Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[RoboTimbo]

I prefer to be honest.

When I do not know something with absolute certainty, I admit it, unlike some of my adversaries.

How could I possibly know whether Braden was alone, behind that window or was with one or more other assassins??

I can't believe you are actually attacking me for being truthful.

Would it make you happier if I lied?

No, you've again misinterpreted what was written, I suspect deliberately. It doesn't affect my happiness at all but I would prefer you to not be hypocritical. That's what the post was about, not your honesty. Why did you change it to be about your honesty? Is that honest?

 

[Robert Harris]

You said,

"The null hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone because that's what the overwhelming body of evidence shows."

Show me the evidence or admit that you are wrong.

Asked and answered, numerous times.

No sir, it has not and you will confirm that fact by once again refusing to prove your own assertion.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, you've again misinterpreted what was written, I suspect deliberately. It doesn't affect my happiness at all but I would prefer you to not be hypocritical. That's what the post was about, not your honesty. Why did you change it to be about your honesty? Is that honest?

I have no idea what in hell you are talking about. There was no hypocrisy whatsoever.

You were demanding that I give you absolute statements as to where snipers were located, which is something no honest person would do.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You said,

"The null hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone because that's what the overwhelming body of evidence shows."

Show me the evidence or admit that you are wrong.




No sir, it has not and you will confirm that fact by once again refusing to prove your own assertion.

Asked and answered numerous times.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

You are flatly wrong.

Now that you should understand that you have the burden of proof, what is your complete and coherent alternative hypothesis for who killed JFK? Be sure that it addresses all of the evidence. Only give an overview of it initially, naming names. One paragraph should suffice.

Note, if the concept of burden of proof still eludes you, just ask. To bump the question that you refused to answer: Do you find sunsets to be evidence for gods?

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, even better.

"Or perhaps more on the nose, The proposition, "Looking at the Zapruder film, it's obvious these people in the limo were reacting to a gunshot," is exactly equivalent, logically speaking, to "Looking at a sunset, it's obvious there's a god."

I am hard pressed to remember a more absurd and illogical statement.

It accuses me of presenting a conclusion in the total absence of verifiable, empirical evidence, when in fact I have presented more evidence than anyone who has ever been in this forum.

Of course, you are welcome to dispute that evidence, but that can only be done in open, honest debate - something you seem to have no interest in.

But there is an analogy to be made here - that the "beautiful sunrise" argument for a deity has exactly the same evidential support as the theory that Oswald acted alone

 

[RoboTimbo]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited bickering and breaches of rule 12

Of course, there is an analogy to me made here - that the "beautiful sunrise" argument for a deity has exactly the same evidential support as the theory that Oswald acted alone

No, that's just another of your deliberate misinterpretations. The sunset is your evidence. It being evidence of gods is your inferences you draw from that evidence.

 

[turingtest]

Well of course. Turn to John McAdams if you seek objective information

McAdams argument is that Milteer got some of the details wrong. Obviously, because he didn't know all the details. For example he thought the hit would take place on 11/18, the day in which Kennedy arrived in Tampa.

But he probably got that one right. Look at this article,

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/23/Tampabay/New_book_tells_of_JFK.shtml

Notice this part:

" More interesting for local readers, the book also claims that Trafficante was behind an attempt to kill Kennedy during his visit to Tampa on Nov. 18, 1963.

Trafficante allegedly called off the attack after an informant alerted law enforcement a few days before the visit, according to the book."

Isn't that an amazing coincidence?!?

Milteer had obviously been told about an assassination attempt on the 18th and sure enough, there was an assassination attempt planned for the 18th.

The article continues, "Of course, Trafficante would have also known that there was still one more chance to kill JFK, in Marcello's territory of Dallas,"

It is clear that Milteer had foreknowledge of the assassination, and that organized crime was behind the assassination.

I'm betting you will never see the problem in those highlighted words (hint- it's a phrase that sounds like "begging the question").

More seriously- no, McAdams's point is that the only detail Milteer got right was the shooting with a high-powered rifle from a high office window." Are you really going to argue that an idea like that-what McAdams calls "a generic scenario"- could only have come from foreknowledge? I know you've conceded that maybe you lack imagination; but must you include all humanity in your deficiency?

There's another point here, too- in your haste to just throw stuff at the wall in the hope that something would stick, you seem to have overlooked that Milteer's "foreknowledge" apparently didn't include your hypothesis, that a "gang of thugs" (I believe that was your phrase, I really can't be arsed to go back and see) would carry out the assassination, with at least one shooting from some spot in front of JFK- where there were no high office buildings. Why do you post things that contradict your idea as if they support them?

The only thing clear about Milteer is that he was a racist poser- and you got taken in by yet another easily-exploded myth.

 

[Robert Harris]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

The issue is not about how many times this segment has been seen. It's about the simultaneous reactions then and the fact that Dr. Alvrarez confirmed Zapruder's reaction at 290-291, which is exactly when the limo passengers began to react (290-292).

And it's about the large consensus of the people who actually heard those shots, that two of them at the end were closely bunched together, which matches quite well with 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds apart.

Why would you not be interested in discussing the cause of those simultaneous reactions? Have you already figured it out?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content and further bickering

 

[RoboTimbo]

Let's talk about the assassination.

The conventional narrative is the null hypothesis. There has been no alternate to unseat that. Do you have one?

 

[ComfySlippers]

If it had been seen thousands of times, would you be willing to discuss it then?

No. It's been discussed thousands of times over decades.
There is nothing new to discuss.

The issue is not about how many times this segment has been seen. It's about the simultaneous reactions then and the fact that Dr. Alvrarez confirmed Zapruder's reaction at 290-291, which is exactly when the limo passengers began to react (290-292).

But it is the issue. You haven't discovered a deeply hidden secret undetected until your investigation™.

And it's about the large consensus of the people who actually heard those shots, that two of them at the end were closely bunched together, which matches quite well with 285 and 313, which were 1.5 seconds apart.

Why would you not be interested in discussing the cause of those simultaneous reactions? Have you already figured it out?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content and more bickering

ETA: Regarding the PM you just sent me: Why would you send me a link to the gibberish under discussion?
On the Fetzer Scale that's almost a seven.
Also, quit the martyr stuff. Your ISIS comment was childish.

 

[Agatha]

It seems that the previous modbox in the thread was not sufficient to remind ALL participants to be civil and polite, and in particular not to personalise their posts. 26 more posts have been removed to AAH, and several posts have had to be edited.

Any further breaches of your Membership Agreements, in particular breaches of rule 0 and rule 12, will be decorated with a yellow card. Further actions, including suspensions or worse, are not to be ruled out if the rule-breaking continues.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[JohnG]

But why don't we stop talking about me, and start talking about the evidence? Do you REALLY find "Robert Harris" more interesting than the greatest individual crime of the 20th century?

NO ONE here finds you more interesting than "the greatest individual crime of the 20th century".

The only person here obsessed with "Robert Harris" is Robert Harris. No one in this thread asked you about your age, your interests, your hobbies, your taste in music, your political affiliation, your religious beliefs, your heroes, etc. and yet you have continued to talk about yourself (often in the third person), rather than focusing on "the greatest individual crime of the 20th century".

Kindly stay on topic.

 

[JayUtah]

I am hard pressed to remember a more absurd and illogical statement.

It accuses me of presenting a conclusion in the total absence of verifiable, empirical evidence, when in fact I have presented more evidence than anyone who has ever been in this forum.

Of course, you are welcome to dispute that evidence, but that can only be done in open, honest debate - something you seem to have no interest in.

But there is an analogy to be made here - that the "beautiful sunrise" argument for a deity has exactly the same evidential support as the theory that Oswald acted alone

Devoted Christians also have a hard time understanding why their Beautiful Sunset arguments don't convince.

It accuses you not of failing to provide an empirical argument, but of failing to connect that evidence to your conclusion via a line of valid reasoning. It's no different that someone saying he's seen thousands of sunsets, so what right does anyone have to question his explanation for it.

Just as deeply devoted religious people can't see the difference between faith and fact, you can't seem to see the difference between your say-so and fact. You don't seem to be able to tell how propositions follow one from another.

 

[turingtest]

It seems that the previous modbox in the thread was not sufficient to remind ALL participants to be civil and polite, and in particular not to personalise their posts. 26 more posts have been removed to AAH, and several posts have had to be edited.

Any further breaches of your Membership Agreements, in particular breaches of rule 0 and rule 12, will be decorated with a yellow card. Further actions, including suspensions or worse, are not to be ruled out if the rule-breaking continues.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

NO ONE here finds you more interesting than "the greatest individual crime of the 20th century".

The only person here obsessed with "Robert Harris" is Robert Harris. No one in this thread asked you about your age, your interests, your hobbies, your taste in music, your political affiliation, your religious beliefs, your heroes, etc. and yet you have continued to talk about yourself (often in the third person), rather than focusing on "the greatest individual crime of the 20th century".

Kindly stay on topic.

(Sorry, couldn't resist. I know- that's a paddlin', right?)

 

[Robert Harris]

Well of course. Turn to John McAdams if you seek objective information

McAdams argument is that Milteer got some of the details wrong. Obviously, because he didn't know all the details. For example he thought the hit would take place on 11/18, the day in which Kennedy arrived in Tampa.

But he probably got that one right. Look at this article,

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/23/Ta...s_of_JFK.shtml

Notice this part:

"More interesting for local readers, the book also claims that Trafficante was behind an attempt to kill Kennedy during his visit to Tampa on Nov. 18, 1963.

Trafficante allegedly called off the attack after an informant alerted law enforcement a few days before the visit, according to the book."

Isn't that an amazing coincidence?!?

Milteer had obviously been told about an assassination attempt on the 18th and sure enough, there was an assassination attempt planned for the 18th.

The article continues, "Of course, Trafficante would have also known that there was still one more chance to kill JFK, in Marcello's territory of Dallas,"

It is clear that Milteer had foreknowledge of the assassination, and that organized crime was behind the assassination.

I'm betting you will never see the problem in those highlighted words (hint- it's a phrase that sounds like "begging the question").

You seem to be determined to convert every argument into an ad hominem insult.

Of course, the ex-Secret Service agent "alleged" everything he said, and perhaps he was lying his tush off, but I see no reason to believe that, do you?

Perhaps even more important is the fact that Milteer selected 11/18/63, as the date when the attack was planned. He said that well in advance of that date.

And that turned out to be exactly the date that this Secret Service agent said an attack was planned. With 365 days in 1963, what are the odds that he would just coincidentally select that same day?

Also, consider this,

Milteer: You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans. There are so many of them here.

Obviously, he had heard that the attack would be in Tampa, not Dallas.

More seriously- no, McAdams's point is that the only detail Milteer got right was the shooting with a high-powered rifle from a high office window."

I know you hate it, but let's be specific.

His statement about "look-alikes", obviously had nothing to do with what he had been told. It just proved that he wasn't very bright.

His claim that "Jack Brown" was going to be an assassin, may have been spot on, for the Tampa assassination attempt. Nor do we know for certain, that Brown wasn't in DP on the 22nd.

And McAdams' claim that Milteer said the attack would be at the white house, was blatantly false. Besides the fact that he specifically described an attack on the 18th, where Kennedy would be addressing lots of Cubans, he also said it was the "the wrong time of the year" to attack Kennedy at the white house.

So, the ONLY thing that we can be sure that Milteer got wrong, was the "look-alikes". That's not much of a rebuttal.

Are you really going to argue that an idea like that-what McAdams calls "a generic scenario"- could only have come from foreknowledge?

It's obvious that it did, unless you are prepared to prove that this Secret Service agent lied or demonstrate that Milteer just got lucky when he predicted the 18th.

I know you've conceded that maybe you lack imagination; but must you include all humanity in your deficiency?

Oops! More ad hominem. I really hate having to report you guys.

There's another point here, too- in your haste to just throw stuff at the wall in the hope that something would stick,

Does it bother you at all, that you couldn't prove these insulting accusations, if your life depended on it?

you seem to have overlooked that Milteer's "foreknowledge" apparently didn't include your hypothesis, that a "gang of thugs" (I believe that was your phrase, I really can't be arsed to go back and see) would carry out the assassination, with at least one shooting from some spot in front of JFK- where there were no high office buildings. Why do you post things that contradict your idea as if they support them?

Tampa is not the same as Dallas, and the attack there may have been planned in an entirely different setting. And for all we know, they may have had a dozen other shooters who were going to be there. I doubt that what Milteer heard, included every detail.

The only thing clear about Milteer is that he was a racist poser- and you got taken in by yet another easily-exploded myth.

The evidence says otherwise. The fact that Milteer selected in advance, the precise day that this attack was apparently planned, is important, as is the fact that there is not a single, significant detail which you can prove, that he got wrong.

 

[Robert Harris]

No. It's been discussed thousands of times over decades.
There is nothing new to discuss.

I am baffled as to why you will not explain specifically, how my analysis has been discredited.

Is it possible that you have no specific arguments, but just don't like that I disagree with you?

But it is the issue. You haven't discovered a deeply hidden secret undetected until your investigation™.

Of course not. It's hardly a secret. Everything I have presented is fully consistent with the known facts.

On a scale of 1-10, exactly how objective do you think you are, sir?

If my analysis is half as terrible as you claim, you should have no trouble at all, putting me in my place. Let's see if you can do that.

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

 

[JayUtah]

I have no idea what in hell you are talking about. There was no hypocrisy whatsoever.

There is certainly the perception of it. You accuse your critics of giving only what you characterize as general argument, and you speculate that the reason for it is so that such an argument would be harder to refute.

You were demanding that I give you absolute statements as to where snipers were located, which is something no honest person would do.

You named a person -- one of several arrested in that building and then later released without charge -- and proposed that he participated in the assassination. Normally that kind of proposal would engender one or more testable assertions. But you keep the wording of the assertion too nebulous to test. If, for example, I argue that his criminal history involves petty crime and financial crimes and that on that basis he would not be expected to be a suitable rifleman, you can shift over to your other idea.

Asking for specific, testable claims (and whether or not you've tested) is one of the ways people separate serious allegations from vague handwaving.

 

[JayUtah]

I am baffled as to why you will not explain specifically, how my analysis has been discredited.

There has been specific rebuttal, specifically in the form of the expert you cite in favor of your analysis disagreeing with it.

In general, your objection suffers because it simply demands some particular form, format, or type of rebuttal. A rebuttal is not invalid simply because it isn't the form you keep demanding.

Is it possible that you have no specific arguments, but just don't like that I disagree with you?

You're trying to put your own words into your critic's mouth.

Of course not. It's hardly a secret. Everything I have presented is fully consistent with the known facts.

Bluster aside, you missed the point of the question. Every conspiracy theorist tends to take pride in the notion of having uncovered something few if any other people can see. You told us your findings were unique. Yet your readers have to reconcile how you managed to see what so many others could not.

On a scale of 1-10, exactly how objective do you think you are, sir?

What an absurd question.

If my analysis is half as terrible as you claim, you should have no trouble at all, putting me in my place. Let's see if you can do that.

Contrary to your statement, the goal has never been to "put you in your place." This is how you have perceived the debate, not what your critics have said they're trying to do. The rest of the sentiment is just bluster.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I am baffled as to why you will not explain specifically, how my analysis has been discredited.



Is it possible that you have no specific arguments, but just don't like that I disagree with you?







Of course not. It's hardly a secret. Everything I have presented is fully consistent with the known facts.



On a scale of 1-10, exactly how objective do you think you are, sir?



If my analysis is half as terrible as you claim, you should have no trouble at all, putting me in my place. Let's see if you can do that.



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

I think you wasted too much time looking for, and engaging in, arguments over on educationforum over the years. You need a change of tactics when playing here as most members vacated the school playground a long time ago.

With full knowledge that your ReportFinger is still twitching I offer the following:

A quick and simple Googley provides oodles of pages of you discussing your "analysis". You offer nothing new here after all these years. What exactly are you expecting to achieve here of all places?

Didn't you say that you made these unique discoveries in 1995?
There's a lengthy scribble from 1994 from someone other than yourself making the same claims. Odd.

You have, at your disposal, the wisdom of some very clever and articulate people who have the patience to discuss this horrible event of 1963. You seem more interested in laying down rules as to who can speak to you and how, reporting anyone who doesn't play along and accusing people of being nasty to you. All very educationforum-esque.

Unfortunately I am not as patient as others and see your attempt at creating an argument as nothing other than a waste of pixels. You knew perfectly well that no one would accept your ideas here yet you continue to bait.

It's a very tired tactic from days gone by.

 

[turingtest]

Well of course. Turn to John McAdams if you seek objective information

McAdams argument is that Milteer got some of the details wrong. Obviously, because he didn't know all the details. For example he thought the hit would take place on 11/18, the day in which Kennedy arrived in Tampa.

But he probably got that one right. Look at this article,

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/23/Tampabay/New_book_tells_of_JFK.shtml

Notice this part:

" More interesting for local readers, the book also claims that Trafficante was behind an attempt to kill Kennedy during his visit to Tampa on Nov. 18, 1963.

Trafficante allegedly called off the attack after an informant alerted law enforcement a few days before the visit, according to the book."

Isn't that an amazing coincidence?!?

Milteer had obviously been told about an assassination attempt on the 18th and sure enough, there was an assassination attempt planned for the 18th.

The article continues, "Of course, Trafficante would have also known that there was still one more chance to kill JFK, in Marcello's territory of Dallas,"

It is clear that Milteer had foreknowledge of the assassination, and that organized crime was behind the assassination.

Oh, Robert, you lovable scamp- don't ever change! Now- let's see if we can unpack some of this mess:

You seem to be determined to convert every argument into an ad hominem insult.

Uh huh. Add "ad hominem" to the list of terms you throw around without understanding.

Of course, the ex-Secret Service agent "alleged" everything he said, and perhaps he was lying his tush off, but I see no reason to believe that, do you?

Perhaps even more important is the fact that Milteer selected 11/18/63, as the date when the attack was planned. He said that well in advance of that date.

And that turned out to be exactly the date that this Secret Service agent said an attack was planned. With 365 days in 1963, what are the odds that he would just coincidentally select that same day?

Just who is this SS agent you're going on about, that you apparently think corroborates Milteer's foreknowledge? Bolden? Let me ask you this- when did Bolden make these allegations? Try to conquer that first impulse to angrily demand to know why that's relevant- surely a little thought will tell you why.

Also, consider this,

Milteer: You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans. There are so many of them here.

Obviously, he had heard that the attack would be in Tampa, not Dallas.

O-kay.

I know you hate it, but let's be specific.

His statement about "look-alikes", obviously had nothing to do with what he had been told. It just proved that he wasn't very bright.

His claim that "Jack Brown" was going to be an assassin, may have been spot on, for the Tampa assassination attempt. Nor do we know for certain, that Brown wasn't in DP on the 22nd.

And McAdams' claim that Milteer said the attack would be at the white house, was blatantly false. Besides the fact that he specifically described an attack on the 18th, where Kennedy would be addressing lots of Cubans, he also said it was the "the wrong time of the year" to attack Kennedy at the white house.

So, the ONLY thing that we can be sure that Milteer got wrong, was the "look-alikes". That's not much of a rebuttal.

So, out of two claims, one is wrong, and one might be right if you assume your conclusion (of a planned attack on the 18th). That's...not much of a track record.
Also, read the McAdams article, with a little better comprehension this time (maybe slower?- here's the link again, just to make it easy on you). McAdams does not claim "that Milteer said the attack would be at the white house"- in fact, he says:

...that the language about taking a disassembled gun up into a tall building was in the context of shooting Kennedy on the veranda of the White House, in warm weather.

Do you deny that Milteer said this, as a hypothetical?

It's obvious that it did, unless you are prepared to prove that this Secret Service agent lied or demonstrate that Milteer just got lucky when he predicted the 18th.

See above for your SS agent. Also for the question-begging (I know you like to think that's an insult, but it's only because you don't understand the concept)

Oops! More ad hominem. I really hate having to report you guys.



Does it bother you at all, that you couldn't prove these insulting accusations, if your life depended on it?

That kind of sanctimony should really stand alone.

Tampa is not the same as Dallas, and the attack there may have been planned in an entirely different setting. And for all we know, they may have had a dozen other shooters who were going to be there. I doubt that what Milteer heard, included every detail.

I've helpfully highlighted for you every instance in which you've tried to prove that Milteer did know something about something that was going to happen by giving him excuses for not knowing anything about something that didn't.

The evidence says otherwise. The fact that Milteer selected in advance, the precise day that this attack was apparently planned, is important, as is the fact that there is not a single, significant detail which you can prove, that he got wrong.

I didn't need to prove anything, Bob- you did that all by yourself.