Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[RoboTimbo]

...you need to take a step away from the computer and have a little time out...

Adios for now, anyway.

Thank you for taking my advice. You were internalizing your pet CT so much that it was eating you up. No wonder rebuttals were invisible to you and criticisms of it were seen as mortal attacks on you personally.

You're doing the right thing by giving yourself a bit of a time out until you can think about your CT clearly.

 

[HSienzant]

Startle responses can take many forms. Ducking and hunching of the shoulders are most common, but so are rapid evasive movements, like spinning around at enormous speed.

The lady in black is proof positive, that one form of startle reaction is to raise a hand to shield an ear. Are you actually going to argue that she raised her hand to her ear for some other reason?



Well, that's obviously not true, but what is your argument?

Why did no one hear one of those early shots and why did neither of them provoke startle reactions even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

None of the early shots could have come from an unsuppressed, high powered rifle - not Oswald's or anyone else's.

Wait, so only the Z285 shot came from Oswald's rifle? Is that your argument?

Why are there three shells in the TSBD sniper's nest window, then?
Why are there two large fragments in the limo (most probably remnants of the shot that hit JFK in the head) that are traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world?
Why is there a bullet discovered at Parkland that is also likewise traceable to his rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world?

Are you going to argue the evidence that proves your case was removed from the record and the evidence that proves ours is fraudulent?

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

A Really Bad System

A good skeptical subforum should be for the purpose of seeking reliable answers. That's not an easy thing to do in any controversial issue, but it becomes impossible when the goal of most members is only to drive away dissenters.

A good test requires a fair and level playing field, as in a debate with equal time for both sides. During less than two days here, I wrote 149 posts and posted more articles and presentations than I suspect, any other 10 people who ran your little gauntlet, and certainly more than any of my adversaries did.

Meanwhile, most of my attackers did nothing more than troll and post insulting accusations of improprieties that they had probably hotkeyed from attacks on their last dozen or so victims. For example, I am not supposed to reference a "shot at 285", because I am "begging the question". But I would only be committing that sin if I had not presented solid evidence to support a shot at 285. Of course, you would counter that I have not. But that issue needs to be resolved in honest debate - not through some arbitrary, misapplied rule.

I have a right to refer to a "shot at 285", just as my adversaries have a right to declare that there was none. The question of who is right, must be dealt with in honest debate. If I am "begging the question", then you guys are committing the same sin when you declare that Oswald acted alone, or even that he was involved in the assassination. In fact if that rule was universally applied, no one would be allowed to say pretty much anything.

There is also a great deal of trolling and arguments being presented that are nothing more than a waste of time. For example, arguing that Oswald was capable of firing shots at 285 and 313, would mean that he was more skilled than any FBI expert or any of the HSCA experts. The fact that some speed shooting expert actually fired that quickly on his 115th try does not mean that Oswald could have done that or would have done that. To argue that he did, insults the intelligence of everyone. It is nothing more than a tactical ploy, which burdens your victim with more unnecessary typing. At the very least, the odds against him firing that rapidly and accurately are off the charts, and not worthy of consideration.

Arguments should be presented here on a one to one basis, as in a formal debate or a courtroom. And the goal should be to arrive at accurate conclusions. What good is it if you "win", by deluging your victims with more garbage posts than any normal person could ever deal with? And of course, after the first hour or so, the attacker starts howling about being evaded.

I could never have survived even my first two days here if it were not for those three years in high school typing class

And perhaps most importantly, issues should be examined, one-at-a-time. Forcing your adversary to deal with 10 arguments at once, is just more of the mob rule strategy. It is not just unfair; it makes it virtually impossible to find truthful answers.

What is needed is a system in which the most important issues are dealt with carefully, objectively and honestly. In the case of my analysis, several days should be spent on the alleged reactions following 285, a day or two on Alvarez and Stroscio, a day on Marcello, etc.

And NO ARGUMENTS should ever be about an adversary. Without exception, all posts should be about the facts and evidence associated with the case. It doesn't matter if my form is poor. All that matters is the substance of my arguments.

Anyway, give it some thought. If you really have confidence in your favorite JFK theory, you should be eager to have it tested under the fairest conditions possible. Or, think of it this way, how would Richard Dawkins set up a forum like this? I still check in regularly. PM me if any of you would like to setup something that is consistent with the spirit of genuine skepticism.

In the meantime, here is another short presentation for the more courageous among you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno

 

[HSienzant]

Why are you evading the fact that I showed you another person who exhibited the same classic, startle reactions that Kellerman exhibited, in a situation in which we KNOW she was exposed to a loud and startling noise?

It is simply insane to deny that he was startled then, by the very gunshots that he testified to hearing at that time. [emphasis added]

His "flurry" statement was based on his own inexpert conclusion that there *had to be* a multitude of shots he didn't hear -- as otherwise there were insufficient bullets to do all the damage to both men.

== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.
Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--
Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.
Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

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

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

So this:

That's great. I am eager to learn from such experts.

was so much hot air? Color my gast thoroughly flabbered.

It was fairly apparent early on that you did not drop in to debate as much as declare. A shame, I guess.

You see, while I'm a minor leaguer at best, I enjoy tossing the ball around with those of major league skill; it helps me improve my game. The last thing I would do (to continue the metaphor) is step up to the plate, possessing of some modest talents, and think I'm going to show Nolan Ryan a thing or two.

Put another way, setting aside your reluctance to discuss [the techniques utilized by] "Robert Harris," I'll simply look forward to seeing Robert Harris's work, revealing, at last, a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK in the New York Times. Any day now, right?

 

[HSienzant]

During less than two days here, I wrote 149 posts and posted more articles and presentations than I suspect, any other 10 people who ran your little gauntlet, and certainly more than any of my adversaries did.

Whereas I referenced the Warren Report, the Warren Commission volumes of evidence, the HSCA Final Report, and the HSCA volumes.

In total, who wins, if we're deciding by volume?
And should we be deciding by volume, by the way?
Volume isn't a reasonable substitute for evidence, is it?
So why'd you bring up the volume of your posts, Robert?

For example, I am not supposed to reference a "shot at 285", because I am "begging the question". But I would only be committing that sin if I had not presented solid evidence to support a shot at 285. Of course, you would counter that I have not. But that issue needs to be resolved in honest debate - not through some arbitrary, misapplied rule.

Yes. But every time you reference a shot at Z285 as proven, although it's not, you're invoking the logical fallacy known as begging the question. Please read the link again.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

I have a right to refer to a "shot at 285", just as my adversaries have a right to declare that there was none. The question of who is right, must be dealt with in honest debate.

Yes, you said that. But we're still waiting for you to present solid evidence of that shot. You appear to be simply setting yourself up as your own best expert witness, and simply telling us what you see. Mark Lane does that repeatedly in RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Don't be like Mark Lane.

If I am "begging the question", then you guys are committing the same sin when you declare that Oswald acted alone, or even that he was involved in the assassination. In fact if that rule was universally applied, no one would be allowed to say pretty much anything.

The evidence indicates Oswald had no accomplices. He lived at a roominghouse with one pay phone for the use of the boarders. He registered there as "O.H.Lee", an alias suggested by a mistake that occurred on his Mexico City trip. He received one call, from Mrs. Ruth Paine, but when she asked for "Lee Oswald", she was told there was no registered there by that name. You've conceded he fired one shot. Given the logistics of him not using the phone, How, When, and Where did he coordinate the assassination with other shooters (like "Jim Braden"), given he only took the Depository job in mid-October as happenstance had it?

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

One of these:

During less than two days here, I wrote 149 posts and posted more articles and presentations than I suspect, any other 10 people who ran your little gauntlet, and certainly more than any of my adversaries did.

is not like the other.

And perhaps most importantly, issues should be examined, one-at-a-time. Forcing your adversary to deal with 10 arguments at once, is just more of the mob rule strategy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... most of my attackers did nothing more than troll ...

I recommend you don't waste time engaging with posts you think are trolling.

There is also a great deal of trolling and arguments being presented that are nothing more than a waste of time. For example... <snip for brevity>

If they're a waste of time then please waste no time on them.

Forcing your adversary to deal with 10 arguments at once, is just more of the mob rule strategy.

You yourself have posted several times in succession with long posts containing multiple points of argument. Nobody is forced to address any point. If you prefer to deal with points singly, by all means do that.

 

[HSienzant]

There is also a great deal of trolling and arguments being presented that are nothing more than a waste of time. For example, arguing that Oswald was capable of firing shots at 285 and 313, would mean that he was more skilled than any FBI expert or any of the HSCA experts.

And you're back to begging the question. Asserting something as a given that you have not proven, and starting the argument from that point

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Arguments should be presented here on a one to one basis, as in a formal debate or a courtroom. And the goal should be to arrive at accurate conclusions. ....
And perhaps most importantly, issues should be examined, one-at-a-time. Forcing your adversary to deal with 10 arguments at once, is just more of the mob rule strategy. It is not just unfair; it makes it virtually impossible to find truthful answers.

We're still waiting for you to deal with one argument about a shot at Z285. The one that's central to your entire argument about four shots, with all the assumptions you've made about what that implies (a suppressed weapon, three shooters, only one shot by Oswald).

You're assuming the two sounds heard close-together are shots, not one shot and the sound of the impact on the head. Again, that is begging the question, and assuming what you need to prove.

Hank

 

[Belz...]

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

Which is exactly what I told you earlier: you're so used to have people gobble up your arguments that you flip out when you meet people who don't. The problem is this: you want validation, not the truth, and you're not interested in examining your arguments. You whine about personal attacks but keep making your posts personal. Your frustration here is entirely self-inflicted.

 

[Belz...]

You're assuming the two sounds heard close-together are shots, not one shot and the sound of the impact on the head.

Or an echo, or someone misremembering, etc. Let's not forget that there's no sound on that film.

 

[RoboTimbo]

One of these:

And NO ARGUMENTS should ever be about an adversary.

is not like the other(s)

Tell me "Adaddon", on a scale of 1-10, exactly how objective do you think you are?

Besides presenting the stupidest argument I have heard in 20 years in JFK forums

Are you really that bloodthirsty

Wow!! Citing me totally out of context is a bit sleezy, don't you think?

Why is that so difficult for you to fathom?

that is either a lie or an outrageous error.

you are deliberately lying.

...a handful of nutters get together...a bunch of nutters got together...

have you considered taking a course in critical thinking?

That's just the first couple of days.

 

[Belz...]

One of these:

is not like the other(s)

That's just the first couple of days.

He doesn't address personal attacks, but he sure makes them.

 

[JayUtah]

A good skeptical subforum should be for the purpose of seeking reliable answers.

Agreed, and you are entirely unfamiliar with the process of ensuring reliability.

During less than two days here, I wrote 149 posts and posted more articles and presentations than I suspect, any other 10 people who ran your little gauntlet, and certainly more than any of my adversaries did.

You dumped a load of screed onto the forum, refused to defend it, and ignored what people said to you in response. Are you surprised that not a lot of people took the time to engage you? Are you surprised that those who took the time and endured your stream of insults in return left you to you wallow in your own self-aggrandizement after you showed your true colors?

Meanwhile, most of my attackers did nothing more than troll and post insulting accusations of improprieties that they had probably hotkeyed from attacks on their last dozen or so victims.

No, you are not a saintly martyr beset by vicious enemies. You simply hurled the accusation "Ad hominem!" at every post you didn't feel like addressing.

For example, I am not supposed to reference a "shot at 285", because I am "begging the question".

Straw man.

You do more than "reference" that assertion. You claim it is an incontrovertible fact, and you do so without presenting any stronger argument that your belief that it is so. That is begging the question -- not a mere reference. Your unfamiliarity with the language and process of critical analysis confirms that you have subjected your ideas to little if any critical analysis.

There is also a great deal of trolling and arguments being presented that are nothing more than a waste of time.

Perhaps, and certainly from you. And all of them predicted by us. Even when you knew we were expecting them, you deployed them anyway. Why? Because you don't know how to have an actual scholarly discussion. All you know is the conspiracy-theory shell game.

Arguments should be presented here on a one to one basis, as in a formal debate or a courtroom.

In a courtroom your ipse dixit claims would be rejected forthwith. And your attempts at subjective adjudication would be dismissed for lack of foundation. And you would certainly not be allowed to change the burden of proof or redefine what that means. I daresay you know no more about how to argue in a courtroom than you do in a scholarly venue.

