Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

Your actions here demonstrate differently.

Well, I kinda thought that asking you four times, was a pretty good way to express my interest.

When are you going to answer those questions, BTW?

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

That's too vague. You need to be a lot more specific.

It is also inaccurate, since my conclusions are almost without exception, based on empirical, measurable facts, which I have presented in the form of annotated, Zapruder film segments.

For example, I have proven that each of those people ducked or spun around at high speed (Greer - front to back in 2/9ths of one second), all beginning in the same 1/6th of one second of one another, and the startle reaction of Zapruder.

This is why we have to be specific and never post vague, generalizations. Each issue has it's own set of requirements to make it relevant to the conspiracy question. So, they MUST be dealt with individually and very specifically.

Does that make sense to you?

You point to the observation -- your frame-counting and blurring -- label it empirical and objective, and call it good.

But you're only describing part of the process.

But then you apply subjective judgment,

This is where you need to be VERY specific.

What exactly did I say, that you claim is "subjective judgement"??

interpretation, and assumption, and according to those processes infer things about the observations that simply do not follow inevitably.

What things?

What "interpretations"?

What conclusions that do not follow inevitably?

Ambiguity is not acceptable, sir.

Then you label those inferences facts.

Which inferences?

Which facts?

When challenged,

Challenged about what?

You cannot challenge me without something specific.

you fall back to the observations themselves and ignore the step that's being questioned

What step is being questioned?

Why won't you be specific?

I deleted the rest of your post because it is mostly ad hominem and because until you can be specific about your complaints, we can't have any kind of meaningful dialogue.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hey John!

Did you read the article on CE399?

What do you think?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The overlay video is very clever but I don't think that analysis tells us anything useful.

My view is that the car's occupants sway forward in unison, indicating the driver braking. You invite us to observe a "slowdown" which I gather you think happens somewhat later.

Unfortunately you don't specify what this informal thing you term a "slowdown" actually is. Are you talking about acceleration or about velocity?

You seem to be asking us to watch the car's motion to judge by eye when we perceive that it's speed has been reduced. In that case you would appear to be asking about our observing the car's changed velocity, i.e. what has resulted after a period of braking has taken place.

The people in the car sway forward at the start of braking, not at the end. Indeed it looks as if the initial press on the brakes was quite firm but then the driver eases partway off on the brakes since it's clear to see the two agents in the front seats sway forward then back.


In short, you seem to be talking about the wrong bit of physics.

 

[JayUtah]

When are you going to answer those questions, BTW?

Do not simply give the hamster wheel another spin.

...since my conclusions are almost without exception, based on empirical, measurable facts

No. You're just simply repeating the error I described above. No progress is possible until you get past this.

I deleted the rest of your post because it is mostly ad hominem...

Report allegations of ad hominem arguments for moderation. Do not simply make the allegation for rhetorical effect.

 

[BazBear]

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

No, I don't think I'm going to let you draw me into a point-by-point discussion of your interpretation of the film. Because, at the end of the day, we'll be right where we started; my opinion against your opinion of what the film shows. In other words, about as far from objective and empirical evidence as one can get.

If your desire is to present objective and empirical evidence to support your hypothesis (whatever that might be), I suggest you get cracking.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

You make my previous point for me. You can't divorce yourself from your own pet CT that any criticism of it you interpret as animosity, even hatred. I still think you need to take a step away from the computer and have a little time out if you're seeing hatred in JayUtah's rebuttals to your inferences.

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

No, you're here to prolong the discussion as long as possible. And it isn't your place to suggest anyone find another forum. Please keep your place.

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

I agree.

What is your complete and coherent alternative hypothesis for how JFK was assassinated. Not with walls of cut 'n paste nor with every-other-CTist's friend YouTube, just a paragraph or two in your own words. Then you may show how a consilience of evidence points to the conclusion you've leaped to.

 

[BazBear]

And Robert, I've yet to see anyone lob a true ad hom at you. If you've personalized your hypothesis to the point where you take criticism of your arguments as personal attacks, that's not our fault.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I don't think I'm going to let you draw me into a point-by-point discussion...

That's wise when the proponent has a history of saying, "Rebuttal? What rebuttal? I see no rebuttal." Posting walls of text and demanding a sentence-by-sentence rebuttal to each one is just a more creative way of trying to shift the burden of proof and, additionally, bogging down the discussion in irrelevant minutia.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not simply give the hamster wheel another spin.

You said that you already addressed the questions I asked, but you did not. Why won't you do that?

No. You're just simply repeating the error I described above. No progress is possible until you get past this.

What error??

Why do you continue to be vague and ambiguous?

And why won't you answer my recent questions. I'll put them in again for you,

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

That's too vague. You need to be a lot more specific.

It is also inaccurate, since my conclusions are almost without exception, based on empirical, measurable facts, which I have presented in the form of annotated, Zapruder film segments.

For example, I have proven that each of those people ducked or spun around at high speed (Greer - front to back in 2/9ths of one second), all beginning in the same 1/6th of one second of one another, and the startle reaction of Zapruder.

This is why we have to be specific and never post vague, generalizations. Each issue has it's own set of requirements to make it relevant to the conspiracy question. So, they MUST be dealt with individually and very specifically.

Does that make sense to you?

U:
You point to the observation -- your frame-counting and blurring -- label it empirical and objective, and call it good.

But you're only describing part of the process.


But then you apply subjective judgment,

This is where you need to be VERY specific.

What exactly did I say, that you claim is "subjective judgement"??


interpretation, and assumption, and according to those processes infer things about the observations that simply do not follow inevitably.
What things?

What "interpretations"?

What conclusions that do not follow inevitably?

Ambiguity is not acceptable, sir.


Then you label those inferences facts.

Which inferences?

Which facts?


When challenged,

Challenged about what?

You cannot challenge me without something specific.

you fall back to the observations themselves and ignore the step that's being questioned

What step is being questioned?

Why won't you be specific?

I deleted the rest of your post because it is mostly ad hominem and because until you can be specific about your complaints, we can't have any kind of meaningful dialogue.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, I don't think I'm going to let you draw me into a point-by-point discussion of your interpretation of the film.

That is not what I asked. I asked you to be specific about your criticism. Why can't you do that?

Because, at the end of the day, we'll be right where we started; my opinion against your opinion of what the film shows. In other words, about as far from objective and empirical evidence as one can get.

I think you know that's untrue.

I have presented a truckload of verifiable, empirical evidence. Is it just remotely possible sir, that the reason you are so ambiguous is that you know all too well, that if you are specific, I will demonstrate empirical evidence which proves you are wrong?

If your desire is to present objective and empirical evidence to support your hypothesis (whatever that might be), I suggest you get cracking.

Ambiguity is a shield used by dishonest people Bazbear. Specificity is what exposes their deceit.

I know you aren't dishonest my friend, so let's talk about about specifics and stop playing games.

 

[Hans]

And Robert, I've yet to see anyone lob a true ad hom at you. If you've personalized your hypothesis to the point where you take criticism of your arguments as personal attacks, that's not our fault.

Well no I gave him one real one so he could play with it. I see this thread is going to go for several hundred pages and no where at the same time.

 

[Belz...]

I'm afraid I do, sir.

Your fears are entirely unjustified. I assure you, you are powerless, here. If you don't believe me, ask a moderator.

I do not deal in ad hominem attacks sir.

Again, since you are unable to identify them, your constant objections about them are irrelevant. Furthermore, I would suggest that you pay attention to criticism. Failure to do so is rarely seen as a sign of critical and logical thinking.

No sir, you evaded the question.

No, I gave you the best answer I could under the circumstances and asked for clarification, something you are yet to do. Without said clarification I am unable to answer further. Thus I did answer, but not in the way you wanted. I'm terribly sorry, but as usual you are powerless to stop me.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Now that is what we call a "lie".

