Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

<almost certainly wasting my "breath">

Your post contains no specific argument, references no specific evidence, and fails to address even a single specific argument that I have presented.

If my analysis is so terrible, you should have no problem refuting me, based on the verifiable facts and evidence.

Why is it that you won't even try?

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

There is no need for a "speculative list". You can learn about what was going on then by reading their testimonies and matching up what they said, with what they actually did at the time. That rather simple process is incredibly enlightening. This brief Zapruder segment is annotated and may be helpful to you:

http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif

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.

This brief presentation also matches up visible reactions with testimonies, and explains how this confirms shots at 285 and 313. It doesn't last long but it contains important information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

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?

I don't believe you understand my analysis. Please considering withholding judgement until you have seen these presentations and perhaps, read this article:

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

Yeah, color me a shade...skeptical.

I would rather color you open minded and objective

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

There is no need to quibble about subjective opinions. The reactions are both measurable and verifiable, both in terms of degree and of timing. For example,

http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg

and this Zapruder segment confirms that the reactions all began at 290-292, or in the same 1/6th of one second of one another and of Zapruder's reaction as Alvarez described at 290-291, where we see a pair of heavily blurred frames.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

Since this issue is important enough to you, to hang out in this forum, you should WANT to be challenged. You should seek out dissent, always keeping the possibility in mind that you may be wrong.

And it should NEVER provoke anger or any kind of emotional response. This is not woo. It is about whether one hoodlum or several were involved in this crime. Why not address this controversy objectively and analytically?

And yes, I have asked people for their opinion on the reactions - only telling them that it was from the Zapruder film. If memory serves, I am running about 6-1 that they were reacting to a gunshot. The "1" was from when I had lunch with Larry Sturdivan, a pro-LN author and a witness at the HSCA. Larry's response was essentially, that yes, they were reacting to something, but I haven't proven that it was a gunshot.

I replied by asking him what he thought they were reacting to. He kept staring at my laptop screen and said, "I have to think about it.". It's been about 17 years. I guess he's still thinking

 

[Robert Harris]

<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">

Zero evidence.

Zero analysis.

Zero attempts to refute my claims.

Lots and lots of ambiguous, negative generalizations.

Exactly how convincing do you think you are?

I am not the issue. The issue is the assassination of JFK.

If my work is so terrible, you should have no problem putting me in my place - fairly and objectively, based on the verifiable facts and evidence.

Let me know when you are up for that.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Well, no surprise there, you don't know what the term means.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, color me a shade...skeptical.

I would rather color you open minded and objective

And AGAIN. You don't even know that "skeptical" MEANS "open-minded and objective".

 

[Belz...]

There is no need to quibble about subjective opinions. The reactions are both measurable and verifiable, both in terms of degree and of timing.

As noted before, you take your subjective opinions as fact. But, as you correctly point out, there is no need to quibble about subjective opinions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have already answered your question, several times.

Please watch the presentation.

Since their heads move in unison to the braking event of the car, are you saying that a shot was fired at the exact same time?

 

[Pooneil]

I have already answered your question, several times.

Please watch the presentation.

A link is not an answer to a question. I am simply not interested in your attempts to drive traffic to your YouTube page.

But my offer is a genuine attempt to meet you half way. One that shouldn't be at all difficult for a documentary maker to work with. If you will summarize how your video answers my question and give me the time references in the presentation on that point, I will watch it.

So, how about having that discussion you say you've wanted all along?

 

[Belz...]

Since their heads move in unison to the braking event of the car, are you saying that a shot was fired at the exact same time?

It's amazing that Robert sees the same thing we see, and then comes to a completely different, and ludicrous, conclusion, presumably because it fits his prefered narrative. The reaction he alludes to is clearly due to their momentum as the car breaks, but he sees something nefarious in there.

 

[turingtest]

It's amazing that Robert sees the same thing we see, and then comes to a completely different, and ludicrous, conclusion, presumably because it fits his prefered narrative. The reaction he alludes to is clearly due to their momentum as the car breaks, but he sees something nefarious in there.

It's just the same old tired CTist game of anomaly hunting- they'll find oddities even if they have to invent them. And it leads to what I've come to think of as a CT principle of reversed consilience- instead of multiple and independent lines of evidence converging to support a conclusion, CTists seize on a perceived anomaly and make all other evidence branch from and serve it. For example, his WC cites of multiple ear-witnesses who heard the shots in separate sets, a "bang!" and a "bang! bang!" bunch. There is nothing in any of that to pinpoint when the bunching occurred; yet, for Robert, they must have occurred between Z285-Z313, because that supports his "startle reflex" interpretation. The ear-witness testimony doesn't, by itself, independently support his "startle reflex"- his interpretation of that evidence follows from it.

 

[JayUtah]

Please define "conspiracy theorists".

Someone who thinks an otherwise reasonably understood event in history was instead the result of a hidden conspiracy to create some sort of false impression of it. The lines of reasoning involved in such thought fall into easily discernible patterns.

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

Then off you go, frantically trying to cram words into turingtest's mouth.

Please define a "micro-fact"...

Minor, outlying observations, such as how someone moves his hand or head, or one witness whose testimony diverges from all the others.

...and explain why you believe they cannot be important.

They rarely if ever have any probative value when considered among the whole body of evidence, and they rarely if ever participate in any useful consilience.

Every useful theory for a happenstance event must leave behind some of the outlying evidence. It is simply impossible for a theory in that context to explain everything that can be observed during or after the event. Convergence and consilience are the terms we use to define the process of assessing probativity.

I think that if you ask around, police investigators and laboratory people will tell you that "micro-facts" often make or break the case.

Begging the question.

Also, you can't ask your opponent to define a term he uses, and then before he gives it to you, offer your rebuttal that uses your own assumed definition. Either you know what the word means and your question is just meant to harass, or you don't know what the word means and your presumptive rebuttal is irrelevant.

Stroscio holds a Phd in physics from Yale and has chaired Presidential science commisions.

Mr. Stroscio's expertise is in the microscopic aspects of electronics and semiconductors. He is not an expert in forensic analysis, photographic analysis, psychology, wound ballistics, or any of the other fields of expertise that apply to the type of analysis to which you refer.

You need to learn what expertise consists of and how it is applied.

Negative stereotyping is poor way to do pretty much anything.

It's not a stereotype if you actually undertake the predicted actions. Then it's just a type. And since the actions are yours, the "negative" characterization is entirely within your control.

It is even worse as a substitute for honest debate and discussion.

Complex question. Your definition of "honest debate" clearly requires your critics to submit to your bullying. And the ability to describe and predict your approach according to a well-defined type has not been a substitute for debate. You were presented yesterday with some extremely dispassionate rebuttals, and you loudly proclaimed you would henceforth ignore their authors in favor of what has evidently been yet another tirade of personal attacks on your critics.

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

Ad hominem.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't believe you understand my analysis.

It's clear you don't understand your own "analysis."

Your attempt at physics, in order to deduce that the bullet shock waves must have been loud enough to startle the occupants, is simply wrong. You don't know what math governs the rate of decay in shockwave energy in this instance. Apparently you just guessed, but now for some reason that guess must be taken as gospel by your critics. Science doesn't work that way. You have to get the right answer, but you also have to show how you got it and be able to explain how that's the right way. Even when there is eyewitness testimony that contradicts your computations and inferences, you will not let them go.

You look at the film evidence and think you see evidence of a certain kind of movement. However, this appears to be something you see, but no one else does -- not even the illustrious scientists you cite and insinuate would agree with you. A conscientious scientist would recognize this situation as one in which he might just be seeing things. And he would undertake an exercise to determine whether what he saw could be discerned by a more objective or widely-sampled process. Instead you simply browbeat your critics into agreeing that you're right.

You rely on science performed by others, but you have no idea what such reliance can reasonably consist of. You do great violence to Hunt & Landis by imputing them in your findings that go far beyond anything they investigated. And more than once you refer to the work of experts, but then flagrantly announce that they got the answer wrong and that you personally can somehow offer better insight. Even more astoundingly, you tie the strength of your personal opinion back to the authority of the experts you disagreed with.

I would rather color you open minded and objective

Unfortunately I cannot color you either of those things. You are so far from open-minded it's become comical. You cannot open your mind to the possibility that you, Robert Harris, has committed any sort of error, and your response is to lash out viciously at those who are attempting to correct you.

 

[Robert Harris]

A link is not an answer to a question. I am simply not interested in your attempts to drive traffic to your YouTube page.

But my offer is a genuine attempt to meet you half way. One that shouldn't be at all difficult for a documentary maker to work with. If you will summarize how your video answers my question and give me the time references in the presentation on that point, I will watch it.

So, how about having that discussion you say you've wanted all along?

I do not wish to "summarize", because without the evidence in the presentation, much of which is graphic in nature, my case will be vulnerable to false refutation.

Now it's my turn to ask a question. Why won't you watch the presentation?

 

[JayUtah]

Zero evidence.
Zero analysis.
Zero attempts to refute my claims.
Lots and lots of ambiguous, negative generalizations.

It wasn't that kind of post. It was a syllabus of that person's impression of your efforts to date.

Exactly how convincing do you think you are?

Quite convincing, actually. While you often desire to wallow in this or that puddle of minutia, it often takes a syllabus like that to show that your approach is, at the higher level, simply the same old rhetorical shenanigans that your predecessors have tried.

I am not the issue. The issue is the assassination of JFK.

Quite clearly the opposite. When people engage your evidence in ways you were not prepared for, you ignore them. But you do much more than that -- you announce loudly and repeatedly to the entire forum that you're ignoring them. That's grandstanding at its worst. Not to mention your almost fanatical attempts to keep the discussion mired in putative ad hominem territory. When that front goes quiet, you bring it up again if only to remind everyone not to go there.

And as has been amply demonstrated, you don't know what a personalized argument actually consists of. Your approach and methods are fair game, because they are as much a part of your argument, and as little a part of the actual person making them, as your evidence and analysis. In fact, the bare fact that you fit so easily into the type means that at best the analysis of your approach and tactics are an attack against the type, not against you personally. But the underlying problem is that you take everything that isn't the rebuttal you were prepared for, and desperately try to write it off as an improper attack.

If my work is so terrible, you should have no problem putting me in my place...

Odd that you would phrase that in such personalized terms.

But in fact the errors in your work have been put to you many, many times by many people here. We are told by those who followed you here that you have preached this gospel now for well over a decade. We must assume then that you have been repeatedly informed of these same errors but either don't understand them or don't care to listen to them.

...fairly and objectively, based on the verifiable facts and evidence.

But in your sphere, these are just code words for, "...the way I dictate you will carry out your side of the debate." You have not stopped trying to edit, filter, or otherwise direct the debate in order to assure a favorable outcome for yourself.

"Honest debate" seems to be your euphemism for your critics playing their prescribed role in the fantasy world you seem to carry around with you from venue to venue. In that construct you are a brilliant, misunderstood researcher constantly harassed by evil defenders of the lone-gunman theory. To be sure, your critics have to appear ferocious enough to validate your courageous efforts, but they can't be allowed to do any real damage. Toward that end you cherry-pick the rebuttals you will admit exist, and you demand only certain kinds of rebuttals.

It's not science. It's theater.

 

[Robert Harris]

It's just the same old tired CTist game of anomaly hunting-

I'm sorry that you once again, feel compelled to rely on negative stereotyping. In this case, it is even worse, since there is nothing in my arguments which are "anomalies".

The top advocates for the lone nut theory have relied on visible reactions to to form their conclusions, too. For example, Gerald Posner and many like him, have based much of their case for a shot circa frame 160, on a little girl - Rosemary Willis, who stopped running, shortly after that frame. I fully agree with them BTW, that there was a a shot then, though for different reasons.

But consider the difference between their visual evidence and mine. Tell me, if these reactions had occurred right after frame 160, rather than a very inconvenient, frame 285, how would you have seen them?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif

And don't you find it to be an amazing coincidence that Dr. Alvarez and later, Dr. Stroscio, determined that there was a loud and startling noise, which startled Zapruder at frame 285 and caused him to blur frames at 290-291, which is precisely when the reactions of the limo passengers began, in the range of 290-292?

And don't you think that the simple fact that "most" of the relevant witnesses, according to the Warren Commission, reported that the last two shots were "bunched together", is significant? Do you think that shots at 285 and 313 - 1.5 seconds apart, qualify as "bunched together"?

All of these reactions began in the same 1/6th of one second, at exactly the same instant that Zapruder was determined to have reacted. And the reactions are a perfect match with the large consensus of witnesses that day.

That qualifies as a bit more than an "anomaly", don't you think?

 

[Hans]

It's not science. It's theater.

...and after the same performance is shown several times it gets boring.

Well I think we are in a loop here.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not wish to "summarize", because without the evidence in the presentation, much of which is graphic in nature, my case will be vulnerable to false refutation.

This is why you were invited to identify individual clips from your video as a summary.

Now it's my turn to ask a question. Why won't you watch the presentation?

Because we have every reason to believe it might just be a stonewalling ploy. We have seen how little you respond to criticism. It's one thing for me to spend ten minutes writing out a post to you while breakfast cooks. Little time and effort lost, should you ignore it as you typically do. But to commit to an hour and half of your presentation, then to write out a detailed refutation of it (taking at least that much time again), only to have it ignored as usual, is understandably not something a person wants to engage in.

Professional scientists and scholars are expected to write up an abstract that succinctly describes their methods, findings, and the key evidence in each of the lengthy papers they publish. This is intended exactly to help the reader decide whether it would be profitable for him to commit to study the work in its entirety. You can certainly conform to that convention.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Now it's my turn to ask a question. Why won't you watch the presentation?

Why haven't you read the thread previous to your entry into it as you were asked several days ago? Why haven't you responded to the many refutations given to you concerning your methods and your fallacies?

You do those things first, then I'll watch your little video.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry that you once again, feel compelled to rely on negative stereotyping.

Noting that your specific behavior fits a pattern that's based on past observation is not "negative stereotyping." Noting that someone who has been caught burglarizing a house uses the same techniques as other burglars is neither negative nor a stereotype. Your incessant practice of interpreting comments from your martyrdom perspective seems to be what engenders personalization of the debate.

In this case, it is even worse, since there is nothing in my arguments which are "anomalies".

Nonsense. There are observations that don't fit your startle theory. Therefore you have to speculate about silenced weapons to account for it.

And don't you find it to be an amazing coincidence that Dr. Alvarez and later, Dr. Stroscio, determined that there was a loud and startling noise...

I don't find it coincidental so much as unconvincing. Neither of those men -- while eminently qualified in other fields -- is a forensic investigator. They inferred from observations not normally part of their work, and according to scientific principles not part of their study, that a noise may have occurred. I'm comfortable considering that these men wrote outside their expertise and thus perhaps erred.

And we have to add the footnote that you assert there was a gunshot when your expert Alvarez asserted there was none.

And don't you think that the simple fact that "most" of the relevant witnesses, according to the Warren Commission, reported that the last two shots were "bunched together", is significant? Do you think that shots at 285 and 313 - 1.5 seconds apart, qualify as "bunched together"?

Affirmation of the consequent, phrased as a begged question.

The witnesses describe the relative timing of the shots, mostly in general terms but in some cases with quantified estimates. You simply demand that these "bunched" shots, with variously described timing, cannot have been Oswald's shots only. Then you simply ask the reader to agree with you. The significance of the witnesses' statements is not the issue. What is the issue is whether the consensus of that testimony is appropriate to ruling out Oswald as a shooter. This is the part where you just demand people accept your interpretation of the ambiguity.