And perhaps most importantly, issues should be examined, one-at-a-time. Forcing your adversary to deal with 10 arguments at once...

Heal thyself. You posted walls of text and demanded that your adversaries address every last mote of it, even the parts that were rendered moot by your easily-identified fundamental errors in reasoning. And as usual, you'll note that a few posts above I predicted you'd claim to be unfairly overwhelmed. Crybaby tactics don't build credibility.

What is needed is a system in which the most important issues are dealt with carefully, objectively and honestly.

Agreed, which makes it all the comical that you frantically drew attention away from the weakest parts of your arguments and insisted that we concentrate only on the parts that you felt stood up. You spent more of the debate trying to argue over ground rules, allegedly unfair tactics, and allowable topics than you did actually participating in it.

And NO ARGUMENTS should ever be about an adversary.

So you're just going to pretend you never insinuated I was mentally ill? We're just going to pretend that never happened so that you can maintain your delusional self-image as a saintly martyr for the cause of truth?

It doesn't matter if my form is poor. All that matters is the substance of my arguments.

Fundamental flaws in reasoning are not simply poor form. You are entirely ignorant of how to make an argument and what the "substance" of an argument consists of. Again, you can't even demonstrate competent understanding of some of the more common errors in reasoning, so you don't get to evaluate whether your claims were properly addressed.

Anyway, give it some thought.

I have, over the space of several years listening to conspiracy theorists in various genres mount their best arguments. I gave you the benefit of that experience by outlining some of the common pitfalls you should have avoided in order to have a successful experience.

Instead you mocked them, proceeded to commit all of them and more, and are now whining like petulant child because it didn't work. For someone who insisted we stay on topic and discuss the Kennedy assassination, you're sure doing your best to fill the forum up with your bellyaching.

 

[Pooneil]

And perhaps most importantly, issues should be examined, one-at-a-time. Forcing your adversary to deal with 10 arguments at once, is just more of the mob rule strategy. It is not just unfair; it makes it virtually impossible to find truthful answers.

Then deal with a single basic question that has been asked of you many times already. Where were the gun shots aimed at JFK fired from?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And NO ARGUMENTS should ever be about an adversary.
[...]

In the meantime, here is another short presentation for the more courageous among you.

Dave

 

[HSienzant]

And on the subject of the suspicious Jim Braden, you've postulated a shooter without a weapon.

It can't have escaped your notice that Braden was arrested without any weapon, and no weapon was ever reported as recovered from the Dal-Tex building.

So how did Braden, or anyone else, shoot at JFK from that building with no weapon?

Or how did Braden, or anyone else, smuggle a weapon into the building, shoot at JFK, and then smuggle it out again?
Or is it there still?

What's the evidence in support of the claim?

We've got evidence -- an assassin seen with a long package on the morning of the assassination, and then his weapon is recovered from the building in which he works. And three shells, two large fragments, and a nearly whole bullet linked to his weapon, recovered from, respectively, the sniper's nest, the limo, and nearby the stretcher of one of the victims.

You've got "suspicions".

Surely you see the difference.


Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Whereas I referenced the Warren Report, the Warren Commission volumes of evidence, the HSCA Final Report, and the HSCA volumes.

So did I. Did you have a dozen people attacking you at the time, for everything except your bad table manners?

In total, who wins, if we're deciding by volume?

Did you actually think that I was claiming that I "win" because I wrote more posts? As I'm sure you know, the issue was about being deluged and hopelessly outnumbered.

And should we be deciding by volume, by the way?

Sigh..

Volume isn't a reasonable substitute for evidence, is it?

Nope, it sucks hard.

So why'd you bring up the volume of your posts, Robert?

I won't insult your intelligence by believing you are too stupid to understand what I said.

Yes. But every time you reference a shot at Z285 as proven, although it's not, you're invoking the logical fallacy known as begging the question. Please read the link again.

Your subjective opinion is duly noted, but the fact is, that the article I posted on this, stands unrefuted. So, far, no one has seriously tried. Of course, you will deny that, but that's why we have debates.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Yes, you said that. But we're still waiting for you to present solid evidence of that shot.

LOL! Listen to yourself, "begging the question", assuming with no significant argument at all, that my article was deficient.

You see, that's the fallacy with this supposed fallacy. The issue must be resolved in debate. Neither side gets a free pass. You are free to assert that Oswald acted alone, to your heart's content, just as I can deny it. The same is true for the 285 issue. But neither opinion means much until we get into the facts and evidence.

You appear to be simply setting yourself up as your own best expert witness

No sir, I am doing exactly what you do. I am asserting that I am correct. The only real difference is that have a lot more evidence.

and simply telling us what you see.

My argument is based on the objective evidence produced by a couple of the nation's top scientists, as well as empirical evidence which proves that people ducked and spun around at enormous speed, all within the same 1/6th of one second that Zapruder reacted. It is ludicrous to claim that was a coincidence.

I have also demonstrated classic, textbook startle reactions of the witnesses and particularly, Roy Kellerman. On top of that, the large majority of witnesses were quite consistent in hearing only a single report, a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end. Yes, that is subjective, but sometimes subjective is OK, when the witness consensus is that consistent.

You shouldn't misrepresent my analysis, Hank. Feel free to attack my arguments but don't pretend those arguments are less than they really are.

Mark Lane does that repeatedly in RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Don't be like Mark Lane.

You're wasting bandwidth, Hank.

The evidence indicates Oswald had no accomplices.

No it doesn't.

He lived at a roominghouse with one pay phone for the use of the boarders. He registered there as "O.H.Lee", an alias suggested by a mistake that occurred on his Mexico City trip. He received one call, from Mrs. Ruth Paine, but when she asked for "Lee Oswald", she was told there was no registered there by that name. You've conceded he fired one shot.

No sir, I did not. Please don't misrepresent me.

And do you really think that mafia thugs are social butterflies? They aren't hired for their sparkling personalities. People who kill people are not always very sociable.

Given the logistics of him not using the phone, How, When, and Where did he coordinate the assassination with other shooters (like "Jim Braden"), given he only took the Depository job in mid-October as happenstance had it?

According to Marcello, Oswald met with him in New Orleans. And there were any number of ways he could have been contacted or contacted them. And it's silly to assume that his elderly landlady was 100% accurate about the calls he took. He might have taken calls when she taking a nap, was outdoors or was in the can. He could also have been contacted at work.

At any rate, this still doesn't solve my problem of finding a way to debate on a level playing field, but I'm working on it.

 

[Hans]

I won't insult your intelligence by believing you are too stupid to understand what I said.

Still going with the strategy of personal insults huh?

 

[JayUtah]

LOL! Listen to yourself, "begging the question", assuming with no significant argument at all, that my article was deficient.

Your article begs the question. Begging the question is characterized by the total absence of a supporting argument for some key point. Your literally asking your critic for a significant argument for the absence of something. Is shifting the burden of proof just a knee-jerk response in your approach?

You see, that's the fallacy with this supposed fallacy. The issue must be resolved in debate. Neither side gets a free pass.

No. If you beg the question, this does not impose a burden of proof on your critic. And it's not a "supposed" fallacy; it's one of the more commonly known and commonly committed. Your alleged hero Carl Sagan wrote about it extensively. How did you manage to miss that?

My argument is based on the objective evidence produced by a couple of the nation's top scientists, as well as empirical evidence...

Rail split. You cite the observation, which is by nature objective, and you think that objectivity transfers to the inferences you draw upon the observation. You don't know what an argument consists of. You literally don't appear to know the difference between an inference and a fact.

I have also demonstrated classic, textbook startle reactions of the witnesses...

Asked and answered. The long-dead authors of the source you cite can be considered experts in the physiology of reactions, but you are not. They are not here to render their judgment on this evidence, and you do not have their expertise. In any case the quantitative conclusion you draw, allegedly based on their work, have absolutely no basis in it. Hyping up your untrained and improperly extended opinion with words such as "classic" and "textbook" do not establish your judgment as fact.

At any rate, this still doesn't solve my problem of finding a way to debate on a level playing field, but I'm working on it.

Whine, whine, whine. It's been fairly clear from the start you don't want a level playing field. You want a field tilted toward letting you use all rhetorical nonsense conspiracy theories are known for. And you won't stop whining that you don't get to use it.