Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

An early first shot

I'm calling it a night. In the meantime, please check out this presentation, which analyzes some unusual reactions by JFK in the Towner film. As he starts to wave, he suddenly snaps his hand back within a fraction of a second and balls it into a fist.

He then falls briefly to his left and then straightens back up. All of that began immediately, after the limo was exposed to the west face of the Daltex building.

One possibility is that a bullet missed the limo, much like the shot circa 160, apparently did, causing debris to fly upward and sting the President. Of course, suppressors are extremely vulnerable to even microscopic misalignment which can cause wild misses.

Or perhaps there is another explanation for Kennedy's strange reactions. I am open to suggestions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXWC87-WOKU

 

[JayUtah]

...some unusual reactions by JFK in the Towner film.

The characterization of his reactions as "unusual" is purely supposition. It begs the question.

One possibility is...

Your affirmative claim; your burden of proof.

Or perhaps there is another explanation for Kennedy's strange reactions. I am open to suggestions.

The characterization of his reactions as "strange" is your personal opinion, the same question begged with slightly different words. You bear the burden to prove his actions were the result of the causes you claim. If someone doesn't believe your claims, he has no duty to undertake an affirmative proof for a counterclaim just because you fervently wish it.

It sounds like tomorrow we're going to learn about a new refutation method, the "subversion of support."

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm calling it a night.

All of the questions you've studiously avoided will still be there in the morning.

Why haven't you given this "objective, verifiable" evidence to the FBI? What have you accomplished in the last 20 years of spamming this?

The refutations will still be there also. Nobody is accepting your inferences and interpretations as "objective, verifiable" evidence.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

[...]

This is a silly argument, Sandy. When do we discuss the assassination?

I already did that. By far, the most consistent and accurate consilience, from the minds of the greatest skeptics has been that it's all about the evidence, which is why I have posted and linked more verifiable evidence than any 10 people in this forum.

What astounds me is that 90% of my adversaries won't even discuss that evidence, and focus entirely on Robert Harris. A classic example is their argument that I have no right to presume that there was a shot at 285.
Consider the quantity and quality of the evidence I have presented in support of that conclusion, in comparison with the evidence they have presented in support of the lone nut theory, which amounts to absolutely nothing. But no one complains about "begging the question" when one of theirs blurts out something which presumes that Oswald acted alone.
[...]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited several breaches of rule 12

1) The demand for proof that no one even knew what Oswald was planning or did anything to help him is indeed silly. And it may indeed be silly of me to point this out, repeatedly, because, apparently, you are never going to stop going on about the absence of such proof (see highlighted passage 4).

2) Grammatically, the first part of the second highlighted sentence simply doesn't make any sense; this could not be more simplistic, vague or banal (ahem), and it does not even attempt to define consilience (or anything else).

3) It is remarkable that you construe assertions that you "have no right" (whose phrase was that?) to presume a shot at 285 as indicating that your critics are "focus[ing] entirely on Robert Harris." I am led to wonder if there is any possible way anyone can criticize your arguments that would not be taken by you as a personal attack. At least I don't recall anyone ever saying that the reason you cannot make this presumption has anything to do with an aspect of your personality. If no one has the right to say they find a line of your reasoning unconvincing, nothing can be debated.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

It's not good enough to just blurt out that my evidence does not constitute proof. You have to prove it.

The ball is in your court now. Post your refutation or admit that you don't have one.

 

[Robert Harris]

1) The demand for proof that no one even knew what Oswald was planning or did anything to help him is indeed silly.

I made no such demand. Cite me verbatim.

And it may indeed be silly of me to point this out, repeatedly, because, apparently, you are never going to stop going on about the absence of such proof (see highlighted passage 4).

I cannot stop going on and on about something that is in your imagination. You cited me saying,

"Consider the quantity and quality of the evidence I have presented in support of that conclusion, in comparison with the evidence they have presented in support of the lone nut theory, which amounts to absolutely nothing. But no one complains about "begging the question" when one of theirs blurts out something which presumes that Oswald acted alone."

I made no demands at all. I simply stated the truth, which you did not dispute. I can't understand why that would annoy you. But please reread what I said and confirm that I made no demands in that passage.

2) Grammatically, the first part of the second highlighted sentence simply doesn't make any sense; this could not be more simplistic, vague or banal (ahem), and it does not even attempt to define consilience (or anything else).

I'm sorry you don't understand it Sandy. No one else seems to have any problems with it. But let me simplify it for you. Is this better?


The most brilliant skeptics agree that what is very important is the evidence, which is why I have posted a lot of evidence.

Does that help?

But rest assured that I will make plenty of grammatical errors which you can attack to your heart's content. In fact, I'm disappointed that you haven't employed your usual tactic from A.A.JFK, of attacking my use of commas. I guess you just have a knack for knowing what really matters.

3) It is remarkable that you construe assertions that you "have no right" (whose phrase was that?) to presume a shot at 285 as indicating that your critics are "focus[ing] entirely on Robert Harris."

I don't recall ever saying that. Why don't you cite me verbatim? My response to those who allege that I have no right to say that I have proven there was a shot at 285, has always been to point to the vast amount of evidence I have posted and linked, and invite them to try to refute it.

So long as I stand unrefuted, I will continue to state that I have made my case. And if you think I have been refuted, then feel free to tell me about it. Who did it and what was their argument?

I am led to wonder if there is any possible way anyone can criticize your arguments that would not be taken by you as a personal attack.

Well, there's only one way to find out. Let's talk about the facts and evidence and at least temporarily, set aside my terrible grammar and other bad habits.

Would you like to talk about these reactions?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif

Or would you prefer to discuss the witnesses?

I'm sure you're getting tired of talking about my shortcomings. This will be a chance to try something totally new and different.

 

[Robert Harris]

1) The demand for proof that no one even knew what Oswald was planning or did anything to help him is indeed silly.

I made no such demand. Cite me verbatim.

And it may indeed be silly of me to point this out, repeatedly, because, apparently, you are never going to stop going on about the absence of such proof (see highlighted passage 4).

I cannot stop going on and on about something that is in your imagination. You cited me saying,

"Consider the quantity and quality of the evidence I have presented in support of that conclusion, in comparison with the evidence they have presented in support of the lone nut theory, which amounts to absolutely nothing. But no one complains about "begging the question" when one of theirs blurts out something which presumes that Oswald acted alone."

I made no demands at all. I simply stated the truth.

2) Grammatically, the first part of the second highlighted sentence simply doesn't make any sense; this could not be more simplistic, vague or banal (ahem), and it does not even attempt to define consilience (or anything else).

I'm sorry you don't understand it Sandy. No one else seems to have any problems with it. But let me simplify it for you. Is this better?

The most brilliant skeptics agree that what is very important is the evidence, which is why I have posted a lot of evidence.

Does that help?

3) It is remarkable that you construe assertions that you "have no right" (whose phrase was that?) to presume a shot at 285 as indicating that your critics are "focus[ing] entirely on Robert Harris."

I don't recall ever saying that. Why don't you cite me verbatim? My response to those who allege that I have no right to say that I have proven there was a shot at 285, has always been to point to the vast amount of evidence I have posted and linked, and invite them to try to refute it.

So long as I stand unrefuted, I will continue to state that I have made my case.

Now, there may have been instances when I made that accusation about a post which asserted that I haven't proven the 285 shot, but it will also include insults and/or ad hominem attacks.

I am led to wonder if there is any possible way anyone can criticize your arguments that would not be taken by you as a personal attack.

Well, there's only one way to find out. Let's talk about the facts and evidence and at least, temporarily set aside my terrible grammar and other bad habits.

Would you like to talk about these reactions?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif

Or would you prefer to discuss the witnesses and the witness corroborations?

 

[Willy Ekerslike]

Oh dear. That's an hour I could have spent more usefully.
Let me know when Robert gets around to posting the Janitior with the broomstick photos, I always enjoy that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh dear. That's an hour I could have spent more usefully.

I must admit I'm only skimming now as I find the exploration of the various connections and motivations of multiple peripheral characters deathly boring.

I do seem to glean, however, that the scenario we're offered now requires a specialist weapon (subsonic and suppressed, and probably with a short range and mediocre accuracy as a consequence) to be placed in the hands of some thug rather than a skilled sharpshooter, even though it's to be fired from a greater range than Oswald shot from.

It does rather smack of reductio ad absurdum, but without the recognition of when the inferences become absurd. What it doesn't look like is any kind of plan.

 

[Pooneil]

Well I see you, Robert, have answered my question after all. Just vaguely and indirectly. Stating you have candidate locations but are unwilling, in this forum, to name or weigh the probabilities for any of them.

that includes the possible sniper locations, which are discussed throughout the presentation.

the sniper locations and possible sniper locations in great detail,

Furthermore, you are unwilling to state a number for the number of shots fired that are accounted for or suggested in your still hidden hypothesis of who killed JFK. Rather you deflect back to your bogus complaint that this forum is trying to pin you with be requiring an arbitrary level of "certainty." We in this forum mostly recognize the abstract possibility of more shooters and that there is no arbitrarily high hurdle for preciseness. Of interest here is what you propose and why your hypothesis is better than others. Yet you will not tell us.

I never said there was a total of only four shots....That's why I have never in my life, posited a precise total.

--------

I have posted a comprehensive presentation

which are discussed throughout the presentation.

Linking to a video is not a discussion.

 

[Pooneil]

I do seem to glean, however, that the scenario we're offered now requires a specialist weapon (subsonic and suppressed, and probably with a short range and mediocre accuracy as a consequence) to be placed in the hands of some thug rather than a skilled sharpshooter, even though it's to be fired from a greater range than Oswald shot from.

And has has taken days of asking questions and a great deal of effort just to drag that much from Robert Harris about his hypothesis. How much longer will it take for him to actually tell us the whole of the proposition he so proudly proclaims to have developed?

 

[Border Reiver]

I must admit I'm only skimming now as I find the exploration of the various connections and motivations of multiple peripheral characters deathly boring.

I do seem to glean, however, that the scenario we're offered now requires a specialist weapon (subsonic and suppressed, and probably with a short range and mediocre accuracy as a consequence) to be placed in the hands of some thug rather than a skilled sharpshooter, even though it's to be fired from a greater range than Oswald shot from.

It does rather smack of reductio ad absurdum, but without the recognition of when the inferences become absurd. What it doesn't look like is any kind of plan.

Not even a specialist weapon - it would need to be a completely custom job, from the rifle to the ammo. I am unaware of any subsonic 6.5mm rifle ammunition (and you are limited to this calibre as this is ONLY size of bullet that was recovered) that is or was available, so this would need to be manufactured, in addition to a rifle to fire said ammo. Far to many unsubstantiated steps to accept:

Mr. Harris' scenario of an another shooter requires:

a. Close co-ordination between the shooters (and with the lack of comms equipment you are down to a previously agreed time and wristwatches);
b. One shooter to leave physical evidence, while the other leaves none; and
c. The second shooter to have a custom rifle with a custom calibre, and a suppressor that can be used to make a longer and more challenging shot that the other shooter.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's not good enough to just blurt out that my evidence does not constitute proof. You have to prove it.

Is a tree evidence of the existence of gods? Or is that evidence of someone's interpretation of evidence?

The ball is in your court now. Post your refutation or admit that you don't have one.

No, the ball is still in your court. Your deliberate misunderstanding of the refutation does not make it magically go away.

 

[JayUtah]

My response to those who allege that I have no right to say that I have proven there was a shot at 285, has always been to point to the vast amount of evidence I have posted and linked, and invite them to try to refute it.

And they have, by pointing out that the "reaction" you see is your imagination. Not even your cited expert agrees with you on that point.

So long as I stand unrefuted, I will continue to state that I have made my case.

Ignoring the refutations does not constitute "standing unrefuted." As long as you do that, this will spin in circles indefinitely. The refutation is what it is. You don't get to dislike it and demand a new one.

And if you think I have been refuted, then feel free to tell me about it. Who did it and what was their argument?

That's been done too. By me, of course, but certainly not alone. Most of the regulars here have given you substantially the same refutation: your argument in nearly all quarters is based on begged questions and the improper elevation of your personal opinion to the status of "evidence." Your only response has been to insinuate there's no such thing as begging the question, or that if there is, it doesn't apply to your arguments.

 

[vtbub]

Wait til he claims the first shot came as the motorcade passed the TSBD.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I made no such demand. Cite me verbatim.

So you are actually saying that you have never asked for "proof that Oswald acted alone"?
Your first post here:
"How many of you believe that not only was Oswald guilty, but that he had no accomplices? And if not, why not?"
Same day: "BTW, have you found evidence that isolates Oswald as the only shooter?"
And repeatedly thereafter...
(I haven't figured out how to quote you and have the parts of my post that you are responding to also appear.)

I cannot stop going on and on about something that is in your imagination. You cited me saying,

"Consider the quantity and quality of the evidence I have presented in support of that conclusion, in comparison with the evidence they have presented in support of the lone nut theory, which amounts to absolutely nothing. But no one complains about "begging the question" when one of theirs blurts out something which presumes that Oswald acted alone."

I made no demands at all. I simply stated the truth, which you did not dispute. I can't understand why that would annoy you. But please reread what I said and confirm that I made no demands in that passage.

There you say implicitly that proof is needed for what cannot be proved, or we are begging the question.

I'm sorry you don't understand it Sandy. No one else seems to have any problems with it. But let me simplify it for you. Is this better?


The most brilliant skeptics agree that what is very important is the evidence, which is why I have posted a lot of evidence.

Does that help?

But rest assured that I will make plenty of grammatical errors which you can attack to your heart's content. In fact, I'm disappointed that you haven't employed your usual tactic from A.A.JFK, of attacking my use of commas. I guess you just have a knack for knowing what really matters.

Gee, you totally avoided the part where I said that you clearly don't understand the concept of "consilience." But yes, it does have to do with evidence!

I don't recall ever saying that. Why don't you cite me verbatim?

Wha...?!
In the post I was responding to, Bob, you said (verbatim!), "What astounds me is that 90% of my adversaries won't even discuss that evidence, and focus entirely on Robert Harris. A classic example is their argument that I have no right to presume that there was a shot at 285."

So I will repeat: It is remarkable that you construe assertions that you "have no right" (whose phrase was that?) to presume a shot at 285 as indicating that your critics are "focus[ing] entirely on Robert Harris." I am led to wonder if there is any possible way anyone can criticize your arguments that would not be taken by you as a personal attack. At least I don't recall anyone ever saying that the reason you cannot make this presumption has anything to do with an aspect of your personality. If no one has the right to say they find a line of your reasoning unconvincing, nothing can be debated.

My response to those who allege that I have no right to say that I have proven there was a shot at 285, has always been to point to the vast amount of evidence I have posted and linked, and invite them to try to refute it.

Yes, then you present the lines of reasoning that others find unconvincing.

 

[Ranb]

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

Then you can produce evidence to back it up?

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.

What makes you think that any suppressed center fire rifle capable of producing the wounds seen on JFK and Connell would not be loud enough to provoke a response?

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.

Actually that article goes into a tiny bit of detail and parts of it are wrong. It is a bad article to be basing any conclusions on other than "this article sucks".

It was more likely a subsonic weapon.

Why is that? Even the the muzzle blast of a suppressed rifle using a reduced powder charge is over 110 decibels. The bullet can also make a humming noise while moving through the air. Did you even look at the chart I posted a link to earlier or are you continuing to ignore everything I post as well as my requests for additional evidence to support your claims?

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

That is the EconoCan; it consists of an adapter and an oil filter; it is fitted to a Savage MKII chambered in 22lr. Notice how the can blocks the scope? While they can effectively suppresse the 22lr, they are not so good with center fire rifles as they lack baffles and merely provide and expansion volume for the gases. Anyone who is familiar with silencers and how they work knows that an empty tube usually makes a very poor silencer.

If you want to convince people that you are unfamiliar with silencers, then post a link to a YouTube video to show us how much they reduce noise. The limitations of the typical camcorder and PC used to reproduce the noise completely ruin any chance at providing an effective means of evaluating the noise reduction.

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.

Unless you were there or you have witness statements, then you can't really tell based on a film with no sound.

Snipers continued to be the major users of silencers, though, and these men used only rifles.Both sides used them in WW2, for snipers, as the article explains.

The article says in part; "Snipers continued to be the major users of silencers, though, and these men used only rifles." Other parts of the article say that silencers on rifles were unsuitable for combat. No evidence provided for any of the claims made although based on my reading over the last decade I know some of the claims are true. That article is completely inadequate; I would be embarrassed to use it to support any argument I was making.

When I get home to WA I'll refer to my copy of Silencer History and Performance Volumes one and two and provide you with additional information.

You can find it here; http://www.amazon.com/Silencer-Perf...436193261&sr=8-1&keywords=al+paulson+silencer

Ranb

 

[turingtest]

Not even a specialist weapon - it would need to be a completely custom job, from the rifle to the ammo. I am unaware of any subsonic 6.5mm rifle ammunition (and you are limited to this calibre as this is ONLY size of bullet that was recovered) that is or was available, so this would need to be manufactured, in addition to a rifle to fire said ammo. Far to many unsubstantiated steps to accept:

Mr. Harris' scenario of an another shooter requires:

a. Close co-ordination between the shooters (and with the lack of comms equipment you are down to a previously agreed time and wristwatches);
b. One shooter to leave physical evidence, while the other leaves none; and
c. The second shooter to have a custom rifle with a custom calibre, and a suppressor that can be used to make a longer and more challenging shot that the other shooter.

For anybody but RH, that would be apparent; but Robert's MO is to reason from his conclusions back to what must be true or must have happened to support them, not what evidence there actually is for support. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him, at some point, resort to a "frangible bullet"-type defense for not having the evidence he needs to show another, different caliber weapon. At least twice in the last few pages, he's sneered something to the effect that it's just not possible, and he can't be expected to have, a certain evidence he needs to uphold a claim- only RH would think it's good methodology to make a claim he knows he has no evidence for, but must be true in order to support his larger conclusion.

And, with that, I'm out- Robert has finally worn me down, there's just no use arguing with a determinedly-closed mind. (Though I'll probably still pop in from time to time for the sheer lulz) If Robert wants to crow victory over that, he's welcome to it. A victory won through sheer stubborn refusal to face any facts or understand any points but your own seems like a small and merit-less one to me- but, small victories for small minds are better than none at all, I guess.

 

[BazBear]

Sandy, you need to use the square brackets for forum tags ie. [/QUOTE] to close a quote.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Sandy, you need to use the square brackets for forum tags ie.

to close a quote.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks! It had occurred to me that might be the problem. But I will be (even) late(r) for work if I clean up the other post right now.

(or this one!)