Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Belz...]

Why don't you have the courage to post it here where you've chosen to post?

Conspiracy theorists have no courage, although they think they're fighting the evil conspirators. But of course, what they are fighting is reason, and hiding behind logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks. They're cowards and nothing else.

 

[JayUtah]

Not unless you can demonstrate that my conditions did not constitute a level playing field. Care to give that a try?

Care to respond to where I did that something like two days ago? Shrill cries for attention don't really make an argument, you know.

 

[Pooneil]

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?

Why won't you summarize the conclusions presented in your video about where the JFK shots were fired from and give me some time reference to the start and end of the positions in the video? If your do this I'll actually go watch that part of the video.

 

[JayUtah]

How did you acquire this understanding?



Do you honestly think there's a book of organized crime by-laws?

Bump for Robert Harris.

 

[Robert Harris]

Nobody cares about your opinion. You're not qualified to render an informed judgment here. And you're just echoing claptrap you picked up from a conspiracy site in any case. Why doesn't your skepticism extend to what you read there?

I was citing the HSCA reports.

If you think I have misrepresented the report then get specific and deal with the facts and evidence.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bump for Robert Harris.

Of course not. I was not the one making claims about rules.

 

[JayUtah]

If you think I have misrepresented the report then get specific and deal with the facts and evidence.

Straw man. You can represent the report accurately and then still commit a logical error subsequently by drawing inferences improperly from it.

I posted about this recently and bumped it just now. I asked you several questions regarding the conclusions you drew. Please address them.

 

[Robert Harris]

Way to go wanting to talk about the JFK assassination. What is your complete and comprehensive hypothesis for the events surrounding the JFK assassination? Who took shots at him and from specifically where? What were the other assassination weapons? Who bought them and from where?

I'm assuming that you were being truthful when you said you wanted to talk about the JFK assassination so don't disappoint me.

You just need to watch the presentation.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course not. I was not the one making claims about rules.

Yes you were; you claimed there were essentially none. That is an affirmative rebuttal, which you made on the basis of "your understanding." I asked you where you acquired that understanding and you have not answered.

Further, you demanded that your opponent provide written proof of such rules. That's a narrowly-tailored request that amounts to a complex-question fallacy. Hence I broke out the hidden premise and asked why you would assume that organized crime had any such codex. If, for example, they relied upon oral tradition or word of mouth, how would that affect your request.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm sorry if you are too lazy to watch the presentation. You just seem desperate to find something to whine about.

Nope, not too lazy, just not interested in some CT drone on and on and not get to the points I'm asking. But it's a pity that you're still more interested in attacking posters than discussing the JFK assassination. Not surprised that you weren't telling the truth, just very disappointed.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry if you are too lazy to watch the presentation. You just seem desperate to find something to whine about.

Ad hominem.

Given your history of attempting to foist tedious burdens on your critics as a condition of debating you, it's reasonable to ask whether you would like to give a summary or direct people's attention to specific parts of a lengthy presentation.

Commensurately you were invited to read the thread to see what topics had already been covered. It appears you have not done it. Hence it seems disingenuous to accuse your critics of laziness.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, did you go back and read JayUtah's post for comprehension as you were instructed?

Do you understand the burden of proof yet? If not, just ask.

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.


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.


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.

 

[JayUtah]

That's why we have debates. If my opponents thinks I made an error then he should challenge me on it.

You did make an error, and I did challenge you on it. Since I wrote the post while you excused yourself to attend to other matters, I bumped it upon your return.

You couldn't care less about the conclusions I drew.

Sour grapes. I took the time to read your article and analyze the conclusion you drew. I took the time to present you with questions that seemed to undermine your conclusions.

You are here to play the r[o]le of a lone nut pitbull. You attack and harass, endlessly and without the slightest concern about whether you are right or wrong.

Ad hominem. I took the time to lay out in some detail the philosophical underpinnings of skepticism and rational critical analysis. You ignored it entirely.

As you were promised by others, I don't allow conspiracy theorists to make any headway using their usual tricks. I even told you which rhetorical stunts I would be watching for, so that you would know ahead of time not to try them. And as is almost always the case, conspiracy theorists eventually become frustrated and find any excuse not to have to listen to me.

You can call me all the names you want, but I guarantee that readers will come to their own conclusions regarding my approach and yours. You can run away, but you can't change the opinions of other people by doing so.

Welcome to my ignore list.

It seems I have more interest in your conclusions than you do.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry if you are too lazy to watch the presentation.

First of all, this is a lie, because you've already been told why people don't like arguments made via Youtube videos.

Second, this is an ad hominem, something you claimed you "don't do". Another lie.

 

[Robert Harris]

This is the presentation that covers most of my analysis related to the shooting. Please feel free to ask any questions, relevant to it's content.

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

 

[Robert Harris]

This presentation refutes the theory that the reactions by the limo passengers were caused by Greer slowing the limo. It is easy to see, that up to frame 293, there was no slowdown at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDAg5c4x5U

In addition, some of the reactions, like Kellerman shielding his ear or quickly raising and lowering his shoulders, could not have been caused by inertia.

 

[JayUtah]

I already did that, in a multitude of ways.

You attempted that. You tried to show the conventional narrative was wrong by noting some observations you didn't think it explained adequately and offering an affirmative claim for what happened instead, to include those observations. This is the right way to begin the approach, but you stumbled on two points.

Most importantly, your affirmative claims employ demonstrably faulty logic. And all the effort this forum can muster does not seem to make you see that. Some people do not "get" critical thinking. These people are good people, but their talents simply lie elsewhere and they should not attempt rational analysis with much hope of success.

But you also keep trying to shift the burden of proof when your efforts falter. You propose to displace belief, but when displacement doesn't happen as fast or as far as you wish, you demand that the original belief be justified anew.

My objection is the claim that I should abide by bogus "rules" in which I must presume their theory is the standard and they don't have to support it.

Straw man. The philosophy was explained to you at length. The "bogus rules" to which you refer are central maxims in the philosophy of skepticism, which you claim to be familiar with and accept.

You are affirming an alternative to a well-known and well-established proposition, which you all but concede you're already familiar with. If you do not wish to mount an affirmative case and thereby treat the null hypothesis for what it is, either change your approach or retreat to where you can bask in a sympathetic environment.

The contention is that the prevailing hypothesis doesn't have to be reaffirmed as the only rebuttal to your affirmative claims you will accept. You're trying to filter criticism.

You know very well that I have never been hostile to anyone who had not been far worse, to me.

The moderators disagreed. Keep in mind they edited away your insults. Trying to blame your misbehavior on others is irresponsible.

Want to talk about the alleged reactions to the alleged shot at 285?

It's been discussed at length. Simply repeating your belief doesn't make the problems with it go away.

 

[JayUtah]

In addition, some of the reactions, like Kellerman shielding his ear or quickly raising and lowering his shoulders, could not have been caused by inertia.

But it is your affirmative contention that it must be caused by a "startle reaction." In attempting to support this contention you have to do two things that undermine it: you have to contradict the source you previously cited as an expert, who came to a different conclusion than you do regarding that contention, and you have to invent speculative, unsupported reasons for why the data do not fit your predictions in other cases.

 

[Belz...]

This presentation refutes the theory that the reactions by the limo passengers were caused by Greer slowing the limo.

It doesn't even refute the theory that there's no significant reaction.

 

[Axxman300]

It doesn't matter where the shots were coming from. Any shot that was fired in the proximity of the limo, would have exposed the passengers to 130 decibels or 16 times 90db, the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur.

That is an assumption, the film evidence shows people reacting. People stop waving in the second after the President is hit in the throat. Further down, men who'd served in the military are dropping flat on the ground, not reacting to gunfire, but the the snap of a bullet passing over head.

What's your point?

Trust me. If you are exposed to 130 decibels from a high powered rifle, you won't be thinking you are hearing a firecracker. You won't be thinking at all in fact, for a second or two.

So eye-witness testimony gets thrown out when it undermines your theory? Because most of them say they though the first shot was a firecracker. You can't have it both ways.

Actually it does, because the shock wave dissipates at a geometric rate, so even people along the road were exposed to levels less than half as loud as those who were closest to the bullet's path.

There's not much dissipation at 300 feet. Certainly not noticeable.

That's because he was MUCH further from the bullet's path, so the shock wave was much weaker. He was startled however, as Dr. Alvarez confirmed, but his reaction was also much weaker than the limo passengers'.

The only reason it was weaker was because it was six stories up and 300 feet to his left.

The "limo driver" was Secret Service Agent William Greer, and he was likely reacting to the screaming behind him. You ignore this.

I don't think so. It has been proven that people react to loud noises, very dramatically and visibly, and very much like the limo passengers did, following 285 and 313.

You use the word "React" like it's universal. I live in an area of California where gunfire is common (unfortunately), and unless it's right outside my window my "reaction" is to ignore it. People will "React" differently to the same stimulus, this is also a proven fact, and must be taken into account.