Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III
- Thread starter HSienzant
- Start date
- Status
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
Are you referring to me? If so, no, I did not read the article on CE399 and therefore have nothing to say about said article.
I went through my JFK CT phase back in the early 90s, around the time Oliver Stone released JFK and Gerald Posner wrote "Case Closed". I admit that at the time the idea of a conspiracy intrigued me in a way that the lone gunman theory did not, but Posner (and those who followed him) made a much stronger case than did the assortment of CTists I had been exposed to. At this point I've read many thousands of pages on the subject but can't quote you chapter and verse off the cuff.
You see, I'm a bit of an insufferable dilettante when it comes to conspiracy theories but I do have two saving graces. I know that I'm a dilettante and I can recognize a fellow dillettante a mile away. I for example that you, sir, are also a dilettante and while that isn't anything to be ashamed of (I guess), it's not exactly anything to be proud of, either. It's why I've been gently kidding you in a couple of my posts, whether you realized you were being kidded, I don't know.
It's somehow both ironic yet apt that I, the one person on this forum who has come the closest to lobbing actual ad hom attacks your way is also the one person you've so far been unfailingly polite towards. This fact embarrasses me on a couple of levels.
You've written over 130 (often lengthy) posts in the space of two days. You've clearly got a lot on your mind, but what you need to understand is that no one here is your enemy. We've all had experience in believing things we later found out to be untrue. If Harris, Sagan, Hitchens, et al. really are your heroes, try to subject your theory to the same kind of merciless scrutiny they applied to other extraordinary claims.
Take care,
JohnG
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
Jay, I don't want to embarass you, but he didn't ask a question. I was responding to a declarative statement.
Umm.. I'm afraid you did it again, Jay. Is it getting pretty late out in your neck of the woods?
Well Jay, since you seem to be an expert on this, why don't you tell everyone exactly how fast it dissipates?
I'm sorry Jay, but you are wrong again. The nature of Zapruder's reaction which was to exert a miniscule amount of pressure on his camera which blurred a frame or two, was objectively, very much weaker than the reactions of the limo passengers who were simultaneously spinning around and ducking.
But why are you more concerned about form than substance? Even purely subjective conclusions can be dependably accurate, in many situations. The issue to be considered, is not the form of the evidence, but whether it is accurate.
Nonsense.
I said, It has been proven that people react to loud noises, very dramatically and visibly, and very much like the limo passengers did, following 285 and 313.
To support my claim, I presented two links, each showing individuals ducking, spinning around, shielding their ears, etc. - just as the limo passengers did.
Why would you call that inappropriate?
More importantly, it is absolutely true.
You can "reiterate" whatever you please, but you will only be duplicating your errors. My statement was perfectly valid and accurate. And you presented nothing beyond your ability to just blurt out anything at all, without a hint of justification.
I will not respond to that, in order to remain faithful to my promise to not engage in ad hominem attacks - no matter how deserving someone might be.
That's been my question for the past 30-odd years.
Let's see if we get anything better than indignant spluttering for an answer.
Where were the shots aimed at JFK fired from?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So, thread over?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You understand "begged question" about like you understand "ad hominem", don't you?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
A .22 LR rifle will get you to 120-130 Db, but a Carcano will be at or around 150 Db.
http://www.m1911.org/loudness.htm
A good modern can might get a 7.62 NATO or similar down to 130 Db, but in 1963 cans hadn't evolved into what they are today - in '63 can tech was still at the wire screen wipe level (old Maxim patent)
See further:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/com.silencerco/support/product-specs/specwar.pdf
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
They've already been posted on other sites.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Look up "Begging the question." In critical or rhetorical analysis, the "question" is the proposition under debate, or one of its subordinate points. That's common terminology in the study of logic and argumentation, so I'm surprised you are unaware of it. You "begged" that proposition in this case, meaning you asked the reader to agree that the proposition is true without providing an argument for it.
Ad hominem.
Shifting the burden of proof. I may provide such an essay. If you had read the thread, you would discover many such essays from me. But nothing further from me on this point until you report back on the research I suggested. I'm giving you the chance to revise your argument and shoulder your burden of proof.
There is no quantification of response in any of the scholarship to which you refer as a basis, nor anything showing whether the degree of stimulus in or response from a photographer can be reliably inferred from the photography itself. You are referring to generally accepted (although quite dated) principles. But you go far beyond their effective sphere and assume putatively related tenets that they do not establish.
Whether evidence is objective or subjective is not its form; it's its effective scope. And yes, subjective judgment can be considered evidence if both the question and the judge meet certain criteria, which you have not. If you wish your subjective judgment to be considered evidentiary, you bear the burden to establish its foundation.
I have given you several reasons why your interpretation of the evidence may not be accurate. You simply deny categorically that any of them should be considered.
Because it lacks empirical control and therefore cannot be considered predictive. In other words, you cherry-picked some data points.
You complain because you say I do not identify specific examples of your interpretation, assumption, and illogic. Therefore do not complain anew when I do.
I'm pointing out a feature of your argument and showing how it presents an inconsistency among two or more claims you've either made or insinuated. You have no clue what an ad hominem argument actually is. In any case, if you believe you have been personally attacked, then report the post for moderation. Do not make the accusation for rhetorical effect.
Robert Harris
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 867
Why not?
I would think you would be extremely interested to know that the FBI falsified evidence in the JFK case, just as they have been caught doing in other investigations.
You should be especially concerned about that, if you believe Oswald acted alone, since the WC was entirely dependent on Hoover's FBI, to provide them with evidence.
It doesn't matter how you choose to label yourself. You should want to be aware of evidence like this.
But there is a vast quantity of evidence that you seem to be unaware of. The stuff I am presenting here is verifiable and mostly from govt investigations or scientists who worked for the government.
In the case of the CE399 scam, the critical witnesses are the Governor of Texas, the Dallas district attorney, the police officer working security for Connally, and two nurses, one of whom was a supervisor in the ER room.
How could you possibly not care? The article should take you about 10 minutes to read.
It's not about books. It's about the facts and evidence.
Hey! we're talking about 10 minutes and absolutely free (except for part 2 which is $800 plus a few monthly installments).
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Well, perhaps some comments about my mother's work in Tijuana might put you into seventh or eighth place.
More accurately, I have a lot of pitbulls on my ass.
That's not the problem. I can handle enemies. I just have a hard time with people who refuse to look at evidence they don't like and can't even be bothered to discuss what this subforum is supposed to be all about.
I am not wrong, my friend. What I am offering you guys is the verifiable truth. Take the time to evaluate the evidence I present and do it with as much objectivity as you can muster.
And then you too can be hated by everyone around you!
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
And there's the persecution complex. Just like every other CTist.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Nobody here hates you Robert we just reject your gratuitous assertions.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Yes we would. How about you lay out the falsified evidence and explain how you know it has been falsified?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
He did not state he didn't read it because he didn't care. Do not put words into your critics' mouths.
You are not a martyr. You came here voluntarily and are posting voluntarily, and it's safe to say you can have anticipated the response you would get.
Asked and answered. You want to define the parameters of the discussion so that they are entirely favorable to you. You write off any statement you don't want to address as "ad hominem." You demonstrate an unwillingness to answer or acknowledge responses. You demand only certain kinds of responses and you provide only certain kinds of assertions. All that adds up, in my judgment, to grandstanding, not discussion.
No, what you provide is your supposition and belief, which you claim is true but are unwilling to verify. You are being told by several people in no uncertain terms what would constitute a verification, but you categorically reject all of it.
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
First of all, no one here hates you. Yeah, you're a little full of yourself and quick to take offense, but I'm sure you're a delightful person IRL and in any case if I hated every stranger on the internet who spouted nonsense I would've died of an aneurism back in the 90s.
Secondly, the fact that you obviously don't understand the terms "ad hominem" and "begging the question" means that you're the one who needs to do some more research. In fact it's almost as if you had never even heard of the terms prior to participating in this thread, which is just bizarre if Harris, Sagan, Hitchens, et al. really are your heroes.
Sincere advice from one dilettante to another; do a little less typing and a little more reading over the next couple of days.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hi Bob, welcome to the forum.
The fastest time with Oswald's rifle ever documented is 4.45 seconds for three shots. Specialist Miller accomplished that. According to Ronald Simmons testimony.
==QUOTE ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
. . .
Mr. SIMMONS. ...Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
== UNQUOTE ==
So Frazier was wrong to testify that 4.6 seconds was the minimum, as a faster time was accomplished.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Quoting a provably erroneous claim by Frazier is not the best way to start out.
But of course, this is the same claim made for decades in conspiracy books. For Example, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (Josiah Thompson) quotes Frazier on page 31 to make the same point. RUSH TO JUDGMENT (Mark Lane) uses the same figure of 4.6 seconds for three shots on page 67, but then sets himself up as his own best witness, and says "I believe it to be unrealistic...it seems likely that more than 2.3 seconds [between shots] would be required."
Why are you quoting Frazier, when Frazier can be shown to be provably wrong in his guesstimate of the minimum time?
Hank
The fastest time with Oswald's rifle ever documented is 4.45 seconds for three shots. Specialist Miller accomplished that. According to Ronald Simmons testimony.
==QUOTE ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
. . .
Mr. SIMMONS. ...Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
== UNQUOTE ==
So Frazier was wrong to testify that 4.6 seconds was the minimum, as a faster time was accomplished.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Quoting a provably erroneous claim by Frazier is not the best way to start out.
But of course, this is the same claim made for decades in conspiracy books. For Example, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (Josiah Thompson) quotes Frazier on page 31 to make the same point. RUSH TO JUDGMENT (Mark Lane) uses the same figure of 4.6 seconds for three shots on page 67, but then sets himself up as his own best witness, and says "I believe it to be unrealistic...it seems likely that more than 2.3 seconds [between shots] would be required."
Why are you quoting Frazier, when Frazier can be shown to be provably wrong in his guesstimate of the minimum time?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
You might want to double-check those assertions, Robert. You won't be able to establish any of those, other than him being on the third floor of the Dal-Tex building after the assassination.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid.htm
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Straw argument. I know of no such claim by the Warren Commission. The HSCA was wedded to the dictabelt analysis, which colored their conclusions about what shots were fired when.
You've presented no evidence for a shot at Zapruder frame 285. This is your pet theory. Not the HSCA's. Not the Warren Commission's. Not any "lone nutter's" theory, either. Yours. Right? You're presuming what you must prove. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY. It's called "Begging the Question", which is where you imbed in your argument the very point you're going to need to prove.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Please, click on the link and familiarize yourself with the fallacy you committed. And try to avoid doing it again.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Tsk. That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of an Appeal to Popularity, Robert? By the way, do you prefer "Bob" or "Robert"?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Try to avoid that one in the future too.
Hank
- Status