Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[RoboTimbo]

And NO ARGUMENTS should ever be about an adversary.

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

How sad. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[Belz...]

How sad. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

But he's way less cool than Doc Holliday.

 

[BStrong]

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.

According to who? Frenchy the pimp, or the jailhouse ******** session?

Playing the "oh, Poor Me!" victim card is pretty weak. Did you develop it from the responses you received posting the exact same fairy tale on different sites or from a failed career in stand-up?

 

[Belz...]

You cite the observation, which is by nature objective, and you think that objectivity transfers to the inferences you draw upon the observation.

A common human failing, and one we are probably all guilty of at some point. The trick is to learn about it, and to learn how to avoid it. Our new friend here has not done either, and so he fails to see the problem.

 

[JayUtah]

A common human failing, and one we are probably all guilty of at some point. The trick is to learn about it, and to learn how to avoid it. Our new friend here has not done either, and so he fails to see the problem.

The concept you're alluding to is called "metacognition," and I was trying to work a discussion of it into the debate earlier, before the ineffectual flounce. And yes, metacognitive skills are essential in critical analysis. And the difficulty in acquiring and honing them is why many people rely upon others to review and critique their work.

 

[HSienzant]

Even if you disagree with the official narrative, as many call it, you still must agree that it is the most commonly-accepted one.

That is flatly untrue, as numerous polls have proven.

But the fact that you hold a minority opinion is irrelevant. What is infinitely more important is that the facts and evidence prove beyond all doubt that Oswald could not have fired all the shots.

Actually, no. Typically, the one-shooter scenario is arrayed in polls against a multitude of conspiracy scenarios. Think of a board meeting, where each share of stock equals one vote. You can have 30% of the stock, and nobody else can have more than 2%, but if they are allied against you, their votes carry the day. Same thing here. The lone shooter scenario may get 20-30% of the vote, while multiple different conspiracy scenario -- all of which contradict each other -- each get 5-10% of the vote. In total, conspiracy votes outnumber the lone-nut vote, but the lone-nut scenario is still the most common.

And you haven't shown beyond even a reasonable doubt -- let alone beyond all doubt -- that Oswald could not have committed the assassination. You've speculated an additional shot at Z285, that apparently only you can see evidence for. You've assumed the rest -- from a silenced weapon, to three shooters, to bullets being removed from the evidence chain, based on hearsay and decades-later recollections, that, if it pointed to Oswald, you would reject outright as being part of the coverup.

Hank

 

[JohnG]

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

Saying "I just don't know" is blasphemy? You really don't know the first thing about science or critical thinking, do you? For someone who claims to be a

lifelong atheist

you seem to be awfully hung up on biblical buzzwords. Let's take a look the language you used in just one of your recent posts:

adversaries

my attackers

victims

committing that sin

my adversaries

you guys are committing the same sin

burdens your victim

deluging your victims with more garbage posts

the attacker starts howling

I could never have survived

Forcing your adversary

more of the mob rule strategy

an adversary

Victims? Attackers? Adversaries? Get a hold of yourself, man! No one here is attacking you and you aren't a victim or a survivor. You've been beating the drum about ad hominem attacks against you while your own posts are peppered with snark, condescension and so many insults that I'm surprised so little Mod action has been taken against you.

I am a huge fan of reason and empirical evidence.

Evidence?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Hi! I have enjoyed lurking at this forum for some years now (beginning when it was with the JREF), and I am a longtime acquaintance of Mr. Harris's from the aforementioned alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. In fact, y'all can thank (?) me for Bob's presence here these past few, action-packed days, as I informed him there that I was going to register and suggested he do the same and join this thread.

The main indication that there are indeed some people who "gobble up" Bob's ideas are the faceless numbers of YouTube hits he has accrued over the years. On the other hand, he has been putting his theories before other people who profess to have a serious interest in the Kennedy assassination for more than a decade and a half, and his ideas have been subjected to critical scrutiny in every forum where he has tried them out. His reactions to such critiques have not evolved in that time span.

I told Bob I might repeat (for the umpteenth and final time) my own points critiquing his theory here, where the history of the conversation would be obvious for all to see. I had been looking for a point where my input might be helpful, but I did not want to jump in merely to pile on (though I'm sure that's how Bob will take this now), and I had nothing to add to what people here were telling him.

I do want to say, though, that I have been enjoying this immensely.

 

[kookbreaker]

Welcome to the forum, Sandy.

 

[HSienzant]

He read a book once, and now he wants credit for it.

I'm pretty certain no one in the world originated his theory other than the person posting here as Robert Harris.

I've seen him arguing for it on numerous sites for at least the last five or ten years.

And I've never seen it anywhere else.

This is his baby all the way, as far as I know.

Hank

 

[Pooneil]

Hi! I have enjoyed lurking at this forum for some years now (beginning when it was with the JREF)

Welcome to the forum. I mostly lurk too, This is a fast moving forum and I can hardly type quickly enough to get a word in before an idea has been posted by someone else. Robert is certainly a character and has a distinct way of interpreting what others write to mean just what he needs them to have said to continue on in his course of thought.

 

[Hans]

On the other hand, he has been putting his theories before other people who profess to have a serious interest in the Kennedy assassination for more than a decade and a half, and his ideas have been subjected to critical scrutiny in every forum where he has tried them out. His reactions to such critiques have not evolved in that time span..

Sandy as a I am a semi-professional at quasi-lurking in the JFK Skeptics forum I want to welcome another lurker. In the description above you are describing an internet crank but are you sure that applies to Robert? Certainly he has listen and learned over the years and just doesn't repeat over and over again failed concepts and ideas?

Surely?

From Pooneil: Welcome to the forum. I mostly lurk too, This is a fast moving forum and I can hardly type quickly enough to get a word in before an idea has been posted by someone else. Robert is certainly a character and has a distinct way of interpreting what others write to mean just what he needs them to have said to continue on in his course of thought.

Ah so you have noted it too eh?

 

[Pooneil]

Ah so you have noted it too eh?

An understatement on my part? Perhaps. But it is a clear at the little pink nose on your un-amused face.

 

[Hans]

An understatement on my part? Perhaps. But it is a clear at the little pink nose on your un-amused face.

Absolutely and I just noticed that I mis-spelled your name, my apologies

 

[HSienzant]

This relatively brief presentation demonstrates how Brehm pinpointed his position, relative to the President when he heard the shot at frame 285.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cHg4qeh2_M

You appear to be now arguing that Brehm heard only two of the supposed four shots. You need to explain how other witnesses heard three shots, and Brehm only two.

Or why you think Brehm only heard two when his FBI report says he heard three.

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

Note he puts the third shot *after* the head shot, which isn't accounted for in your scenario whatsoever, that I have seen. Also note he says the shots seemed to be spaced so they could be accomplished with a bolt-action weapon (none of this bunching you like to claim):

== quote ==
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.
== unquote ==

Honestly, Robert, this kind of selection from the record isn't very convincing.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

You appear to be now arguing that Brehm heard only two of the supposed four shots. You need to explain how other witnesses heard three shots, and Brehm only two.

Or why you think Brehm only heard two when his FBI report says he heard three.

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

Note he puts the third shot *after* the head shot, which isn't accounted for in your scenario whatsoever, that I have seen. Also note he says the shots seemed to be spaced so they could be accomplished with a bolt-action weapon (none of this bunching you like to claim):

== quote ==
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.
== unquote ==

Honestly, Robert, this kind of selection from the record isn't very convincing.

Hank

If you encountered Robert before on the interwebz, you might remember his assertion that the only shot that was fired by LHO wasn't intended to hit anyone, but was a warning shot so the SS would protect JFK from the real assassins, one of which was shooting from the manhole cover or similar iirc.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm pretty certain no one in the world originated his theory other than the person posting here as Robert Harris.

Correct; the "book" I was referring to was the work of Hunt and Landis, which Harris insinuates forms the psychology backbone of his claim.

 

[HSienzant]

And of course, Tague himself, said it was the second shot that caused him to be nicked by a tiny piece of debris.

"Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards."

So the evidence is quite consistent that the "concussion" Greer felt from the second shot, was the shock wave of the bullet that went on to strike the pavement, where it shattered, causing a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague, and a larger chunk of lead (perhaps the entire bullet core) to strike the Main St. curbing, where it left a smear of lead.

It doesn't appear you're taking into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound. That is, in the Warren Commission narrative, Tague could have been wounded by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) AND have heard that third shot thereafter. That's physics for you. So inconvenient to your theory. Your argument here applies to the convential narrative as well. In fact, according to you, Tague should have heard TWO shots after he was struck by a fragment of that Z285 shot .... the sound of the Z285 shot arriving afterward, and then the sound of the Z313 shot.

And you're insisting on a new bullet at Z285 that nobody sees evidence for (except you) while simultaneously explaining away the evidence of the bullet striking both men at Z223, claiming it was inaudible. So convenient for your theory that the conspirators used a suppressed weapon for only one of the four shots, don't you think? Or maybe you're just assuming what you need to prove - the existence of a suppressed weapon, the existence of a weapon firing subsonic ammo, the existence of other shooters, the existence of a shot at Z285, the existence of the flinching by the occupants of the car...

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Or maybe you're just assuming what you need to prove - the existence of a suppressed weapon, the existence of other shooters, the existence of a shot at Z285, the existence of the flinching by the occupants of the car...

Hank

Is there a name for that fallacy, Hank?

 

[HSienzant]

He described the final shots like this, "a flurry of shells come into the car" and "..it was like a double bang--bang, bang."

Which is, of course, fully consistent with what Clint Hill said and Sam Holland alluded to... hearing the bullet impact the head making one sound, and hearing the rifle shot itself making another. Those two sounds would arrive almost on top of each other to anyone near the car, would they not?

And as explained, his "flurry" appears to be nothing more than an attempt to reconcile or explain away the multiple wounds suffered by both men.

Hank