Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

And I know you don't ignore me...

I tend to think this will be as empty a threat as his promise only to interact with people who subscribed to his foisted rules. If he remains true to forum, the notion that people are talking about his claims, but he can't see it, will wear on him to the point where curiosity will overcome aversion.

 

[JayUtah]

There is controversy about the JFK case, which is why people debate it. And one side doesn't get to stack the deck.

Asked and answered. Noting where the burden of proof naturally lies is not stacking the deck. Now quit whining about how unfair life is to you.

There is no "narrative". That's a totally phony construct.

No sir, I rejected the lone nut theory.

You have a name for the thing you say doesn't exist.

A "narrative" is just a story. I have one and you guys have one.

Hair split. You left out the word "conventional narrative," and you know full well what that is.

Why don't we go with my "narrative" and then demand that everyone has the burden of proving me wrong?

Because the way you proposed that everyone do that requires them to affirmatively prove a negative. If you don't understand the folly of that, then no one can help you repair your thinking.

 

[Belz...]

Asked and answered. Noting where the burden of proof naturally lies is not stacking the deck.

Well, the deck is stacked in favour of reality, so I guess there's that. Also, science tends to favour the statu quo by forcing new ideas to prove themselves. I guess you could call that "stacked", but it's actually a good thing. Imagine if all of science ressembled this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

Say what you want about the Warren Commission but at least they didn't just link to a Youtube video and refused to back up their conclusions.

That's really the elephant in the room. I didn't come up with the Lone Gunman hypothesis. You didn't. John MacAdams didn't. The group generally identified as the Warren Commission did (but even that's debatable). They lay out the evidence, develop it, and then draw some conclusions. The key conclusion is that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, fired a rifle that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally. Those of us who have read the Warren Commission's rationale for arriving at that explanation variously agree that they made a good enough case to compel belief.

The conspiracy theorists develop their own theories. Robert Harris is really proud of his, and how it's unique to him. The disconnect comes when they want to debate that with someone and get validation for it. Naturally they can't debate the Warren Commission, but they'll recruit any proxy they can. And just as naturally, someone who has merely read, and accepted as reasonably compelling, the Warren Commission findings becomes an attractive candidate. If he isn't careful, he'll get drafted into standing in for whom the conspiracy theorist would really like to debate.

 

[Robert Harris]

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?

My point is that any shots from Oswald's rifle would have generated a 130 decibel, shock wave within 10 feet from the bullet, which was 16 times louder than the level at which startle reactions occur.

Of course the limo passengers would be startled by such high powered rifle shots. What do you think caused these reactions?

So eye-witness testimony gets thrown out when it undermines your theory?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Because most of them say they though the first shot was a firecracker. You can't have it both ways.

Can't have what both ways?

Are you contending that there was only one early shot?

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

How did you come to that conclusion?

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

That's quite an amazing analysis. Please explain in detail, how you came to that conclusion.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear anyone in the car say anything from the time of the first shot until the time of the third shot?

Mr. GREER. Not to the best of my recollection, I don't remember

Dr. Luis Alvarez disagrees with you. He concluded that Greer and Zapruder reacted to a loud noise at frame 285. Zapruder reacted at 290-291 and the limo passengers at 290-292.

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.

None of that matters. If you are exposed to unexpected sound levels of about 90 decibels or greater, you will be startled. This is a very short presentation on the subject,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno

And this one is IMO, the most convincing

 

[JayUtah]

My point is that any shots from Oswald's rifle would have generated a 130 decibel, shock wave within 10 feet from the bullet, which was 16 times louder than the level at which startle reactions occur.

You tried to describe those physics, and you got them wrong. You don't know the difference between the different kinds of decay, hence your quantitative expectations lack foundation.

Of course the limo passengers would be startled by such high powered rifle shots. What do you think caused these reactions?

Asked and answered. The alleged mapping of reaction to gunshot requires you to fudge the data in both directions. There are very few data points in your data set, so you can't fudge any without destroying any semblance of correlation.

Can't have what both ways?

The alleged loudness of the gunshot. You deduce that the gunshots must have been very loud -- so loud as to invariably cause a reaction that you interpret as a startle. Yet your witnesses report that they did not sound loud, only about as loud as firecrackers. You offer no reconciliation for this.

In contrast, I pointed out that your deduction was mathematically unsound. Therefore in the conventional narrative the issue is taken care of. The shots were not necessarily as loud as you assert, the witnesses accurately reported the loudness, and the people in the film were not startled.

Dr. Luis Alvarez disagrees with you.

So what. He also disagrees with you. I don't consider either you or Alvarez an expert on startling. But if you're going to cite people as experts, you have to justify why you disagree with them on the key points you've invoked them for.

This is a very short presentation on the subject.

Asked and answered. There is no empirical control in this presentation, hence no basis for asserting that it's a universal reaction.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps someone not on ignore could quote JayUtah's postings?

 

[turingtest]

That's really the elephant in the room. I didn't come up with the Lone Gunman hypothesis. You didn't. John MacAdams didn't. The group generally identified as the Warren Commission did (but even that's debatable). They lay out the evidence, develop it, and then draw some conclusions. The key conclusion is that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, fired a rifle that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally. Those of us who have read the Warren Commission's rationale for arriving at that explanation variously agree that they made a good enough case to compel belief.

The conspiracy theorists develop their own theories. Robert Harris is really proud of his, and how it's unique to him. The disconnect comes when they want to debate that with someone and get validation for it. Naturally they can't debate the Warren Commission, but they'll recruit any proxy they can. And just as naturally, someone who has merely read, and accepted as reasonably compelling, the Warren Commission findings becomes an attractive candidate. If he isn't careful, he'll get drafted into standing in for whom the conspiracy theorist would really like to debate.

We're well into a generation of CTists whose only goal is, as you've said many times, to prolong the debate as a way to validate themselves rather than actually resolve the question. They're only connected to the historical event by way of micro-facts about it, each with his own set, and damn any idea of consilience leading to resolution. It's about them, not the assassination as such- each one wants to go down in history as the one who "cracks the case" via his micro-analysis ("startle reflex") without any idea of seeing the case as a whole one. RH will indeed go down in history, the same sort of history as Lifton and (here) 7forever, Robert Prey, and bobtaftfan- cranks to be either snickered at or pitied.

 

[Hans]

We're well into a generation of CTists whose only goal is, as you've said many times, to prolong the debate as a way to validate themselves rather than actually resolve the question. They're only connected to the historical event by way of micro-facts about it, each with his own set, and damn any idea of consilience leading to resolution. It's about them, not the assassination as such- each one wants to go down in history as the one who "cracks the case" via his micro-analysis ("startle reflex") without any idea of seeing the case as a whole one. RH will indeed go down in history, the same sort of history as Lifton and (here) 7forever, Robert Prey, and bobtaftfan- cranks to be either snickered at or pitied.

Exactly the same 'retreat into trivia' is seen in archaeological CTs, the good fellows don't learn about the ancient culture and religion they focus on one tiny bit of the picture and obsess on that one part to an extreme.

You'll note in a post above I agreed to debate RH but that I don't follow the narrative - that should completely throw him for a loop for as you have noted what he really wants to do is read his scripted points to the Warren Commission and pepper them with his insults.

lol

 

[JayUtah]

We're well into a generation of CTists whose only goal is, as you've said many times, to prolong the debate as a way to validate themselves rather than actually resolve the question.

And that validation doesn't necessarily take the form of classic praise. Conspiracy theorists are sometimes paradoxically validated by the negative reactions they engender in their critics. Conspiracism taps into the neurological payoff for knowing some deep secret and holding it against insurmountable odds. So his not-so-veiled attempts to keep eliciting personal comments that he can interpret as hatred have a rationale.

 

[JayUtah]

...what he really wants to do is read his scripted points to the Warren Commission and pepper them with his insults.

Or just be acknowledged by them (or, obviously, someone like them in similar authority). Conspiracism is cultural and historical vandalism. If you can't build a remarkable edifice, spray-paint your name on someone else's. Commensurely, if you can't achieve greatness yourself, attach yourself and your crackpot theory as an antagonistic parasite onto someone else's greatness.

Bill Kaysing sued astronaut Jim Lovell on a pretext. Both Bart Sibrel and the unnamed boy wonder from Australia both confront astronauts simply to achieve a measure of congruent notoriety by crashing their way into those worlds.

"Oh, you say you think the Warren Commission's findings are the most defensible? Well then you won't mind standing in for them and defending their conclusions against my homegrown theory so I can seem important."

 

[turingtest]

Or just be acknowledged by them (or, obviously, someone like them in similar authority). Conspiracism is cultural and historical vandalism. If you can't build a remarkable edifice, spray-paint your name on someone else's. Commensurely, if you can't achieve greatness yourself, attach yourself and your crackpot theory as an antagonistic parasite onto someone else's greatness.

Bill Kaysing sued astronaut Jim Lovell on a pretext. Both Bart Sibrel and the unnamed boy wonder from Australia both confront astronauts simply to achieve a measure of congruent notoriety by crashing their way into those worlds.

"Oh, you say you think the Warren Commission's findings are the most defensible? Well then you won't mind standing in for them and defending their conclusions against my homegrown theory so I can seem important."

I don't know if it's ironic or just pitiful that that very thing was most likely a huge part of Oswald's motivation for his crime. Being a parasite on someone else's greatness is one thing- hitching a ride on the coattails of a wretch's smallness is entirely contemptible.

 

[turingtest]

Exactly the same 'retreat into trivia' is seen in archaeological CTs, the good fellows don't learn about the ancient culture and religion they focus on one tiny bit of the picture and obsess on that one part to an extreme.
You'll note in a post above I agreed to debate RH but that I don't follow the narrative - that should completely throw him for a loop for as you have noted what he really wants to do is read his scripted points to the Warren Commission and pepper them with his insults.

lol

I'd be willing to bet that RH has so obsessed over that "startle reflex" that he is now literally unable to not see it. I wonder if it's ever occurred to him to try the experiment of showing that clip to a number of people without the helpful annotations as to what they're looking for, and finding out how many see that first "startle reflex." (No, Bob, not my claim, not my burden to prove or disprove anything) People who see the face of god in clouds usually need to point it out for anyone else to see it; of course, not asking is to leave the pareidolia unchallenged.

 

[Belz...]

My point is that any shots from Oswald's rifle would have generated a 130 decibel, shock wave within 10 feet from the bullet, which was 16 times louder than the level at which startle reactions occur.

Of course the limo passengers would be startled by such high powered rifle shots. What do you think caused these reactions?

It's quite clear from the full-speed video that it's just momentum from the limo's acceleration. Gee, it took me all of 10 seconds to come up with that.

 

[Belz...]

And that validation doesn't necessarily take the form of classic praise. Conspiracy theorists are sometimes paradoxically validated by the negative reactions they engender in their critics. Conspiracism taps into the neurological payoff for knowing some deep secret and holding it against insurmountable odds. So his not-so-veiled attempts to keep eliciting personal comments that he can interpret as hatred have a rationale.

Precisely. They _want_ the martyrdom; it validates their alledged worldview that the world is against them; that the conspiracy is all-consuming. What courageous keyboard warriors heroes they make !

 

[BazBear]

Precisely. They _want_ the martyrdom; it validates their alledged worldview that the world is against them; that the conspiracy is all-consuming. What courageous keyboard warriors heroes they make !

<almost certainly wasting my "breath">

It certainly doesn't seem to matter to JFK CTists (or any CTists really) what the truth is. They more often than not start with a conclusion and work backwards; what doesn't fit will be discounted for whatever reason is handy; what comes close will be repurposed by omission and/or cherry picking, including (as we see in some of Mr. Harris's recent arguments) coming to totally different conclusions than whatever source they've deigned to cite.

Robert, as far as I know and have seen there is no hatred here for you. We simply find your arguments patently unfounded, and in addition your personalization of them is frankly silly.

