Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Harris said:
The overwhelming consensus of the witnesses that day, who commented on the spacing of the shots, was that they heard a single shot or noise, followed by a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you know the two sounds heard almost together were both shots, and not, as Clint Hill noted, the sound of the bullet striking the skull AND the sound of the bullet being fired.

Hank
 
RoboTimbo said:
Is there a name for that fallacy, Hank?
Click to expand...

Affirming the Consequent. That is, if you observe or deduce that a certain effect (the "consequent") holds, then asserting with little or no argument that one of possibly several causes for it (an "antecedent") must have been the one to produced it is generally a fallacy. The name comes from the first step in the formal definition of it, which is to affirm (i.e., arbitrarily make true) the effect.

The effect in a case such as this might be that a participant fails to flinch when other evidence indicates a shot was fired. One possible cause for that effect would be a silenced weapon. Another possible cause may be a failure of the deduction that suggests a flinch should have occurred. The proponent of a particular antecedent bears the burden to prove his antecedent is the causal one. And that burden can almost never be shouldered by an indirect claim ("I've eliminated all the other possibilities") or an argument from ignorance/silence ("What else could it possibly be?").

Committing this fallacy often leads further to circular reasoning. Because the "silenced weapon" hypothesis is explicitly tailored to the consequent, with full hindsight knowledge of it, that excellent "fit" is sometimes cited as proof that it must have happened that way. This circumstance is most easily detected when the hypothetical antecedent is absurd on its face. But prima facie plausibility of any custom-manufactured hypothesis is not sufficient proof of its superiority.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Please explain how you know the two sounds heard almost together were both shots, and not, as Clint Hill noted, the sound of the bullet striking the skull AND the sound of the bullet being fired.

Hank
Click to expand...

Indeed this is one of the reasons I ask whether proponents have physically visited Dealey Plaza. The acoustic circumstances there are particularly live, and a witness reporting two "closely spaced" shots may very well be reporting one shot and its echo.

I live across the street from a church, and from my backyard I have the singular experience of hearing its bell ring and be almost perfectly reflected from the flat face of the healthcare facility on the other side of my block. From my vantage point it's as if I can hear two churches conversing via bell.
 
JayUtah said:
Affirming the Consequent. That is, if you observe or deduce that a certain effect (the "consequent") holds, then asserting with little or no argument that one of possibly several causes for it (an "antecedent") must have been the one to produced it is generally a fallacy. The name comes from the first step in the formal definition of it, which is to affirm (i.e., arbitrarily make true) the effect.

The effect in a case such as this might be that a participant fails to flinch when other evidence indicates a shot was fired. One possible cause for that effect would be a silenced weapon. Another possible cause may be a failure of the deduction that suggests a flinch should have occurred. The proponent of a particular antecedent bears the burden to prove his antecedent is the causal one. And that burden can almost never be shouldered by an indirect claim ("I've eliminated all the other possibilities") or an argument from ignorance/silence ("What else could it possibly be?").
Click to expand...
In this case, can it not also be that the movement - the alleged "flinch" - is not a flinch at all, but something else, as for example swaying due to changes in vehicle acceleration (as has been suggested)?

As for the gentleman himself, it's pretty clear that while his narrative may be unique, his behaviour and mannerisms are not at all; he can be exchanged for nearly all of his predecessors by only changing the details of the narrative.
 
Robert Harris said:
At this point, it should be clear that this large consensus of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were correct. Contrary to theories by either government experts or conspiracy buffs, there was only one audible shot fired, prior to Zapruder frame 255, to be followed by at least two closely spaced or "bunched” shots at the very end. It is almost unbelievable that after 40 years, experts on both sides of the controversy, still labor under the illusion that the pattern was exactly the opposite of what all these people told them.
Click to expand...

You appear to be closing in on arguing for just two shots.

One hitting both men at Z223, and the head shot, along with the sound of the bullet striking the head being heard as yet another shot.

But that theory is already taken:

http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Shot-Eyewitnesses-Solve-Assassination/dp/1492738956

So maybe you should stick with yours, even though other, simpler, explanations work at least as well and don't invoke unseen assassins firing unseen weapons and leaving no trace.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Sandy McCroskey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum Sandy.
 
JayUtah said:
Affirming the Consequent. That is, if you observe or deduce that a certain effect (the "consequent") holds, then asserting with little or no argument that one of possibly several causes for it (an "antecedent") must have been the one to produced it is generally a fallacy. The name comes from the first step in the formal definition of it, which is to affirm (i.e., arbitrarily make true) the effect.

The effect in a case such as this might be that a participant fails to flinch when other evidence indicates a shot was fired. One possible cause for that effect would be a silenced weapon. Another possible cause may be a failure of the deduction that suggests a flinch should have occurred. The proponent of a particular antecedent bears the burden to prove his antecedent is the causal one. And that burden can almost never be shouldered by an indirect claim ("I've eliminated all the other possibilities") or an argument from ignorance/silence ("What else could it possibly be?").

Committing this fallacy often leads further to circular reasoning. Because the "silenced weapon" hypothesis is explicitly tailored to the consequent, with full hindsight knowledge of it, that excellent "fit" is sometimes cited as proof that it must have happened that way. This circumstance is most easily detected when the hypothetical antecedent is absurd on its face. But prima facie plausibility of any custom-manufactured hypothesis is not sufficient proof of its superiority.
Click to expand...

And further, that suppressed rifle caliber firearms are anything but silent even with today's tech, the "silent" weapon is one of the true signs of an uniformed individual trying to crowbar fantasy into reality.
 
My Rules

My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, until he or I decide he is done.

2. I will debate no one whose posts are about Robert Harris and are in any way derogatory.

3. I may presume that I am right just as my adversaries may presume that they are right.

4. I will debate anyone whose theory is different than mine-conspiracy or lone nut, with each of us bearing the burden of proving their own belief.

These rules may be subject to change as I deem necessary.

I will begin debating with the first person who agrees to these rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
grmcdorman said:
In this case, can it not also be that the movement - the alleged "flinch" - is not a flinch at all, but something else, as for example swaying due to changes in vehicle acceleration (as has been suggested)?
Click to expand...

Very much so, although my example treated the absence of an expected flinch. I intended such hypotheses to be covered by the "failure of deduction" statement, but I couldn't find a way to phrase it both universally and concisely. If you express the fallacy in pure syllogistic form, both the major and minor premises of all the constituent syllogisms can often be deductions. And the strength of those deductions themselves depend on their own subordinate premises. This is why properly validating one's own inference is a laborious process. You cannot simply assert all the intermediate, deduced conclusions as matters of fact. When you deduce that a certain thing should be the case, any weakness in that deduction does not diminish simply because you wish to focus on the part of the argument that is far removed from it.

Sadly in conspiracism, the appropriate refutation to an affirmed consequent fallacy is often seized as yet another opportunity to shift the burden of proof. "I observe this, which could only be caused by X." "Can it not also be caused by Y?" "Very well, prove that Y caused the observation." But if the proponent's claim is that only X can produce the observation, he bears the burden to prove that singularity.

As for the gentleman himself, it's pretty clear that while his narrative may be unique, his behaviour and mannerisms are not at all; he can be exchanged for nearly all of his predecessors by only changing the details of the narrative.
Click to expand...

A point I raised and explained, to no avail. The analogy of running away from a central, undesirable explanation is still apt. The unique destination toward which some proponent may run is not connected to the manner in which he does the running. Robert Harris seems confused by the distinction between a common method and disparate outcomes.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed this is one of the reasons I ask whether proponents have physically visited Dealey Plaza. The acoustic circumstances there are particularly live, and a witness reporting two "closely spaced" shots may very well be reporting one shot and its echo.

I live across the street from a church, and from my backyard I have the singular experience of hearing its bell ring and be almost perfectly reflected from the flat face of the healthcare facility on the other side of my block. From my vantage point it's as if I can hear two churches conversing via bell.
Click to expand...

^bingo^

I've posted here more than once about Hiram Maxim's account of firing a suppressed 1903 Springfield down a country road lined with telegraph poles and describing the sound as a "battalion of machine guns" being fired - as the projo passed each pole the sonic boom from it's passing could be clearly heard as a series of separate gunshots.
 
I remember a saying the old timers used back in my childhood, something about telling somebody to "go make in their hat."

Can't understand why that just seemed to pop into my head.
 
Two Sets of Reactions

In this Zapruder film segment it is easy to see two separate series of reactions - one in reaction to the 285 shot and one in reaction to the 313 shot. Watch Kellerman and Greer, ducking and spinning in perfect tandem with one another.

Reactions to the 313 shot were more pronounced, just as Zapruder's reactions to 313 were more pronounced, as Dr. Alvarez confirmed.

duckstwice.gif
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
My rules for a level playing field.

I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.
Click to expand...

Well good, because I am not looking for a debate, just an answer. Where were the shots aimed at JFK fired from?


If you won't debate answer the question. Else there will be little else here for you but to talk to yourself.
 
Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy. That much is indisputable.

The only thing that I see that is (possibly) up for debate is whether Oswald came up with the idea to kill Kennedy himself or was also at least partially influenced by meetings with Cuban embassy officials in Mexico City. Probably impossible to disentangle Oswald's own Communist views from the Cold War context of JFK trying and failing to assassinate Fidel Castro (Oswald's hero) - and Castro and the Cuban government being aware of that threat.

In other words, it may not have even been necessary for Oswald to have been "egged on" by others.
 
Last edited:
Alvarez's Error

It is interesting and enlightening that Dr. Alvarez, for all his brilliance, misidentified two false positives, thinking they were gunshots.

Look closely at his chart. With much better resources and decent resolution copies of the Zapruder film, most researchers today, reject his theory that shots were fired at frames 177 and 250.

alvarezchart.jpg


Of course, the reason for his error is obvious. There were no high powered rifle shots fired, prior to frame 285. Whatever number of early shots were fired, none were loud enough to startle the limo passengers, which is why we see no reactions by the limo passengers which were similar to their reactions following 285 and 313.

Of course, if they weren't loud enough to startle the passengers, they weren't loud enough to startle Zapruder, who was much further from the bullet's path.

One more point. Notice that the pulse following 313, began with a short dip to the left, followed by a larger peak to the right. We see exactly that same pattern following 285. Now look at the false positives. The pattern is reversed, beginning with a peak to the right, followed by a dip to the left.
 
Allen773 said:
Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy. That much is indisputable.

The only thing that I see that is (possibly) up for debate is whether Oswald came up with the idea to kill Kennedy himself or was also at least partially influenced by meetings with Cuban embassy officials in Mexico City. Probably impossible to disentangle Oswald's own Communist views from the Cold War context of JFK trying and failing to assassinate Fidel Castro (Oswald's hero) - and Castro and the Cuban government being aware of that threat.

In other words, it may not have even been necessary for Oswald to have been "egged on" by others.
Click to expand...

I believe that given the opportunity to take a shot at almost any notable individual on that date in history, LHO would have done so - he'd already got his feet wet w/ Walker and was ready to go after bigger game.

LHO was a tragedy waiting to happen - little man, little to no skills, never fit into any group he tried to be a part of, etc.

Put a firearm into his hands and you've got the classic recipe for a cluster shooter.
 
JayUtah said:
Honestly, don't keep posting your claims over and over if you're categorically unwilling to entertain further debate.
Click to expand...

Mr. Utah, I will continue to post evidence to my little heart's content.

And I have no doubt that there are members here who have the courage to debate fairly, on a level playing field.

If you have so little faith in your favorite JFK conspiracy theory, that you are afraid to debate fairly, without a mob of howling trolls to back you up, then you really ought to consider another theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom