Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

It's just the same old tired CTist game of anomaly hunting- they'll find oddities even if they have to invent them.

I asked you several questions yesterday, which you have not answered. Perhaps, you will do that today.

And I will add another. Rather than assume that I do the things that are part of your negative profiling, why not ask me questions about my analysis, to confirm that I am not an exception?

Most JFK conspiracy advocates argue that Oswald was innocent, that the SBT is untrue, and that the shot at 313 came from the front. I reject all of those arguments and many others that most of them promote.

In 1994, I wrote an article, arguing that the SBT was "probably true". It was posted at John McAdams website and John gave it his "best of web" award. We were partners for about a year, in forming the first moderated JFK forum on the Internet/usenet.

He probably regrets that today, since we had a nasty falling out since then, but I'm sure he will confirm that fact if anyone wants to verify with him.

I disagree with far more individual issues that the "conspiracy community" promote than I do with your side.

So, rather than make sweeping generalizations, pretending that I believe what the worst of other CT's claim, why not either examine my analysis or simply ask me, to determine whether that is also what I believe?

 

[Pooneil]

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?

I promise not to "refute" a summary of your conclusion. And anyone who does will be easily spotted and not get much traction here. I promise to address the line of reasoning presented in your video.

I just want to be sure of what part of the vid actually answers my question. So when I watch it and respond, it will be your comprehensive answer to my very narrow question. It reduces misunderstandings later in the conversation.

It is the same thing as asking an author for a reference to a point within a book. I view the response I've asked for as an author's courtesy to those whom he wants to take him seriously.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

Well I think we are in a loop here.

Would you please be specific about what exactly I have presented that bores you?

I do confess, BTW, that most of my presentations are not great entertainment and I apologize for that. But if entertainment and excitement are what you are seeking, perhaps you should consider Netflix.

Or you might consider engaging in honest, civil debate. Surely, if my analyses are half as bad as you claim, you will find enormous happiness in putting me in my place, employing reason, and verifiable evidence.

Would you like to do that?

 

[JayUtah]

I asked you several questions yesterday, which you have not answered. Perhaps, you will do that today.

A lot of peopled asked you questions yesterday about your findings, and you conspicuously put them on ignore for it. So no, you don't get to berate other people for not following your script.

Rather than assume that I do the things that are part of your negative profiling...

You've demonstrated which kinds of questions you're more apt to respond to, especially yesterday. If the question asked you dispassionately to reconcile claims in your evidence and reasoning, you labeled its author a "troll" and announced you would no longer be talking to him. If the question discussed your tactics or approach, you jumped on it to emphasize how much of a martyr you were, and belabored that discussion even long after its author had abandoned it.

Noting that you use rhetorical techniques previously tried by other people who failed to convince anyone is not "negative profiling." Profiling is when stereotypical characteristics of a group are erroneously applied to individuals who have not displayed any of them. When the individual does display them, it's no longer stereotyping or profiling.

Hence by this sequence of complaints, employing an escalation of judgmental language, you're simply continuing your incessant strategy of playing the victim.

...why not ask me questions about my analysis, to confirm that I am not an exception?

It has already been confirmed that you're not an exception. You were given a list of some of the common rhetorical ploys used by conspiracy theorists and warned that if you followed that pattern you would not be taken seriously. You followed the pattern to a tee, and continue to do so. Hence you are not being taken seriously.

 

[Robert Harris]

I promise not to "refute" a summary of your conclusion. And anyone who does will be easily spotted and not get much traction here. I promise to address the line of reasoning presented in your video.

I just want to be sure of what part of the vid actually answers my question. So when I watch it and respond, it will be your comprehensive answer to my very narrow question. It reduces misunderstandings later in the conversation.

It is the same thing as asking an author for a reference to a point within a book. I view the response I've asked for as an author's courtesy to those whom he wants to take him seriously.

Have you considered, that in the time you have wasted arguing about this, you probably could have viewed the entire presentation?

I have no interest in comprehensive conclusions that are not supported by comprehensive evidence, and I cannot understand why you would be either.

 

[JayUtah]

I do confess, BTW, that most of my presentations are not great entertainment and I apologize for that.

I disagree. They are enormously entertaining. Not to be rude, but it's like watching someone change clothes in a department store window equipped with one-way glass, and he not realizing everyone walking by can see him.

Or you might consider engaging in honest, civil debate.

We've seen how you respond to that. If you can't bully people into debating you in the way you prescribe they do it, you ignore them. It's a coup-counting exercise for you, not a debate. You want to see how many critics you can make it look like you've proven wrong.

Surely, if my analyses is half as bad as you claim, you will find enormous happiness in putting me in my place...

Ad hominem.

 

[JayUtah]

Have you considered, that in the time you have wasted arguing about this, you probably could have viewed the entire presentation?

Have you considered in the time it has taken you to write hundreds of posts, many of which simply describe your critics in a derogatory way, you could have read this entire thread and saved yourself some effort in not using techniques proven not to be successful here.

I have no interest in comprehensive conclusions that are not supported by evidence, and I cannot understand why you would be either.

Red herring. You are fully aware of the conventional narrative as expounded most directly by the Warren Commission and further treated by others. You know full well what their conclusions are, and upon what testimony and evidence it is predicated.

Days later, you're still trying to shift the burden of proof. You're still trying to rewrite people's correct and understandable refusal to accept the burden of proof to refute your nonsense by affirmatively establishing the conventional narrative to the exclusion of any other possibility, as somehow a deplorable lack of interest.

Do you really think your critics are so dumb as to not recognize what you're trying to do and why?

 

[Robert Harris]

Another article

I wrote this one a long time ago, but the information in it is still true. It examines the testimonies of key witnesses and matches them up with the visual evidence. Please let me know if anyone has questions about the content.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html

 

[JayUtah]

I wrote this one a long time ago, but the information in it is still true. It examines the testimonies of key witnesses and matches them up with the visual evidence. Please let me know if anyone has questions about the content.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html

I wouldn't bother; it's just a restatement of all the arguments he's made here so far, including all the same assumptions and speculation. They've all been covered, whether Harris wants to admit it or not.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this exercise is mostly just to get links to his articles and video posted in yet another conspicuous spot?

 

[Robert Harris]

Mrs. Kennedy

As anyone who has watched my presentation, The Attack in Dealey Plaza knows, I have argued that there was probably a shot fired within a fraction of a second following 313. I believe it was drowned out by the preceding shot, which was the loudest of the day, but was heard mostly, by people who were at the far west end of Dealey Plaza.

In this article, I demonstrate that Mrs. Kennedy retrieved brain tissue from the surface of the trunk, which she carried with her to Parkland hospital and gave to Dr. Marion Jenkins.

A close examination of her actions in the Zapruder film then, reveal that she could not have known anything was back there, prior to the early 320's, because she had been looking down and away from her husband's head. And the images of JFK's devastated head, prove that massive damage in the upper-rear part of the head, did not appear until after frame 317.

http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.html

 

[Belz...]

It's just the same old tired CTist game of anomaly hunting- they'll find oddities even if they have to invent them.

I'll say. Have you even checked out those sweet "reptilian" CTs ? It's amazing how much information these people can glean from altering the color palettes of pictures.

 

[JayUtah]

Mrs. Kennedy retrieved brain tissue from the surface of the trunk...

A close examination of her actions in the Zapruder film then, reveal that she could not have known anything was back there...

We covered this issue in this thread not more than five pages before you arrived. You asked us how we know you haven't read the thread? This is how.

 

[Robert Harris]

Was there reallly damage to the back of the head?

Was there really damage to the back of the President's head? If you are not used to looking at the ugliest images of the head damage, you probably shouldn't click on this Zapruder frame link, following a large meal.

http://jfkhistory.com/337.png

 

[Belz...]

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

Well I guess that means he can offer his expert advice on every topic in the universe and beyond, right ?

 

[Robert Harris]

Were the autopsy photos altered?

During the HSCA hearings, doctors from Parkland were challenged to defend their statements about seeing major damage in the rear of Kennedy's head. After being shown this photo, many of them recanted their previous statements, since it seemed obvious that they were wrong.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/2.jpg

Numerous conspiracy advocates were outraged, arguing that the photo was fake or had been altered.

It was Dr. Thornton Boswell, who explained what happened, in his ARRB testimony. Of course, the photo wasn't faked, but by his own admission, he pulled the scalp back up and over the damaged area. I cite his ARRB testimony in this brief article,

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html (corrected the html)

 

[Belz...]

"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.

 

[Belz...]

Do you really think your critics are so dumb as to not recognize what you're trying to do and why?

Well, we are sheeple, after all.

 

[Belz...]

A close examination of her actions in the Zapruder film then, reveal <snip>

Reveal nothing, unless you're somehow clarified to perform such an analysis. You are not, quite evidently.

 

[Pooneil]

Have you considered, that in the time you have wasted arguing about this, you probably could have viewed the entire presentation?

I have no interest in comprehensive conclusions that are not supported by comprehensive evidence, and I cannot understand why you would be either.

I seek an answer and a specific reference to where the answer is given and explained so a discussion can follow. Nothing else. Your continued evasive misreading of straight forward words is once again noted.

Where were the gunman that fired at JFK located?

 

[JayUtah]

During the HSCA hearings, doctors from Parkland were challenged to defend their statements about seeing major damage in the rear of Kennedy's head. After being shown this photo, many of them recanted their previous statements, since it seemed obvious that they were wrong.

And here we go with the pin-the-head-wound-on-the-drawing claims. Those occupy the majority of parts I and II of this thread and have been done to death. (No pun intended.)