Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Harris said:
OK, 15 posts. Let's see if I can link a URL now. I wrote this article specifically for LN advocates. It explains in detail, that there was a shot circa frame 285-288, which was no more than 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal headshot.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
Click to expand...

You are equating "Noises" with "Shots" in the article.

I believe Clint Hill was quite clear about what he heard. Two shots, but the second shot was a double-sound:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you described?
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
== UNQUOTE ==

Hill said he only heard two shots. Not three, with the last two close together.

Another witness said much the same thing.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
...
Mr. HOLLAND - But, two of them was rather close together, though.
Mr. STERN - So close do you think that might have been one shot?
Mr. HOLLAND - No, it was four.
Mr. STERN - You are clear there were four?
Mr. HOLLAND - No; it was different sounds, different reports.
== UNQUOTE ==

Holland too appeared to note a double-sound at the end of the shooting and said he wasn't certain both sounds were shots.

Can you kindly avoid assuming what you need to prove in the future? That if a witness heard two sounds / noises close together, each was a separate shot instead of one shot and one sound of impact on the skull?

Thanks much. We'll make great progress if you can avoid the logical fallacies I've seen in many previous conspiracy theorists arguments.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
You are equating "Noises" with "Shots" in the article.
Click to expand...

Yes, many witnesses said they did not recognize the first noise as a gunshot.

I believe Clint Hill was quite clear about what he heard. Two shots, but the second shot was a double-sound:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you described?
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
== UNQUOTE ==
Click to expand...

Yes, but Hill was in a small minority. Most witnesses reported three.


Another witness said much the same thing.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
...
Mr. HOLLAND - But, two of them was rather close together, though.
Mr. STERN - So close do you think that might have been one shot?
Mr. HOLLAND - No, it was four.
Mr. STERN - You are clear there were four?
Mr. HOLLAND - No; it was different sounds, different reports.
== UNQUOTE ==

He too appeared to note a double-sound at the end of the shooting and said he wasn't certain both sounds were shots.
Click to expand...

Yes, and your point is...

Can you kindly avoid assuming what you need to prove in the future? That if a witness heard two sounds / noises close together, each was a separate shot instead of one shot and one sound of impact on the skull?
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Not only did most witnesses describe a delay of roughly 2 seconds between the final two shots, but there are clear reactions by the limo passengers to each of the two at the end. Notice how Kellerman ducks and Greer spins in perfect tandem with one another, following first 285 and then 313.

duckstwice.gif


Thanks much. We'll make great progress if you can avoid the logical fallacies I've seen in many previous conspiracy theorists arguments.
Click to expand...

We will make great progress if we simply pay attention to the relevant facts and evidence.
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
That is simply untrue.

Besides presenting the stupidest argument I have heard in 20 years in JFK forums and being continuously insulting, you aren't being truthful as well.

If you want to believe that Oswald fired one early shot and then two shots, 1.5 seconds apart, I wish you the best of luck. I have too many rational adversaries to deal with to waste time on you.
Click to expand...

Presuming what you need to prove yet again.

Repeating the same logical fallacy over and over doesn't make it more true.

Hank
 
BStrong said:
Howard Donahue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error

Donahue first became interested in the story of the assassination of John F. Kennedy after being invited to participate in a recreation of the shooting as one of eleven invited marksmen and sharpshooters.[2] He demonstrated that it would not have been possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired three shots in the time specified by the Warren Commission, and was the only one of the eleven to better the 5.6 second window. However the experience highlighted to Donahue other concerns regarding the Warren report, and in particular the fact that the testimony of ballistics experts seemed to have been completely omitted from the Commission's evidence gathering.
Click to expand...

Of course, this is apparently just Donahue's self-serving version of events. Donahue participated in a CBS test of a different Mannlicher-Carcano in 1967 for a special series of programs reviewing the Kennedy assassination. Specialist Miller, as was noted by Simmons, used Oswald's own rifle and had bettered the 5.6 timing in all three of his trials back in 1963-1964: "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. "

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Moreover, ballistics experts Drs. Light and Dziemian did testify to the Warren Commission, so the claim above is wrong about that as well.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/light.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/dziemian.htm
 
HSienzant said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is of zero value, Hank. Frazier was considerably faster than ALL the other FBI experts. What matters is that Oswald could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313. There is no evidence which even hints at him being a world class speedshooter who could out perform all the FBI experts and all of the HSCA experts, who were unable to get off an accurate shot within 1.66 seconds, firing at oversized, stationary targets considerably closer than Oswald was to the limo at 313.

And even if he could, why would he? The limo was slowing down then, to about 8 mph. He could have grabbed another bite of his chicken sandwich, and then fired the fatal headshot.

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."
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what Leibeler said. Damn! The nerve that guy believing the FBI and the WC.

It was unrealistic to think Oswald fired three shots in 4.6 seconds. Frazier had to make repeated attempts to bring his time down that low, and the other FBI experts were slower yet.

More importantly, whoever shot JFK at 313, was not there to set a world speed shooting record. He would have wanted to aim carefully and obviously did, as the results of the 313 shot confirm.

Why are you quoting Frazier, when Frazier can be shown to be provably wrong in his guesstimate of the minimum time?
Click to expand...

Wrong about what? I don't recall him claiming that no one on the planet would ever be able to beat his performance on their 50th attempt. And that was not the issue. The issue was to determine realistically what Oswald might have been able to do.
 
Robert Harris said:
No sir.

Donahue demonstrated that he could fire three shots in 5.6 seconds. The first doesn't count, so he required 2.8 seconds per shot.

That is not at all the same as firing the fatal headshot with no more than 1.5 seconds, which would be required to fire shots at 285 and 313. In fact, Donahue was taking almost twice that amount of time.

Please read the article I linked. It explains all this in detail.
Click to expand...

Sigh. You do Beg the Question a lot, don't you?

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Of course, this is apparently just Donahue's self-serving version of events. Donahue participated in a CBS test of a different Mannlicher-Carcano in 1967 for a special series of programs reviewing the Kennedy assassination. Specialist Miller, as was noted by Simmons, used Oswald's own rifle and had bettered the 5.6 timing in all three of his trials back in 1963-1964: "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. "

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Moreover, ballistics experts Drs. Light and Dziemian did testify to the Warren Commission, so the claim above is wrong about that as well.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/light.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/dziemian.htm
Click to expand...

None of this matters unless you are going to take the position that Oswald was able to fire shots at 285 and 313, and that there was only one early shot.

Are you?
 
Robert Harris said:
So, you were being sarcastic and you really do want to discuss the assassination?
Click to expand...

Let me redirect your attention to my post.

JayUtah said:
No, I only participated in a multi-hundred-page, years-long thread series because I'm trying to wear the letters off my keycaps. Of course I would like to talk about the Kennedy assassination. The problem is that you seem to define that activity as, "Take my ipse dico as incontestable fact and give me only the rebuttals I'm expecting." No, I have no interest in watching you spin the hamster wheel. As I said, rereading my first lengthy post to you will give you sound advice on what not to do here if you want an actual discussion or debate.

I am not interested in your attempts to reset the debate as of none of us existed until you got here.
I am not interested in your attempts to shift the burden of proof.
I am not interested in your whining about how horrible this forum and its participants are.
I am not interested in your assessments of my character, mental health, or predilections.
I am not interested in your desire to focus only upon the parts of your argument you think are unassailable.
I am not interested in your insistence that detailed rebuttals must be presented against your walls of screed when the simple fundamental errors escape your attention.

You have presented your argument and I have shown you what I think is wrong with it. I'm not interested in your denials and protests that follow.
Click to expand...

Next time spend less time editing my posts and more time reading them. This is the second time I've had to correct your misrepresentations in as many days.
 
Robert Harris said:
I will present my case and you may present yours, if you wish.

If you refuse to do that, then you are only confirming that you have no evidence to prove that Oswald acted alone. But everyone already knows that, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Hilarious. Since you felt a link to an article was sufficient, I am tempted to link to the Warren Report, the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence, and the HSCA Final Report, and their volumes of evidence.

But I'm confident you know where to find all that. So consider our case presented. Oswald, from the Depository, with the MC bearing the serial number C2766.

So enough about our case, which you're already familiar with. Aren't you?

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Ah, that's still BEGGING THE QUESTION, Bob. Shots at Z285 and Z313 are simply your unproven theory.

Hank
Click to expand...

Not so. I posted a comprehensive article as well as video presentations, proving my claim.

The ball is now in your court. Are you prepared to refute me?
 
Robert Harris said:
I am showing you facts and evidence that no one else has shown you. Let's deal with it objectively and honestly. Is that asking too much?
Click to expand...

I've seen your arguments, and your 'facts' and 'evidence' before. I didn't find it persuasive then. I still don't. You show a clip from the Zapruder film and say it shows reactions to a shot at Z285. I see nothing of the kind.

Hank
 
Robert Harris said:
I have no idea what you are complaining about.
Click to expand...

Clearly.

What "fallacy" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Begging the question, which you've been told by two people to look up. Your ignorance of what it is and how it works confirms that you are no kind of skeptic despite your claim to be, and that you have little if any experience in logical analysis or critical thinking.

This, combined with your obvious discomfort in physics, casts doubt upon your line of reasoning. Why? Because you're tacitly asking us to accept at least two things that rely upon it. First, you are strenuously insisting that your claims are logical, objective, and rigorous. But your clearly demonstrated ignorance of the field that governs how claims are logically analyzed casts doubt on your ability to attest to the strength of your claims. It is more likely you have no idea whatsoever what constitutes a valid argument.

Second, your treatment of "Nobel-prize winning" physicists contains a considerable amount of your own interpretation and application. That in turn presumes you understand what your sources claim and how they arrived at their conclusion. Unless you can demonstrate some degree of competence in the handling of those sources and the topics they raise, no one has any obligation to consider your judgment along those lines sufficiently informed.
 
Robert Harris said:
Not so. I posted a comprehensive article as well as video presentations, proving my claim.
Click to expand...

No, you posted materials in which the pertinent questions were begged. You really need to go look up some of the terms you've been using that relate to critical analysis.

The ball is now in your court. Are you prepared to refute me?
Click to expand...

Are you prepared to acknowledge a refutation?
 
JayUtah said:
Reconcile that with your insinuation that the unsuppressed rifle shots would have been too loud to be mistaken as anything else, e.g., fireworks.
Click to expand...

That's why we have debates, Jay.

Would you like to present your case for fireworks causing those reactions?

They were in the middle of a shooting for god's sake. Greer said he felt the "concussion" of the second shot. To save my life, I can't think of an alternative to that being the shock wave of a passing bullet.

You do know don't you, that James Tague testified that he thought it was the second shot that caused his minor wound and the lead smear on Main St?

It was Dr. Michael Stroscio who suggested that it was a gunshot at frame 285 which missed Kennedy and went on to cause Tague's wound. And over 20 years I've found corroboration after corroboration, proving that he was right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom