Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

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.

Are you prepared to acknowledge a refutation?

Of course, I am. If I am ever refuted.

Your crazy, ambiguous accusations not only fail to refute, they don't even explain what the hell you are refuting.

 

[JayUtah]

You need to be specific, Hank.
Ambiguous accusations don't cut it.

Shell game. You complain when people aren't specific and you also complain when they are. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you have little grasp over what critical analysis is or what it entails. This makes it unlikely you have given your own theories a suitable enough going-over to demand that others taken them seriously or as the incontrovertible truth.

 

[HSienzant]

I have a very hard time with a one-early-shot theory, but even if there were only one, shouldn't it have startled the limo passengers at least as much as they were startled by the final two shots??

Still presuming a shot at Z285.

If you have read the article I linked, then you know that John Connally testified that he clearly heard the first shot, which was undoubtedly, the one at 150-160. But he only "felt" the second. Since the witnesses, including all of the surviving limo passengers also reported hearing no more than one early shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that this one was fired from a suppressed rifle of some kind.

It certainly didn't come from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.

Which one didn't? The one Connally said he didn't hear? What was Connally's excuse for not recalling the sound of that bullet being fired?

Oh yeah, that's right -- he said he had been shot, and his circuitry was more concerned with the pain shooting through his body than the auditory impulses his ears were picking up:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.
== UNQUOTE ==

There's nothing in there that implies a weapon other than Oswald's was used, or that a suppressed weapon with a silencer of any sort was used.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Of course, I am. If I am ever refuted.

You've been repeatedly refuted. You just ignore those refutations because you don't understand them.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

Gosh! How shocking is that

 

[JayUtah]

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

Do not shift the burden of proof or change the subject. I am not claiming fireworks caused the noises. I am pointing out that the witnesses you rely upon to establish the timing of the audible shots have also offered testimony that contradicts your premise that the shots would be unmistakably loud. Specifically, they identified the sounds as what they thought were fireworks. You insist the shots must have been louder. I'm asking you to reconcile your claims with the statements from the witnesses that you've presented.

 

[JayUtah]

Gosh! How shocking is that

Do you now understand the essence of your argument as subjective claims?

 

[Robert Harris]

Ok, mob rule prevails again!

Ok, this is obviously pointless. Over 20 years, mostly hanging out at alt.assassination.jfk, another nutter pit, I have never seen such idiotic non-arguments in my life - compounded by endless personal attacks and levels of irrelevant nit picking that I didn't know existed, anywhere, let alone in an arena that is supposed to be populated by "skeptics".

Supposedly, this was to test my theories, but most of you seem unwilling to even read the articles or view the presentations I link. I cannot persuade people who are not just impervious to evidence, but refuse to look at it.

Perhaps, I will spend some time in a forum where folks are a bit more open minded, like an ISIS controlled muslim site somewhere.

Don't be sad however, I will continue to regularly post evidence in case anyone comes along who genuinely gives a crap about this stuff.

Adios for now, anyway.

 

[HSienzant]

This is of zero value, Hank. Frazier was considerably faster than ALL the other FBI experts.

Bob, I remind you that YOU quoted Frazier's statement about the minimum, not me. Frazier was wrong. And you should know this, shouldn't you? Why did you quote Frazier's statement, Bob? What was YOUR point?

Whatever you hoped to establish by quoting Frazier, you didn't, because Frazier's guesstimate isn't even the best time on record with Oswald's weapon.

What matters is that Oswald could not have fired the shots at 285 and 313.

Shot at 285 still not proven. Maybe you should start to prove it.

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.

You've said that already. Repeating it doesn't make it more true. An assassin seeing the limo slow down (this admission destroys your claims about the motion of the occupants, by the way) has no way of knowing whether it will continue to slow down or immediately speed up. Best to take a shot when the limo is moving slowly, don't you think? That's one shot at Z313. Not two shots at Z285 and Z313.

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.

Your problem, and the problem of every conspiracy theorist world-wide, is that you don't understand the issue. The Warren Commission concluded the shooting took a minimum of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, up to a maximum that was unstated. Conspiracy theorists have always argued against the minimum, not the maximum. They basically ignore trying to prove Oswald couldn't have made the shooting against the maximum (or anything close) entirely.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

So when Lane or Thompson argues against the 4.8-5.6 seconds time, that's the minimum, and only if the second shot missed. If the first or third shot was the missed shot, then the time allowed is much greater, and Oswald had 8, 9, or even 10 or more seconds for three shots.

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.

Why'd you quote a bogus minimum as you SHOULD know about Miller's lower time for three shots? What were you hoping to establish by quoting Frazier's erroneous statement?

Further, you're treating the minimum as if it's important. John Connally estimated the shooting took ten to twelve seconds.

== quote ==
SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.
== unquote ==

Did Oswald have enough time then? How does the minimum by Frazier matter then, and why did you quote it?

Why did you not mention the true minimum with Oswald's weapon, the time by Specialist Miller?

What's the point of bringing up Frazier's erroneous estimate of the minimum?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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?

You need to prove that shot at Z285.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Ok, this is obviously pointless.

Yes it is, for the reasons I outlined at the very outset of your participation. Despite my warning and prediction, you followed exactly the same strategy as every other conspiracy theorist who has graced this thread. We gave you a fair chance to stand out and distinguish yourself, but you chose instead to commit the same errors as your predecessors, and to execute the same rhetorical shell game as they. You and you alone are responsible for the consequences of the approach you chose.

compounded by endless personal attacks...

You demonstrate no understanding of what an ad hominem argument actually consists of, and you are unwilling to submit your accusations for third-party arbitration. Let me remind you that your comments (and my quotation of them) were the only ones edited away by the moderators. You claimed to have waged a fair fight, yet you refused to explain what part of that included insinuating that I was mentally ill. You are not the saintly martyr you portray yourself as.

You may lament until the end of days the fact that your approach was immediately exposed and defused. I have no sympathy. You tried to do what every other conspiracy theorist has tried, and now you're peeved that you were found out so soon, and that you've met with as little success as your predecessors. Conspiracism is based on a common rhetorical shell game which many of us are attuned to recognize. You're simply not as clever or as original as you believe. The Conspiracy Theorist Playbook is not your friend.

Supposedly, this was to test my theories, but most of you seem unwilling to even read the articles or view the presentations I link.

Supposition. You posted one link which one singled-out person said he didn't read, and therefore declined (fairly enough) not to comment upon. You made up reasons why he didn't and tried to pin them on him. And now you try to generalize this singular condition to all your critics.

I cannot persuade people who are not just impervious to evidence, but refuse to look at it.

How convenient of you to ignore the people who did look at your evidence and point out the flaws in your interpretation of it, only to be met by utter denial from you. They didn't give you the rebuttal you were hoping for, so you ignored them. Your failure to convince is not everyone else's fault.

Perhaps, I will spend some time in a forum where folks are a bit more open minded, like an ISIS controlled muslim site somewhere.

Ad hominem.

Don't be sad however, I will continue to regularly post evidence in case anyone comes along who genuinely gives a crap about this stuff.

Rail split. You reserve the right to subject us to additional unsubstantiated screed, but you decline any obligation to defend it. It appears you're just looking to spread your gospel, not conduct science. You are not the celebrity scholar you seem to think you are, and this forum is not your pulpit.

Adios for now, anyway.

Flounce. Dollars to donuts you'll be shadowing this thread.

 

[HSienzant]

Well, you are certainly entitled to your subjective opinions. But the objective fact is, that those 5 reactions all began at 290-292, while Alvarez concluded that Zapruder reacted at 290-291.

To say that it was improbable that this was coincidental, is probably the understatement of the millenium.

Well, your statement might be the overstatement of the day. On this forum. Concerning startle reactions.

I'm just not as given to meaningless hyperbole as you apparently are.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Let's be specific. I'm saying the shots at app. 150-160 and 223, could not have come from Oswald, since only one of them was audible to most people and neither of them were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see following 285 and 313.

I am also saying that the shots at 285 and 313 were too close together for Oswald to have fired both.

So you're arguing for at least THREE different shooters, all from the rear. Firing a total (or a minimum) of four shots.

One shot (at Z223) was from a suppressed weapon, so that's one shooter.

Oswald could not fire the remaining three, you argued.

So that leaves some of the remaining three unsuppressed shots fired by yet another shooter.

Now, why would the conspirators have one man shooting with one suppressed weapon, and two other men shooting with unsuppressed weapons? Wouldn't it be advisable to have Oswald shoot the only unsuppressed weapon if they were going to try to frame one lone nut shooting from behind?

Hank

 

[JohnG]

Sincere advice from one dilettante to another; do a little less typing and a little more reading over the next couple of days.

Perhaps, I will spend some time in a forum where folks are a bit more open minded, like an ISIS controlled muslim site somewhere.

Delighted to hear you are taking my advice! One last tip: don't mention that Hitchens and Dawkins are your heroes while you're on the ISIS site. From what I'm told those chaps have absolutely no sense of humor.

 

[Belz...]

I don't do ad hominem. Would you like to talk about the Kennedy assassination?

You don't want to discuss the Kennedy assassination, as evidenced by the fact that you keep focusing on what you perceive to be ad hominems (and for which you are wrong, as people have tried to educate you on) and ignoring the substantive content of posts.

If you wanted to discuss the assassination, you would do so, instead of focusing on irrelevancies.

 

[Tolls]

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?

This is the whole point, though.
You have not proven the existence of a shot at 285.
Your entire theory rests on the existence of that shot.
Discussing anything else is smoke and mirrors, yet you continue to argue based on that shot occurring.

And, no, none of that is "ad hominem".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A slowdown is not an acceleration. It is a reduction in velocity.

If you like we can use "deceleration" to refer to negative values of acceleration, but that doesn't address my question. I asked whether you were talking about velocity or about its rate of change, since you seem vague about that.

The rate is of speed is also measurable. I can recommend some excellent freeware for you, which makes that fairly easy.

Are you offering me the tools to do your work for you? No, thanks. If you would like me to reconsider what looks to me like the occupants of the car moving in sympathy with a change of speed, and instead accept your version where they are all flinching at a gunshot, then I will consider such evidence as you bring here.

It wasn't really a "braking". Greer just lifted his foot from the gas

I have no problem with that. A car's engine can apply braking effort just as its brakes can. Concision overcame my desire to give an exhaustive description of the driver's possible actions.

 

[HSienzant]

I know it's blasphemous to say such a thing, but I just don't know.

What I do know is that no one I am aware of, actually heard that shot.

Only because you're *presuming* there was a fourth shot, at 285, that was heard. More witnesses, like Clint Hill, actually said they heard only two shots than said they heard four.

The Connallys made that very clear, and they were corroborated by a small army of other witnesses, including the others in the limo. Furthermore, no one reacted to that shot like they did, to the ones at the end.

What is YOUR explanation?

Three shots, all from the same rifle. Throw out the speculative one at Z285 and the other three are just fine.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I'm disappointed. Why should I be the one who has to post your rebuttals for you?

That wouldn't be my rebuttal. In fact, I feel it needs a rebuttal all its own.

Your sources are hearsay (Connally's book), hearsay (newspaper article) and a decades-later recollection (Nolan). Not a speck of evidence in the bunch.

It's curious that you would *have* to rely on all that.

Here's Connally's testimony. See anything about a bullet in his clothes?

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

In fact, he says this:

== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
== unquote ==

Did his memory improve between his testimony and publication of his ghost-written book? Is that the best you can do?

Hank

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It is relevant to the question of burden of proof. Read the entire context of what I said then; I did not say there was a conspiracy because most people think there was a conspiracy. I didn't even say that the burden of proof was only yours.

I said we share the burden of proof in spite of the fact that the LN theory is a minority opinion, in contradiction to the govt's last investigation.

I *think* you're referring to the HSCA's conclusions from 1978. But their conclusions were heavily influenced by the conclusions about the impulses found on the dictabelt. And you've already told us what you think about that: "And I couldn't care less about the thoroughly discredited acoustic evidence the HSCA used to form its conclusions. I'm rather surprised that you do."

You said that here:

And I couldn't care less about the thoroughly discredited acoustic evidence the HSCA used to form its conclusions. I'm rather surprised that you do.

When you throw out the erroneous acoustic evidence, you're left with three shots from the Depository as the HSCA's conclusion.

This dissent from the HSCA's conclusions by one of their panel (Robert Edgar)shows that explicitly. He outlined the changes in the committee's final conclusions after the acoustic evidence was presented to the panel here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0266a.htm

Hank