approach so easily seen through, dissected, and dismissed, then perhaps you should think carefully about what constitutes an actual honest debate.

I urge you to reread my first lengthy post to you, in which I advised you of tactics not to attempt. When I took the pains to advise you so, you don't get to lay all your problems here at my feet.

 

[JohnG]

LOL!! Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

Hey! I'm sure he's the greatest guy since Jesus, so long as you agree with his JFK theory.

I'm really not sure that all the naming calling and snarkiness on your part is doing you any favors. Jay and others here aren't attacking you, they aren't attacking your ideas, really. They simply want you to expand on those ideas and state your case as rationally and intelligibly as you are able.