Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Harris said:
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
Click to expand...

So much more so, in fact, that I don't see what you're talking about for frame 285.

Alvarez's Error
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. The post I responded to previously wasn't a request to debate by your own rules, as a cursory glance might have us conclude. it was, in fact, a self-granted lisence to ignore posts you dislike and simply dump your ideas on the thread.

Sorry, Bob, but no one will be swayed by your weak and disorganised arguments.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps an echo chamber would be better for you.
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course. Criticisms of his unevidenced inferences and speculations will all be ad hominem attacks, while his expert proclamations of other posters mental states will be objective and empirical facts.:rolleyes:
 
Maybe we should keep a catalog of the fallacies as Robert employs them? Or we could do bingo cards but no fair going back and using existing posts. There will be plenty of his fallacies going forward.
 
BazBear said:
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.
Click to expand...

...any other ct tends to veer off into sci-fi or LHO being some kind of Manchurian candidate from his time in the USSR.
 
Robert Harris said:
Mr. Utah, I will continue to post evidence to my little heart's content.
Click to expand...

So you really think ISF is just another pulpit from which to preach your gospel?

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

"Agree to my rules or else you're a coward." That's a fallacy too, but I won't bother going into details because you frankly don't understand critical analysis at any level.

If you have so little faith in your favorite JFK conspiracy theory, that you are afraid to debate fairly...
Click to expand...

You know, over the past several pages I've been alluding to your efforts to direct the discussion. I noted how you selectively address rebuttals and how you keep demanding things that aren't strictly in the flow of the discussion but which would change that flow to favor your approach.

I honestly never thought you'd so brazenly try to literally script the debate in your favor. If you have so little faith in your favorite JFK conspiracy theory that you won't even discuss it until people agree to let you control them, then we're pretty much done here.

...then you really ought to consider another theory.
Click to expand...

Well, I considered yours. But I found it both less complete and less substantial than the conventional narrative. I've been kind enough to give you the reasons for that finding. If you'd like to correct those reasons, I'll give you another hearing.
 
Hans said:
...any other ct tends to veer off into sci-fi or LHO being some kind of Manchurian candidate from his time in the USSR.
Click to expand...

A favorite from the Usenet days and that was a steerable bullet launched by the USSR from space.
 
JayUtah said:
deleted some excellent stuff.
Click to expand...


Robert is what I would call a 'script runner', who goes to sites and runs the same posts in pre-described way - if you try to violate or question his plan he gets terribly upset.

Unfortunately the only way to deal with them is to not let them use their script and 9 times out of 10 they curse everyone out and move on to run their scripts elsewhere.
 
turingtest said:
EVERYBODY STOP POSTING UNTIL I GET CAUGHT UP!!!!!!!
(I mean, as long as we're all free here to make our own rules...)
Click to expand...

Hello. Nice to see a new face around here. I'm glad I happened to check in and caught your post. Please feel free BTW, to address your questions about my work, to me.

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?
Click to expand...

That is only one small part of it. Much of my analysis is covered in this article,

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

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.
Click to expand...

Lifton and I had a rather nasty confrontation back in the 90's, in a usenet forum, though on a different issue.

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?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's hard to imagine him shrugging his shoulders and shielding his ear as he simultaneously ducked for some other reason, but I suppose it's possible. Perhaps I lack the imagination to think of it.

There are two other factors to consider however. He began to drop his head in the same 1/6th of a second that Zapruder reacted, and Jackie began to duck within the same 1/6th of a second that Greer began to spin around from back to front in 2/9ths of a second, simultaneous with him making the worst mistake of his career, by slowing the limo. During that same 1/6th of a second, Nellie snapped her head away from JFK and turned to her husband, pulling him back to her, as she testified to doing in reaction to the shot which she believed, wounded her husband.

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.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. This is from the Warren Commission report,

..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together.

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind..

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.
Click to expand...

The statements of the large consensus of witnesses is totally unconnected to the 285 reactions. It is just one more very solid corroboration. Granted, they are subjective opinions, but subjective is OK sometimes, especially when the consensus is so large.

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."
Click to expand...

That is not what I said. I answered that question, stating that he probably didn't communicate with any other shooters during the attack. This was not the Green Berets. I believe it was done by a handful of mafia thugs, whose plan was to just shoot at JFK when he came into range.

(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.
Click to expand...

Please do not stereotype me. I agree with almost as many specific issues as you probably do. One bullet passed through JFK and JBC. Oswald was probably guilty. The shot at 313 came from the rear, etc. etc.

It was in 1995 that I stumbled across this, unaware that Dr. Michael Stroscio beat me to it by about 2 months.

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

(Oh, one more thing- IS THAT A GUN I SEE IN GREER'S LEFT HAND?!?!?!?)
Click to expand...

Do you actually deny that??? Look at my presentation on it and learn!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0

Hey! If you're up for it, let's debate. I do have a few stipulations which will save me from taking on 20 people at the same time, most of whom are trolling personal insults. Let me know.

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.
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
I WILL DEBATE NO ONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE TO THEM.
Click to expand...

...you say in your debate response to turingtest, who has not agreed to any such rules. Can we finally agree that these "rules" are just your latest rhetorical dog-and-pony show and that no one -- not eve you -- has the slightest inclination to pay any attention to them?
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm ready to admit that I may be incorrect in my recollection, which evidently isn't part of the "level playing field" dogma adhered to by our new self appointed JFK expert and thread moderator.
 
I saw a comedy skit a long time ago where all the CTs converged at one time and the JFK assassination looked like the final scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid with about 200 shooters opening up on Limo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom