Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Harris said:
...you all admit that there isn't a shred of evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Your sad, predicted attempt to shift the burden of proof didn't net any takers, and you simply declared according to your infallible judgment that this constituted some sort of admission. Not only can't you make headway without dictating how the debate will go, you have to put words in your critics' mouths too.

In addition to the fact that you drive away anyone who disagrees...
Click to expand...

We don't drive anyone away. However, most conspiracy theorists soon realize that they are no longer among sycophants, and that they will no longer be able to use their customary rhetorical shell game. And when they realize they cannot transform this forum into one of their echo chambers, they hurl invective and retreat voluntarily to less contrary pastures.

[qimg]http://jfkhistory.com/moses.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
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)
Click to expand...

No, it was pretty much exactly like that.

Robert Harris said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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...

Hi Sandy, welcome! And I think we've all been enjoying this immensely (except maybe for Robert).

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Sorry, Blakey's views are not evidence. They are his opinion only. And he was hardly unbiased in that regard, as he served under RFK in the Justice Dept, and RFK's animus toward the mob is well-known. Isn't it?

And the HSCA was all set to conclude that Oswald committed the assassination alone until the accoustic evidence was studied, and as you admit, the wrong conclusion reached there.

Hank
Click to expand...

Bob won't respond unless the field is tilted in his favor. Ok, ignore me all you want. I will still feel free to comment on any claims you make. All your silly rule-making means is you won't be rebutting my points, but that's not really any different than what you've been doing in the past 24 hours, is it?

Hank
 
cmikes said:
Alvarez actually ruled out a shot at Z285, Robert simply claims that Alvarez was wrong but his own analysis of Alvarez's work is correct.
Click to expand...

Yup, we sort of covered that earlier when I defined appropriation of authority as a common conspiracy-theorist tactic. "I am citing experts, therefore I am an expert." In both this case and the Hunt & Landis case, Harris' claims either directly contradict the cited authority or go far beyond them.

The people in the car were undoubtedly reacting to being fired upon, but it doesn't really do much to narrow down the time frame no matter how much Robert wishes it were different.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when you rely on 75-year-old science and don't look at newer stuff.

[H]e'll take a break for a day or two and start another thread stating the same theory almost word for word as if it's brand new information.
Click to expand...

And around here, the moderators just habitually merge it back into the original thread.
 
BStrong said:
Laningham was doing a bit in the same facility as CM, negotiated a deal with the FBI to do a little jailhouse snitching and the FBI provided him with a bugged radio that he kept in his cell.

The big noise about this piece of the story is largely dependent on knowledge of mafiosi behavior (if you take the position of the FBI) or the desire for wish fulfillment (if you're a CTist)

Marcello (on tape) told Laningham and another convict exactly what our new moderator described - he had JFK killed and wished he'd done it sooner.

The FBI couldn't understand why CM, an old time Capo if there ever was one, would talk outside of his thing with two convicts that not only weren't LCN associates or members, they weren't Sicilian and they were both low level criminals.

The FBI wrote off CM's "confession" as braggadocio.

If one is a CTist, any statement that supports their fantasy is unassailable, and anything else is well, no big whoop.

There's something else to consider in RW facts that certain parties want to ignore wrt FBI and Justice Department information gleaned through wire taps (legal and otherwise) back in the day.

For all the thousands of hours of wiretaps, although hatred of Kennedy was much in evidence (in the house I grew up in too) there was not one single actionable piece of intelligence that pointed towards a real world LCN conspiracy to hit JFK.

I was raised to believe that LCN did the deed, but the faith-based belief in that version of events doesn't stand up to the actual evidence.

JFK is only the most well known example of someone killed by a nobody for reasons only the nobody knew.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Appreciate it. Robert didn't give enough specifics to determine what exactly he was claiming happened.

Oswald's motivation - given his history - is pretty much as described elsewhere in this thread (Castro sympathizer; wanted to go down in history; tried to kill another anti-Castro politician seven months earlier; tried to get a visa to travel to Cuba)...

The one that gets me is the shooting of Reagan by Hinckley... who would have guessed he did it to impress Jodie Foster if he had been killed within a few days of the assassination attempt?

Hank
 
Robert Harris said:
Yes, many witnesses said they did not recognize the first noise as a gunshot.
Click to expand...

Yet you think this was NOT the silenced shot. You claim the second shot was the silenced shot. I think there's a logical disconnect.


Robert Harris said:
Yes, but Hill was in a small minority. Most witnesses reported three.
Click to expand...

And yet you're arguing for FOUR! More witnesses hear two shots than heard four or more. That's not exactly good for your theory.




Robert Harris said:
Yes, and your point is...
Click to expand...

Understood by all here except apparently you. Sam Holland's claims about the last two sounds he heard -- which he made clear at one point one of those sounds wasn't necessarily a shot -- conforms to Clint Hill's observations, and calls into question your assumption that anyone who reported two sounds (or two shots) close together automatically heard two shots. Like Kellerman, who described two shots literally on top of each other - bang-bang, not bang....... bang. Two sounds literally on top of each other would be exactly what he would hear if he heard the sound of the impact of the bullet on JFK's skull, and then heard the sound of the bullet being fired arriving at his location.

But you continue to ignore all that, and go right on assuming what you need to prove.



Robert Harris said:
That's ridiculous. Not only did most witnesses describe a delay of roughly 2 seconds between the final two shots, but there are clear reactions by the limo passengers to each of the two at the end. Notice how Kellerman ducks and Greer spins in perfect tandem with one another, following first 285 and then 313.

[qimg]http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Not seeing what you claim is evident. Sorry. Perhaps it's not as evident as you believe?

Also, I don't believe *most* (as in more than half) witnesses described a delay of roughly two seconds. I believe this is just more hyperbole by you.


Robert Harris said:
We will make great progress if we simply pay attention to the relevant facts and evidence.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Note that your conclusions you put forth are not facts, nor are they evidence. I cited the testimony of two eyewitnesses who explained that they heard something that they couldn't say was a shot at about the time of the head shot. Clint Hill even suggested what it was. I concur in his assessment. You need to explain why Clint Hill (and perhaps Sam Holland) didn't mention hearing the shot at Z285 but did hear the clear impact of the bullet on the skull a second or two later.


Hank
 
Robert Harris said:
I have no idea what you are complaining about.

What "fallacy" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Bob, I even highlighted the very issue in question. Surely you're not claiming you didn't notice that highlighting, are you?

You're just avoiding a response by asking me to explain what needs no further explanation.

Here's a link to the post you're apparently claiming you didn't understand.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10742233#post10742233

Hank
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
None of this matters unless you are going to take the position that Oswald was able to fire shots at 285 and 313, and that there was only one early shot.

Are you?
Click to expand...

I need not take that position, because a shot at Z285 is unproven. And all your repetition of the point won't change any of that.

Hank
 
Robert Harris said:
Not so. I posted a comprehensive article as well as video presentations, proving my claim.
Click to expand...

Wow. So, according to you, all the Warren Commission had to do was post a comprehensive article and a video presentation, and that would prove their claims. Too bad youtube.com hadn't been invented yet.

Sorry, I don't find your argument here very convincing.



Robert Harris said:
The ball is now in your court. Are you prepared to refute me?
Click to expand...

Already pointed out a number of unproven assumptions in your arguments. Since they are unproven assumptions, your conclusions cannot be said to be proven.

Hank
 
Link reposted.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10742269#post10742269

Bob apparently ignored all this (just too inconvenient to his claims, I suppose).

Robert Harris said:
If you have read the article I linked, then you know that John Connally testified that he clearly heard the first shot, which was undoubtedly, the one at 150-160. But he only "felt" the second. Since the witnesses, including all of the surviving limo passengers also reported hearing no more than one early shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that this one was fired from a suppressed rifle of some kind.

It certainly didn't come from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Which one didn't? The one Connally said he didn't hear? What was Connally's excuse for not recalling the sound of that bullet being fired?

Oh yeah, that's right -- he said he had been shot, and his circuitry was more concerned with the pain shooting through his body than the auditory impulses his ears were picking up:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.
== UNQUOTE ==

There's nothing in there that implies a weapon other than Oswald's was used, or that a suppressed weapon with a silencer of any sort was used.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:

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


Did you retract the part where you wouldn't post derogatory statements?

And are you ever going to apologize for suggesting I was mentally ill? Does that outburst no longer live in your little psychological construct?
 
Robert Harris said:
It is interesting and enlightening that Dr. Alvarez, for all his brilliance, misidentified two false positives, thinking they were gunshots.
Click to expand...

So when we dispute Alvarez' assertions we are disputing a "Nobel Prize winning physicist" and should feel bad about it.

When you do it, it's completely okay. Robert Harris > Nobel-Prize-Winning physicist!

Your fallacy is the Ad Hoc Rescue.
 
JayUtah said:
Robert Harris is a liar.
Click to expand...

I know you're an honest man, Jay. So I will presume that you just have a little problem with reading comprehension.

I said I will say nothing derogatory about my debate adversaries. The people who troll and post ad hominem attacks are not my debate adversaries and probably never will be. None of them would ever have the courage to engage me in an honest debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom