Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frames 223 to 312

This annotated Zapruder film segment will give you a very clear view of the movements of the limo passengers, beginning at frame 223, when it appears that the shot was fired that wounded JFK and Connally, and ends at frame 312, one frame prior to the fatal headshot.

annotated.gif
 
Robert Harris said:
I was going to warn you that Mr. Utah would be all over you for "begging the question", but for some unfathomable reason, he hasn't complained.

Gosh! I wonder why that is?
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Your layman's inferences from viewing the Zapruder film are objective and empirical facts, but thousands of pages of evidence in the WC and HSCA reports and their supporting documents that support the conclusion that LHO killed JFK are "begging the question".

Just like "ad hominem", it appears you don't understand the "begging the question" logical fallacy, either.
 
I will be gone for a few hours. If anyone wants to debate me, just send a PM and let me know when you will be on this evening. Please post something in the open forum however, that you agree to the level playing field rules (see below).

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. Nor will I post anything that is derogatory about them.

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.
 
Robert Harris said:
I will be gone for a few hours. If anyone wants to debate me, just send a PM and let me know when you will be on this evening. Please post something in the open forum however, that you agree to the level playing field rules (see below).

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. Nor will I post anything that is derogatory about them.

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.
Click to expand...
Once more - you don't get to set the rules.
 
Robert Harris said:
<silliness snip>
Click to expand...

Why do you not respond to the many refutations already on the table, Robert? Now that you've had many opportunities to avail yourself of knowledge about the numerous logical fallcies that you employ, do you think you will continue to use the same transparent techniques that every other CTist uses?
 
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...

That is a possibility I always held was possible - that some other person(s) spoke with or influenced him - and completely unprovable. While the evidence shows he shot the President it doesn't exclude an external influence that was undetected.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.
Click to expand...
I AM NOT A NUMBER, I AM A FREE MAN!
Click to expand...
EVERYBODY STOP POSTING UNTIL I GET CAUGHT UP!!!!!!!
(I mean, as long as we're all free here to make our own rules...)

Ok...I haven't read every post in the last 10 pages or so, but am I to understand that, basically, RH is pinning his entire theory on Roy Kellerman's "startle reflex," which must have come in reaction to the sound of a gunshot? And that all his readings of the evidence (eyewitness and so on) follow from that? Shades of David Lifton and the most useless 900 pages in the history of Western civilization, following his misreading of an FBI agent's misunderstanding of something said by a doctor at JFK's autopsy. First of all, RH has admitted here that "startle responses can take many forms"- IOW, that a startle reflex will not invariably result in the actions seen in Kellerman. But wouldn't the reverse also be true? That an action of the type seen in Kellerman is not invariably a startle reflex? And RH appears to be trying a perversion of the principle of consilience too- he's maintaining that other evidences, like the eyewitness testimonies, reinforce his conclusion, when, in fact, his interpretations of those evidences actually only follow from it. Common CT mistake (or strategy)- to think consilience means that if A is true, then B, C, and D are also true, when, properly, it's the reverse- B, C, and D being true is what makes A true. He wants to support the conclusion at the center of his web by spinning out from there instead of inwards toward it.

And, of course, the magical thinking- when pressed for evidence, or even a narrative, as to how certain details of the conspiracy worked (how did Braden communicate with Oswald? silenced rifles?), the answer is essentially "well, somehow it was done, because the conspiracy would have come up with a way." (In all fairness, it wasn't quite that blatantly dumb, but it was close) As with creationists, once you assume the conspiracy (deity), you automatically assume one with whatever properties and abilities it needs to be one- no need for evidence to support what is implicit.

(My apologies if all this has already been covered.)

(Oh, one more thing- IS THAT A GUN I SEE IN GREER'S LEFT HAND?!?!?!?)
 
Robert Harris said:
My rules for a level playing field.
Click to expand...

My rule.

Make a claim; support it with evidence. You've already broken it but I can forgive you if you are willing to demonstrate that you can follow this rule in the future.

Ranb
 
BazBear said:
Once more - you don't get to set the rules.
Click to expand...

Any bets on how long it will be before he realizes his puerile posturing serves only to cut him out of the debate? His "rules" ostensibly limit only who he will pay attention to. It won't stop people from talking about him and his claims. And insecurity severe enough to motivate hobbling one's opponents doesn't comfortably witness such a discussion.
 
I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.

1. I will debate one person at a time, as long as you wear a oil can on your head with the name Dealey Plaza written on it with crayon

2. I will debate no one whose mother eats oatmeal

3. I may presume that I am right - because I am!

4. I will debate anyone whose theory agrees with me or is willing to admit defeat prior to the debate

5. You will also agree not to say anything until I complete reading from my script - then see #4
 
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, and I must say I find nothing surprising in there. :)
 
Hans said:
That is a possibility I always held was possible - that some other person(s) spoke with or influenced him - and completely unprovable. While the evidence shows he shot the President it doesn't exclude an external influence that was undetected.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it really is the only possibility of a conspiracy in my mind. Even then, let's say someone at the
Cuban embassy in Mexico City said JFK is an ass and deserves to die, that's not a conspiracy.
 
BStrong said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tee hee.

Conspiracy theorist always come up with the most ridiculous, far-fetched theories. Conspiracies to cover plans that cover plans that cover plots, ad infinitum. It's quite ironic that they have the gall to call the official narrative unlikely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom