Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Pooneil]

Of course it does.

Then please enlighten us as to where you think the shooters were located.

 

[Axxman300]

Wait, so you're implying that there was a silenced weapon used?

In 1963?

A silenced high-powered rifle?

In 1963?

Even with a suppressor that round would have been loud, you know, breaking the sound barrier will do that. Suppressors weren't used on high powered rifles back then because they negatively effected accuracy.

Silencers were a close range feature for the most part until the 1990s.

So again, is that all you have?

You need to produce a 1963 weapon with this capability.

 

[HSienzant]

If I assert that there was a shot at 285, you only waste bandwidth by ranting about me begging the question. What you should be doing is trying to refute me...

Wow. That's still just trying to shift the burden of proof. Whatever is asserted should be proven by the person making the assertion. It's not up to anyone to disprove assertions... otherwise I'd assert there's a teapot circling Jupiter and you'd have to disprove it.

Not The Way It Works.

Respectfully,

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh, Robert, you lovable scamp- don't ever change!

Thank you! You aren't the first to point that out.

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

It is not ad hominem to point out that you posted an ad hominem insult. You had just suggested that I was too stupid to understand the words in your post. That is by any standard, both insulting and ad hominem.

Just who is this SS agent you're going on about, that you apparently think corroborates Milteer's foreknowledge?

Perhaps you could just read the article I linked for you and you would find out.

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

Bolden?

Excellent! I'm delighted that you found it.

Let me ask you this- when did Bolden make these allegations?

I don't know the precise date. But you can get a great deal of information by listening to this interview of him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8EWRcYj1cE

Try to conquer that first impulse to angrily demand to know why that's relevant- surely a little thought will tell you why.

I don't recall ever doing that. Perhaps you could cite me verbatim.

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.

It doesn't help to distort the conversation. You asserted that McAdams had refuted this stuff, but in reality, he didn't refute anything. OTOH, Milteer was spot on about them using a sniper in a high window, and his statement about JFK talking to the Cubans, tells us that he knew where this was planned to go down.

Also, read the McAdams article, with a little better comprehension this time (maybe slower?-

I really get tired of reporting you. I hope you will eventually choose to debate civilly.

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

Why are you asking me. Let's just look at his actual words:

The fact is 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.

IOW, he wants us to believe that when Milteer talked about a shooter in a tall building, he was talking about a potshot at the White House. But there is absolutely nothing Milteer said that connects the two and in fact, he dismissed that possibility by saying the weather wasn't right for it.

He also talked about JFK speaking with many Cubans then, which further confirms that this was not about a shot at the White house.

See above for your SS agent.

I already saw "above". It hasn't improved with age.

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)

I never said it was an insult. I said that I never assumed my presumptions to be true unless I had presented solid evidence to support them.

Why don't you cite me verbatim, making such a statement,? Why do you rely on ambiguity whenever you are attacking my arguments?

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.

No you didn't. You just asserted these things without lifting a finger to prove them. The evidence tells us that Milteer had foreknowledge of the assassination.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Robert Harris]

Wow. That's still just trying to shift the burden of proof.

Nonsense. I have met my burden, with a detailed article, several very detailed video presentations, and several annotated Zapruder segments. I included numerous citations and a great deal of empirical evidence.

The ball is in your court now and has been for some time.

 

[HSienzant]

As I explain in my main presentation, I believe the early shots probably came from the third floor.

Nobody cares what you believe. What can you prove, with evidence?

A professional criminal was there at the time, who had connections to David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, and was at the Cabana hotel the night before, where Jack Ruby was.

And the evidence for any of this is still uncited; despite my asking days ago for that evidence.

In his HSCA testimony, he flatly lied about being in Dealey Plaza, claiming he was with his parole officer, Roger Carol during the assassination, but the parole office denied his alibi. It is interesting that Braden never made that claim in his affidavit in 1963. He couldn't do that because the Sheriff's deputies only had to pick up the phone to prove he lied. But by 1978, he probably figured that Carol wouldn't remember, forgetting that EVERYONE remembers what was going on then.

So, I understand it, your evidence that Braden was lying in 1963 was that he told a different story in 1978 that didn't withstand scrutiny? Can you cite for your claims here, or are we supposed to take all the above on faith?

I do not know for certain of course, whether Braden actually fired shots or whether he was there as a lookout for whoever did. Also, if you look at the presentation, you will see that I demonstrate that the trajectory from the Daltex is much better than from the alleged sniper's nest.

Do you have any evidence that a rifle was brought into the building?
Any evidence that a rifle was seen in the building on the day of the assassination?
Any evidence that a rifle was taken out of the building?
Any evidence that Braden had *anything* to do with the assassination in any way?
Or any evidence (shells in the Dal-Tex building, fragments found in the limo that had sufficient lands and grooves to eliminate Oswald's weapon as the one used to fire that round?
Anything except what you want to believe is true?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Nonsense. I have met my burden, with a detailed article, several very detailed video presentations, and several annotated Zapruder segments. I included numerous citations and a great deal of empirical evidence.

The ball is in your court now and has been for some time.

All that is just your *interpretation* of some evidence.
It's not proof.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nonsense. I have met my burden, with a detailed article, several very detailed video presentations, and several annotated Zapruder segments. I included numerous citations and a great deal of empirical evidence.

The ball is in your court now and has been for some time.

No, you haven't met your burden of proof, no matter how much you want to believe so. If you feel that you have proved a conspiracy and who was involved in it, it would be morally imperative to present your evidence to the FBI. Have you done that? If not, why not?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

And the evidence for that is?????
What?

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

Allegedly???? Are you serious?

Would you accept that level of evidence from the Warren Commission concerning Oswald's guilt? Or is there a double-standard here at work large enough to wedge the space-shuttle into?

Isn't that an amazing coincidence?!?

What part -- that a conspiracy book publishes unproven allegations as facts and that you post them here?

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

Quote me the part where Milteer talks about shooting JFK from multiple buildings, and using some suppressed weapons, and some not suppressed.

JFK had foreknowledge of the assassination by your standards. He told an aide on the morning of 11/22/63 that all it would take was a nut willing to sacrifice his own life for the president's for the assassination to be accomplished. Please compare and contrast the Milteer story with the one related by Kenny O'Donnell.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=mQcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6524,4277762&hl=en

I'm not seeing a bit of difference between the two claims.

Let me know why you think Milteer knew more about it than JFK did.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Wait, so you're implying that there was a silenced weapon used?

I consider it more than an implication. It is a virtual certainty.

Only one of the early shots were even heard by most witnesses and neither of them were nearly loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see following 285 and 313.

In 1963?

Of course. Silencers were introduced into the U.S. in 1909 and were used in both WW1 and WW2. This article goes into considerable detail about the history of these devices.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Silencers.aspx

A silenced high-powered rifle?

It was more likely a subsonic weapon.

[/QUOTE] Even with a suppressor that round would have been loud, you know, breaking the sound barrier will do that. Suppressors weren't used on high powered rifles back then because they negatively effected accuracy. [/QUOTE]

But subsonic rifles can become extremely quiet. Check out this homemade suppressor which was fashioned from a beer can. Move the timer to about 4:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_pcWPdSDs

Silencers were a close range feature for the most part until the 1990s.

True. In fact, as near as I can tell, the last suppressed shot was the one at 223. The later ones at 285 and 313 were enormously louder.

So again, is that all you have?
You need to produce a 1963 weapon with this capability.

How about 1909, though I'm not sure if beer cans were available then

Both sides used them in WW2, for snipers, as the article explains.

 

[JayUtah]

Nonsense. I have met my burden, with a detailed article, several very detailed video presentations, and several annotated Zapruder segments. I included numerous citations and a great deal of empirical evidence.

Once again, you don't seem to see the difference between the material you provide and what you keep trying to tell the world that material means. You seem to think your judgment, interpretations, etc. that are the final leap in your argument somehow follow naturally and self-evidently from the material. When people rightly point out exactly how and why they don't, you inexplicably accuse them of trying to apply some incomprehensible sorcery. And when they persist in telling you that you don't seem to understand the nature of proof, you accuse them of attacking you personally.

You keep referring to the vast volume of material you say you have produced. But you don't understand at all the all-important line of reasoning that has to connect any or all of it to the conclusory proposition you assign to it. That line of reasoning, in your case, amounts to little more than "because I say so." That you've couched it in putatively impersonal terms such as, "It is clear that..." or "It is obvious that..." doesn't change the fundamental nature of the grand, unsupported leaps you make from what you observe to what you believe.

 

[HSienzant]

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?

I'd like to see some evidence Braden had anything to do with the assassination. I'd like to see some evidence of a weapon on that floor. I'd like to see some evidence of a rifle brought into that building. And evidence of a rifle brought out of the building. And evidence of shots fired from that building in terms of eyewitness testimony. And evidence of any bullets or bullet fragments that could be ballistically excluded from being fired from Oswald's weapon.

Got anything like that?

Or is all you really got is a guy named Jim Braden who was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

And the evidence for that is?????
What?

The statement of a Secret Service agent who would have been privy to what that informant said about the planned assassination attempt.

Allegedly???? Are you serious?

Umm.. yes, that is what Bolden alleged. Why would you doubt the statements of an ex-Secret Service agent?

Would you accept that level of evidence from the Warren Commission concerning Oswald's guilt?

With only one exception, I cannot think of anything a witness said about the evidence against Oswald that I would dispute.

But would you accept the much lower level of evidence from a witness who changed his story about identifying Oswald on the sixth floor?

And yes, I would tend to believe Bolden, although I cannot state with certainty that he did not lie.

Or is there a double-standard here at work large enough to wedge the space-shuttle into?

No sir, I presume that govt. agents are truthful unless I have good reason to think otherwise.

What part -- that a conspiracy book publishes unproven allegations as facts and that you post them here?

Why are you trying to distort this issue? There is a great deal of data which supports conspiracy, from Robert Blakey, Anthony Summers and many other highly respected investigators. You don't get to blow it off, by calling it a "conspiracy book".

Quote me the part where Milteer talks about shooting JFK from multiple buildings, and using some suppressed weapons, and some not suppressed.

If you had read the previous discussion on this, you would realize that Milteer was told about a planned attack in Tampa florida. And that might have involved multiple buildings too. I doubt that anyone gave Milteer all the details.

JFK had foreknowledge of the assassination by your standards. He told an aide on the morning of 11/22/63 that all it would take was a nut willing to sacrifice his own life for the president's for the assassination to be accomplished. Please compare and contrast the Milteer story with the one related by Kenny O'Donnell.

Sure, JFK talked about what was possible. Milteer talked about what was going to happen.



https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=mQcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6524,4277762&hl=en

I'm not seeing a bit of difference between the two claims.

Let me know why you think Milteer knew more about it than JFK did.

Hank[/QUOTE]

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Unless I'm mistaken, you admitted you never read the entire thread, nor any of the predecessor threads in this forum, so how would you know how much evidence has been presented by anyone who has ever been in this forum?

I'm awaiting an honest answer, not more dodgeball, complete with verifiable stats and quantifiable evidence. What methodology did you use to ascertain you've given more evidence than anyone else?

Or is this just more hyperbole by you?

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

I consider it more than an implication. It is a virtual certainty.

Far from it; it's purely an inference.

It was more likely a subsonic weapon.

So is this.

You place ultimate faith in your interpretation of one kind of evidence, so much so that when you hypothesize things that would need to be the case in order to make your interpretation tenable -- to plug what would otherwise be holes in your scenario -- you can't see them as only hypotheses.

In order to make your beliefs consistent with the evidence, there "must" have been a subsonic weapon, and it "must" have been silenced. You say this not because you found the weapon or the person who allegedly shot it, but because your beliefs would be untenable without it. You can't otherwise explain the gap between the evidence and your belief.

Evidence of the existence of something never takes the form of what would need to exist to make some predetermined idea correct. That's an inference, not a certainty. It's only a "certainty" in your mind because of how important it is to your belief.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

- Peanut butter contains peanuts.
- I think peanut butter is tasty.

Which of the above proves something?

 

[Robert Harris]

I'd like to see some evidence Braden had anything to do with the assassination.

I have gone over that countless times, and I covered it in my main presentation. If you had seen my presentation, you would realize that the third floor window I discuss is by far, the most likely location for the snipier(s) on the third floor.

The evidence is circumstantial but extremely convincing. This man had connections to Ferrie and Marcello, the man who confessed to an FBI informant that he ordered the assassination.

And Braden was in the same hotel with Jack Ruby the night before. He lied to the HSCA, claiming that he was in his parole officer's office during the assassination, but his parole officer, Roger Carol denied his alibi. Of course he never mentioned what would have amounted to a perfect alibi, in his affidavit. It would have been too easy for the deputies to have phoned Carol. But he apparently thought that it was safe to tell that story, 15 years later. I think he forgot that people tend to have very clear memories about what was going on that day.

Was that absolute, indisputable proof? Of course not, but the combination of those facts raises the probability of his guilt through the roof.

I'd like to see some evidence of a weapon on that floor.

Don't you think it is disingenuous to demand evidence that you know, has never been found?

And did you stop to consider that 1. the Daltex was never searched by the authories and 2. the perps were not like Oswald, leaving an evidence trail everywhere he went. They undoubtedly broke their weapons down and temporarily hid them or managed to sneak them out of the building.

I'd like to see some evidence of a rifle brought into that building.

Didn't you already say that? I know I already answered.

And evidence of a rifle brought out of the building.

Sure, I caught them on my Iphone. I'll email you the flick right after my date with Meryl Streep.

Let's not play debate games, Hank.

The cops were unaware that this thug had a rap sheet, two feet long, because he was using a phony name, otherwise they would have held him, and might have eventually busted the guy - that is, if they could find a way to get around Hoover.

And evidence of shots fired from that building in terms of eyewitness testimony.

Why do you need to restrict the evidence type? Instead of demanding whatever evidence you think is not available, why don't you just ask for good evidence?

It's obvious that a suppressed firearm was used to fire the early shots, so we should presume that some early shots, like the one at 223, could have gone unnoticed.

And evidence of any bullets or bullet fragments that could be ballistically excluded from being fired from Oswald's weapon.

Sure, they found them when they searched the Daltex. Oh wait!!! They didn't search the Daltex, did they

That sure is persuasive that they found no evidence in a building that they never searched, eh?

Or is all you really got is a guy named Jim Braden who was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I have a great deal, Hank. Watch the presentation.

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

 

[Robert Harris]

Unless I'm mistaken, you admitted you never read the entire thread, nor any of the predecessor threads in this forum

If you think someone has posted more evidence that I have, tell me who it was.

My experience has been that there is an enormous aversion to evidence here. Most people won't even talk about it, let alone post it.

And the fact that no one here has disputed my claim, pretty much confirms that I am right.

 

[JayUtah]

The evidence is circumstantial but extremely convincing.

That is a subjective opinion. Another person might conclude that the evidence is circumstantial and therefore not especially convincing. You don't get to include your opinion of the evidence as evidence.

It would have been too easy for the deputies to have phoned Carol. But he apparently thought...

This is supposition. "Would have..." and "apparently thought [or felt]..." are phrases used to introduce such suppositions. In fact you have absolutely no evidence to show that the situation you propose is the reason Braden told his story differently on different occasions. That the situation contains some elements that could be considered factual or probable does not mean they came together in the way you propose.

I think he forgot that people tend to have very clear memories about what was going on that day.

Well, no, you've already conceded that not all the witnesses, in general, told exactly the same story. Some claimed to have good recollection. Others were fuzzy on what they recalled. "Everyone tends to have very clear memories of that day," is not borne out by evidence -- you just made this up as a premise. That's exactly what it means to beg the question.

Was that absolute, indisputable proof? Of course not, but the combination of those facts raise the probability of his guilt through the roof.

This too is simply your personal judgment. You list the evidence, but the conclusion you draw from it is simply your opinion of what it means. There is the additional opinion of how strongly you think it proves a point. You don't get to be both prosecutor and jury. Other people will legitimately come to different conclusions about how credibly you tie evidence together with your assumptions and would-be's. And they'll separately come to a legitimately different conclusion about whether that suppositional house of cards "raise the probability of his guilt though the roof."

Don't you think it is disingenuous to demand evidence that you know, has never been found?

Not in the least disingenuous. He's emphasizing that you cannot produce physical evidence for that particular point in you claim. You say everything you argue is supported by objective, verifiable proof. But in fact you cannot provide objective, verifiable proof that there was a shooter in that building. All you have is supposition.

Further, what I finding disingenuous is the phrasing of your objection. You suggest that the evidence existed, but simply "has never been found." You don't seem to consider the possibility that it never existed. It "exists" in your theory only because you need it to exist in order not to have to relax or change your conclusion.

 

[JayUtah]

If you think someone has posted more evidence that I have, tell me who it was.

HSienzant, for starters.

My experience has been that there is an enormous aversion to evidence here. Most people won't even talk about it, let alone post it.

No, there is enormous aversion to the treatment you're giving the evidence. And the rhetorical elements leading to that aversion were clearly spelled out to you when you arrived, so that you could avoid it. You wish to discuss the evidence only in a particular fashion, framed in a certain way. People have been talking about your evidence, just not in a way that suits you. As for posting it, this smacks of shifting the burden of proof again. You don't get to direct the debate to the point of demanding what kind of rebuttal your critics must rely upon.

And the fact that no one here has disputed my claim, pretty much confirms that I am right.

You honestly think no one has disputed your claim? You honestly think no one else has pointed you to the preceding material?