You have done little but dodge honest criticism, labeling them as personal attacks and shifting the burden of proof, including a poorly-executed Gish Gallop. You have also, ironically, personalised the debate, and have seen a post of yours edited because of this. I suggest you try to come down from that pedestal of yours and, actually, have an honest discussion with both Jay and myself.


I know you'll just answer "I don't address ad hominem attacks" or some variation of this, so I'll just preemptively point out that this post is no such thing. It's called an "advice".

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

I suppose dinging someone for various rhetorical and analytical missteps, accidental or intentional, could be interpreted as attacking the arguer not the argument. Such is often the way of discussion forums.

But when any poster, upon having the mistake pointed out every which way, indicates an unwillingness to do much besides digging his/her heels in up to the shinbone, this participant is left with the impression that a dialogue was never of interest to that person. That person wanted a forum for a monologue.

 

[Belz...]

That's too vague. You need to be a lot more specific.

I have to say, your attempts at dodging criticisms are certainly interesting.

It is also inaccurate, since my conclusions are almost without exception, based on empirical, measurable facts, which I have presented in the form of annotated, Zapruder film segments.

No, the problem is not the observation. It's that you have NOT demonstrated the link between the observation and the conclusion. Again, this marks you as an untrained layman. And again, there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you can learn and admit that you don't have the necessary expertise to draw said conclusion. Obviously you don't do this even when it's pointed out to you.

OK, so you have frames and such. Why do you draw this conclusion from them ?

 

[Robert Harris]

That's wise when the proponent has a history of saying, "Rebuttal? What rebuttal? I see no rebuttal." Posting walls of text and demanding a sentence-by-sentence rebuttal to each one is just a more creative way of trying to shift the burden of proof and, additionally, bogging down the discussion in irrelevant minutia.

Mr. Utah, I find it astounding that you are upset that I would ask you to be specific about your criticisms of my work.

I also think that you have pored over my 285 article and have found NOTHING I have claimed, that relied on subjective opinion.

Isn't that why you refuse to be specific about these accusations?

If I said your grammar is terrible, what would you ask me, sir?

Wouldn't you challenge me to prove my accusation? Wouldn't you demand that I present a verbatim citation of you using poor grammar?

So, why do you feel no responsibility to support your accusation that I rely on subjective opinion?

 

[Belz...]

I think you know that's untrue.

Wouldn't you normally consider this an ad hominem attack ?

I have presented a truckload of verifiable, empirical evidence.

You have not. Now, I'd like you to take a moment to read the following: You simply lack the knowledge and expertise to perform this analysis. You're out of your depths. This isn't an ad hominem. I lack the expertise to talk about peak oil, so I don't pretend to have it.

Is it just remotely possible sir, that the reason you are so ambiguous is that you know all too well, that if you are specific, I will demonstrate empirical evidence which proves you are wrong?

I'm sure it's a very remote possibility.

 

[Robert Harris]

I have to say, your attempts at dodging criticisms are certainly interesting.

Hey! I was looking for someone to evaluate my article on Nellie Connally. You up for the task?

 

[Belz...]

Mr. Utah, I find it astounding that you are upset that I would ask you to be specific about your criticisms of my work.

Again you are attributing emotion to your opponent where none is apparent. Not only is it an ad hominem, since you are using it as a rhetorical device to advance your argument, but it's also uncivil, and as you have no psychic powers, and cannot mind-read Jay, I suggest you stop digging that hole you dug yourself and your pedestal into.

 

[Belz...]

Hey! I was looking for someone to evaluate my article on Nellie Connally. You up for the task?

I might, if you answer my requests for clarification. I'm sure you'll understand that, without any idea of the relevance of articles and videos, I don't usually waste my time reading every single link someone throws at me. I have better things to do with my time (well, not better, just more entertaining).