Lee Harvey Oswald, from the 6th floor of the TSBD, with his 6.5mm Carcano is the only scenario with objective and empirical evidence.

</almost certainly wasting my "breath">

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's quite clear from the full-speed video that it's just momentum from the limo's acceleration. Gee, it took me all of 10 seconds to come up with that.

To my mind there are almost assuredly a number of meter-pegging elements taking place nearly simultaneously there. My speculative list:

• The president is crying out, gasping, audibly struggling in distress
• Mrs. Kennedy is calling out
• Governor Connally is calling out in distress
• Mrs. Connally is calling out
• One or more nearby agents may be shouting out
• The car is lurching
• There is some immediate or secondary ballistic report

It's a pleasant, sunny day, with everyone in the car at ease. Relaxed.

Then, in a matter of moments, those same six are as startled and in the throes of instinctive overload (with no immediate physical capability for flight) as anyone might be.

But let's say, no, there had to have been a second gunman and the reaction we see was due to his weapon's discharge close to the same moment as LHO's (despite the absence of physical evidence). Now, instead of simple pandemonium from a simple event (one person plans to shoot another and then follows through on the plan), we need there to be simple pandemonium from some complex, risky, countless-people-involved series of steps - the kind of thing that, unlike the sadly-too-common shootings which take place every year, is rare? On top of this, due to the target being one of the most powerful and notable people at the time, a complex plot that, if it's successful, will result in the enormous strength and resources of the nation's law enforcement agencies being turned loose such that the plotters will very likely never be able to rest?

Yeah, color me a shade...skeptical.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

I have already answered your question, several times.

Please watch the presentation.

 

[Belz...]

I have already answered your question, several times.

Please watch the presentation.

Well I think we can see now that your learning curve is flat, despite our best attempts.

 

[Robert Harris]

We're well into a generation of CTists whose only goal is, as you've said many times, to prolong the debate as a way to validate themselves rather than actually resolve the question.

Please define "conspiracy theorists". Are you referring to people who think that Watergate was a conspiracy or a thousand terrorists attacks in which the terrorists conspired to do terrible things?

Since you do, should we presume that you also, prolong debates as a way to validate yourself?

Or did you mean that only people who don't agree with you have these terrible attributes?

They're only connected to the historical event by way of micro-facts about it, each with his own set, and damn any idea of consilience leading to resolution

Please define a "micro-fact" and explain why you believe they cannot be important. I think that if you ask around, police investigators and laboratory people will tell you that "micro-facts" often make or break the case.

It's about them, not the assassination as such- each one wants to go down in history as the one who "cracks the case" via his micro-analysis ("startle reflex") without any idea of seeing the case as a whole one. RH will indeed go down in history, the same sort of history as Lifton and (here) 7forever, Robert Prey, and bobtaftfan- cranks to be either snickered at or pitied.

I'm sorry to hear that you think that.

Sadly, I'm a little late to go down in history, since Dr. Michael Stroscio discovered the 285 shot before I did. He wrote about that in a detailed paper analyzing Alvarez's work with the Zapruder film. Stroscio holds a Phd in physics from Yale and has chaired Presidential science commisions. I presume you already read this in the article I linked for you.

"The association of the blast of a siren with the angular-acceleration episode that begins at frame 290 was made by Alvarez but he stated clearly that he was not sure this assignment was correct. Indeed, as correctly pointed out by Alvarez, most eyewitnesses claimed that siren sounded after the fatal wound to President Kennedy's head. These witnesses held that the siren first sounded well after frame 313 and the siren could not be responsible for the angular-acceleration episode that began at frame 290. Alvarez points out that eyewitnesses frequently have flawed memories of stressful events, but it is difficult, indeed, to understand why many witnesses would make the same error."

Negative stereotyping is poor way to do pretty much anything. It is even worse as a substitute for honest debate and discussion.

And BTW, why did you refuse to respond to my very polite PM? If I was an advocate for the LN theory, wouldn't we be BFF by now