Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[HSienzant]

== QUOTE ==
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.
== UNQUOTE ==

Why are you responding to me, and debating anything here, Robert? According to your own rules of engagement, you won't debate with anyone who doesn't agree with your rules. I never agreed to your rules. Yet I find you keep responding to me, and trying to debate certain issues (unrelated to the JFK assassination) in defiance of your own claims. Did you mean what you said, or did you not?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Repost for Bob:

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

 

[HSienzant]

Report for Bob:

You are equating "Noises" with "Shots" in the article.

I believe Clint Hill was quite clear about what he heard. Two shots, but the second shot was a double-sound:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you described?
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
== UNQUOTE ==

Hill said he only heard two shots. Not three, with the last two close together.

Another witness said much the same thing.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
...
Mr. HOLLAND - But, two of them was rather close together, though.
Mr. STERN - So close do you think that might have been one shot?
Mr. HOLLAND - No, it was four.
Mr. STERN - You are clear there were four?
Mr. HOLLAND - No; it was different sounds, different reports.
== UNQUOTE ==

Holland too appeared to note a double-sound at the end of the shooting and said he wasn't certain both sounds were shots.

Can you kindly avoid assuming what you need to prove in the future? That if a witness heard two sounds / noises close together, each was a separate shot instead of one shot and one sound of impact on the skull?

Thanks much. We'll make great progress if you can avoid the logical fallacies I've seen in many previous conspiracy theorists arguments.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Now Robert is trying to limit the responses once more. This is not a person-to-person private chat room, Robert. Jay Utah is perfectly fine to offer his opinion here.

You never mentioned that he could speak on your behalf. Can I do that too?

My *attacks on you*?? Please, by all means, report what I said that you so offensive.

I might have. I've lost track of how many I've reported.

In the meantime, I recall pointing our some contrary evidence and pointing out your rules of engagement supposedly limit you from responding to my points

Of course not. No rules on the planet that I'm aware of, require forum members to respond to every argument. Some arguments are just not worthy of a response. And dozens of my arguments have been ignored, under YOUR rules.

Would you like a list of nutters who evaded my arguments? Will you be bitching at them like you bitch at me?

but don't prevent me from responding to your posts. Somehow, however, even though you said you wouldn't without an agreement, you keep responding to me.

Yes, I couldn't find a single nutter who had the guts to debate me on a level playing field.

I think Jay is trying to point out the flaws in your argument(s).

LOL!!

That's about all Jay does these days. His "accusations" are hilarious. It's just sad that the man is so obsessed with me.

As am I. It's not our fault there are so many, nor is our fault you keep repeating them.

Yawn. Trashtalk, trashtalk, trashtalk

Why don't you post a rebuttal to my article? I'll respond on your terms, so long as you stop the ad hominem attacks.

Or is that little more than you can handle?

 

[HSienzant]

Repost for Bob:

The fastest time with Oswald's rifle ever documented is 4.45 seconds for three shots. Specialist Miller accomplished that. According to Ronald Simmons testimony.

==QUOTE ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
. . .
Mr. SIMMONS. ...Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
== UNQUOTE ==

So Frazier was wrong to testify that 4.6 seconds was the minimum, as a faster time was accomplished.

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

Quoting a provably erroneous claim by Frazier is not the best way to start out.

But of course, this is the same claim made for decades in conspiracy books. For Example, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (Josiah Thompson) quotes Frazier on page 31 to make the same point. RUSH TO JUDGMENT (Mark Lane) uses the same figure of 4.6 seconds for three shots on page 67, but then sets himself up as his own best witness, and says "I believe it to be unrealistic...it seems likely that more than 2.3 seconds [between shots] would be required."

Why are you quoting Frazier, when Frazier can be shown to be provably wrong in his guesstimate of the minimum time?

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Report for Bob:

You are equating "Noises" with "Shots" in the article.

You need to be more specific. Are you claiming that the "noise" circa 150-160 was not a gunshot?

Are you also claiming that there was no shot at 223?

Please clarify your position. I will demonstrate for you, to an extreme probability, bordering on certainty, that there was a shot at 223 and at least one prior to that.

I believe Clint Hill was quite clear about what he heard. Two shots, but the second shot was a double-sound:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you described?
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
== UNQUOTE ==

He never stated or even implied that those were two separate shots. And even if had, you are cherry picking a ridiculously tiny percentage of the witnesses, most of whom were very clear that they heard two distinct sounds.

Hill said he only heard two shots. Not three, with the last two close together.

Uh huh. But why do you go with a minority witness? Why not go with the vastly larger consensus who heard three shots, the last two being frequently claimed to be separated by about app. 2 seconds?

Robert H. Jackson,
I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together..

Arnold Rowland,
The actual time between the reports I would say now, after having had time to consider the 6 seconds between the first and second report and two between the second and third

Special Agent Forrest V. Sorrels in the lead car,
There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.

Chief Sheriff's Deputy Allan Sweatt,
The President's caravan had just passed and about a minute or two, I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot..

Another witness said much the same thing.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
...
Mr. HOLLAND - But, two of them was rather close together, though.
Mr. STERN - So close do you think that might have been one shot?
Mr. HOLLAND - No, it was four.
Mr. STERN - You are clear there were four?
Mr. HOLLAND - No; it was different sounds, different reports.
== UNQUOTE ==

Holland too appeared to note a double-sound at the end of the shooting and said he wasn't certain both sounds were shots.

Yes, he heard four shots. That certainly bolsters your theory.

Can you kindly avoid assuming what you need to prove in the future?

Umm.. no, I guess not. I will "assume" that which is logical and is supported by the evidence.

I am not clear BTW, what exactly you are saying. Are you claiming that witnesses heard the bullet and then the head explosion, and thought they were hearing two separate shots??

Let's consider the limo passengers. Do you know how much time elapsed between the arrival of the bullet's shock wave and the head explosion? The shock wave emanates from the bullet, so there was no perceptible delay at all. The twos noise would have been heard at the same instant, or so close to the same instant that it doesn't matter.

The muzzle blast would have arrived less than a quarter of a second after that and would also have been perceived as part of the same noise.

To create a false perception of two shots, there must be a perceptible delay between the two sounds and there was none then.

But tell me, are you claiming there were two shots in total? If so, this debate is going to be a lot of fun - for me anyway.

That if a witness heard two sounds / noises close together, each was a separate shot instead of one shot and one sound of impact on the skull?

Your theory fails for several reasons. First, it is easy to see that the limo passengers reacted to two different gunshots at 285 and 313. Watch Greer and Kellerman duck 'n spin respectively, in perfect tandem with one another, as well as the other limo passengers.

Their reactions began at 290-292 or within the same 1/6th of one second of one another as well as Zapruder, whose reaction was identified by Dr. Alvarez at 290-291. It's true that Alvarez guessed that the reactions were caused by a siren, but none of the witnesses, including the ones who operated sirens, said they came on prior to the end of the attack.

After your reply, we need to talk about Nellie and a couple other witnesses, but I am curious to hear about your position on the shooting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Really?

Do you also refuse to watch lectures by Dawkins, Sagon, Krauss, Tyson and numerous other brilliant minds? Do you also refuse to watch science based documentaries or the best in classical and jazz music?

And if you refused to watch my presentation, how did you determine that it was "stupid"?

What is "stupid" is demanding data and then refusing to examine it when it is presented.

No, stupid is being asked for a link to a post and instead posting an idiotic YouTube video. So, you admit that you were not telling the truth in saying that you had posted a link to a post?

 

[Belz...]

Not unless you can demonstrate that my conditions did not constitute a level playing field.

The issue is that a level playing field is neither required nor desirable.

You knew very well that I was not debating with anyone then, who insisted on the phony "rules", imposed by a handful of nutters.

Did you just call the owner of this forum insane ?

You refused to debate on my conditions which were infinitely more appropriate than yours

Please stop considering your opinions as fact.

And please do not accuse me of "begging the question" until you explain why your rules are at least equal to mine?

What in the blue hell does one have to do with the other ? Do you even understand what the phrase means ?

And now, you really are begging the question, since you could never demonstrate to save your life, that my statements were errors.

It HAS been demonstrated. The problem here is your ability to understand that, and frankly, it's your problem, not anyone else's.

You never mentioned that he could speak on your behalf.

This is getting ridiculous. ANYONE can post and offer their opinions on anything. No one needs permission.

I've lost track of how many I've reported.

You do know that abuse of the reporting function is also actionable, right ?

No rules on the planet that I'm aware of, require forum members to respond to every argument.

True.

Wow, I can't believe I said that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ok, let's debate under the condition that we presume conspiracy to be a given.

Is that OK with you? Or would you complain about "how unfair all this is"?

You seriously don't and seemingly never will understand the burden of proof. Go back and read JayUtah's post for comprehension. Ask for help with the parts of it that you don't understand.

 

[Robert Harris]

Repost for Bob:

The fastest time with Oswald's rifle ever documented is 4.45 seconds for three shots. Specialist Miller accomplished that. According to Ronald Simmons testimony.

==QUOTE ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
. . .
Mr. SIMMONS. ...Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
== UNQUOTE ==

So Frazier was wrong to testify that 4.6 seconds was the minimum, as a faster time was accomplished.

Quoting a provably erroneous claim by Frazier is not the best way to start out.

What a pointless argument. Millers average time in the three attempts was higher than 4.6 seconds. And it doesn't matter anyway, since neither of them were even close to the 1.5 seconds between 285 and 313.

But of course, this is the same claim made for decades in conspiracy books. For Example, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (Josiah Thompson) quotes Frazier on page 31 to make the same point. RUSH TO JUDGMENT (Mark Lane) uses the same figure of 4.6 seconds for three shots on page 67, but then sets himself up as his own best witness, and says "I believe it to be unrealistic...it seems likely that more than 2.3 seconds [between shots] would be required."

Why are you quoting Frazier, when Frazier can be shown to be provably wrong in his guesstimate of the minimum time?

Hank

You need to write a letter of complaint to the FBI, Hank. And while you're at it, I'll give you a list of REAL sins they committed.

 

[Robert Harris]

You seriously don't and seemingly never will understand the burden of proof. Go back and read JayUtah's post for comprehension. Ask for help with the parts of it that you don't understand.

The "burden of proof" that Jay was referring to was never a forum rule. It has no legitimacy, whatsoever.

It amounts to a handful of nutters fabricating phony "rules" which allow them to evade the fact that they could never prove Oswald acted alone.

It is pathetic that they would sink to that level, but understandable I suppose, considering how helpless they are to defend their theory.

 

[HSienzant]

Why are you responding to me, and debating anything here, Robert? According to your own rules of engagement, you won't debate with anyone who doesn't agree with your rules. I never agreed to your rules. No one has. Yet I find you keep responding to me, and trying to debate certain issues (related and unrelated to the JFK assassination) in defiance of your own claims that you would only debate with those who agreed to play by your rules. Did you mean what you said, or did you not?

 

[Robert Harris]

No, stupid is being asked for a link to a post and instead posting an idiotic YouTube video. So, you admit that you were not telling the truth in saying that you had posted a link to a post?

I will ask you for the second time, how did you determine that my presentation was stupid or idiotic if you refuse to watch it?

 

[Pooneil]

"jive".

I mean "to be in general accordance with."

I usually hear and use this word as "jibe," though the same meaning.

To which I've always attached a folk entomology as being related to the nautical term for turning a sail boat with the wind from astern. Thus maintaining or rectifying a desired down wind course that cannot be directly taken.

Perhaps thought, people sail the Great Salt Lake with a more personalized flair than we third coasters do on the Gulf.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The "burden of proof" that Jay was referring to was never a forum rule. It has no legitimacy, whatsoever.

This shows that you didn't read the post for comprehension at all. He distinguishes between forum rules and rules of logic and discourse going back millenia. It all went over your head. Go back and read his post for comprehension and ask for help with the parts you don't understand. That seems to be the majoriity of it.

It amounts to a handful of nutters fabricating phony "rules" which allow them to evade the fact that they could never prove Oswald acted alone.

No. Agan, if you would go back and read it, this time without your fingers in your ears saying "LALALALALA, I can't hear you!" you might start to catch on.

It is pathetic that they would sink to that level, but understandable I suppose, considering how helpless they are to defend their theory.

He's actually been very patient with you and very kind to explain exactly where you're making your most serious blunders. You've done nothing but whine about it.

Go back and read his post for comprehension this time. Pay especial attention to the part about how the positive claim has the burden of proof and how that originated. It has nothing to do with this forum or its rules.

 

[Hans]

The "burden of proof" that Jay was referring to was never a forum rule. It has no legitimacy, whatsoever.

So what no one needs to prove anything it all goes to the loudest shouter?

lol

It amounts to a handful of nutters fabricating phony "rules" which allow them to evade the fact that they could never prove Oswald acted alone.

But you already know that position and have said it was wrong - why do you want people to go over it again? How many times do you want to say its wrong? You need to show why it's wrong that is your burden of proof.

It is pathetic that they would sink to that level, but understandable I suppose, considering how helpless they are to defend their theory.

As noted earlier your purpose here seems to drag on the discussion as a way to shout at people and not actually present your idea.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I will ask you for the second time, how did you determine that my presentation was stupid or idiotic if you refuse to watch it?

Only 27 more times and you will have asked half as many times as you've been asked for your complete and coherent alternative hypothesis for the JFK assassination. Why don't you have the courage to post it here where you've chosen to post?

One or two short paragraphs will do for a detaile overview. Then you may start to show how the evidence fits it.

 

[JayUtah]

The "burden of proof" that Jay was referring to was never a forum rule.

Straw man. It was never claimed to be a "forum rule." It's part of the philosophy of reason. And I specifically drew the distinction between the concepts lest you confuse them. But you did.

It has no legitimacy, whatsoever.

A lot of people seem to have written a lot about it over the past 3,000 years.

It amounts to a handful of nutters fabricating phony "rules" which allow them to evade the fact that they could never prove Oswald acted alone.

Actually it's the central them of one of the most popular books written by a man whom you specifically named as your hero. It seems you disagree with a lot of the experts you cite.

 

[JayUtah]

Perhaps thought, people sail the Great Salt Lake with a more personalized flair than we third coasters do on the Gulf.

People sail the Great Salt Lake while holding their nose and praying their boat doesn't corrode out from under them. I learned my sailing in Canada on the Great Lakes though, so I see where you're coming from.

 

[JayUtah]

Robert, here is the conclusion of your article on the polygraph examination.

...

Bump for Robert Harris.