Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Hans]

Hi, RoboTimbo,

I am a huge fan of reason and empirical evidence.

And whatever other flaws you may find in my postings, I assure you, that I will never evade relevant evidence and questions.

Well after twenty-four pages.....the first post remains an enigma!

 

[Robert Harris]

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 is correct. I include that information in the presentation.

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.

It is not that I am unwilling. It is that I don't know the total number of shots, but I am certain that there was at at least four.

And my hypothesis is hardly, "hidden". I have stated many times in this forum that I believe Marcello ordered the assassination.

Rather you deflect back to your bogus complaint that this forum is trying to pin you with be requiring an arbitrary level of "certainty."

No, I didn't say the "forum" was demanding an arbitrary level of certainty. I said that you were.

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 have posted several very detailed articles and a similar number of presentations. I obviously, did tell you. I suggest that you weigh the evidence I have presented against the evidence for the lone nut theory, to determine which hypothesis is superior.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I suggest that you weigh the evidence I have presented against the evidence for the lone nut theory, to determine which hypothesis is superior.

The prevailing theory is far superior. It has objective, verifiable evidence supporting it. Your non-hypothesis is based on your interpretation of your misunderstood science and the people you cite and base your opinions on disagree with you.

Do you see any way you can salage that?

 

[JayUtah]

That is correct. I include that information in the presentation.

You include a number of hypothetical locations, for none of which you provide compelling empirical proof -- just supposition and handwaving.

It is not that I am unwilling. It is that I don't know the total number of shots, but I am certain that there was at at least four.

And the problem is that instead of severing each of those hypothetical shots into a testable case, you lump them together as a single, untestable, ambiguous claim. That way if any particular location seems to be ruled out, you can fall back and say, "Well then it must have been over here."

The ability to convince people that your idea is correct is directly tied to your willingness to pin down the idea to a testable set of circumstances, and then to undertake the test based on best-practice empiricism. This smoke-and-mirrors shifting of alternatives back and forth is the antithesis of pinning down.

And my hypothesis is hardly, "hidden". I have stated many times in this forum that I believe Marcello ordered the assassination.

And you insinuate that Braden may have pulled the trigger. But when asked to pin down the claim, you suggest Braden may have pulled the trigger, or that he may have been in the room, or that it may have been someone else altogether. This is why people are asking for an end-to-end scenario. A bushel of stones thrown into the stream does not automatically organize itself into a stepping-stone path.

I have posted several very detailed articles and a similar number of presentations. I obviously, did tell you. I suggest that you weigh the evidence I have presented against the evidence for the lone nut theory, to determine which hypothesis is superior.

And we have done this. And we have explained exactly why your presentations do not rise to the level of credibility. Your unwillingness to listen to those explanations does not make them go away. You want the strength of your argument to lie only on the amount of detail you reproduce from other sources. You don't realize that the strength of your argument also requires defensible reasoning, which must avoid pitfalls such as begging the question, circular reasoning, and supposition. You want the strength of your argument to be measured entirely by the naturally-objective nature of empirical observation. You don't realize that you mix into that all manner of subjective judgment that doesn't suddenly acquire objective status simply by the admixture.

 

[abaddon]

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.

You still fail to comprehend the burden of proof.

It is your affirmative claim. It is up to you to provide evidence. You have not done so in any appreciable way.

OTOH, it is nobodies burden to prove you wrong, it is your job to prove yourself right.

Had you presented some evidence of consequence, I would have sat up and said "That's interesting" and put some effort into a little research. But you haven't. Frankly, you have failed to stir the tiniest scintilla of any motivation in me. That is not my problem, it is wholly yours. If you are incapable of putting together a coherent case, or even coherent evidence of any sort, why should I care?

 

[Robert Harris]

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 don't recall any of that in the presentation, other than Braden's connection to Ferrie and Marcello, who admitted that he ordered the assassination.

Could you be specific about the other myriad connections and peripheral characters? I am wondering if perhaps, you accidentally ran someone else's video.

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.

That is incorrect. I did not claim that any suppressed shots were fired after 223, at which point the limo was about 100 feet from the Daltex building. Oswald was 270 feet from the limo at 313, and if memory serves, around 240 feet at 285.

Neither subsonic weapons or suppressors are "specialist weapons". There are countless examples on Youtube, of people who fashioned such devices out of beer cans or flashlights, both of which are quite effective. Watch this example of a guy using a silencer made from an oil filter. Move the timer to about 1:20

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

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.

You could only think this notion is absurd, if you are not knowledgeable about these devices. Suppressors were first available in the U.S. in 1909. They were used in WW1 and much more frequently, by military snipers on both sides, in WW2. You should read this article, which will get you up to speed on the subject.

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

 

[JayUtah]

...Marcello, who admitted that he ordered the assassination.

A confession is not a slam-dunk trump card. All the other evidence still has to support the crime being confessed to. You seem to want to shoehorn all the other evidence into the hypothesis you've formulated largely upon this confession.

Neither subsonic weapons or suppressors are "specialist weapons". There are countless examples on Youtube...

Do you have any experience with building and firing "subsonic" "suppressed" weapons aside from watching YouTube videos? Keep in mind that a number of people in this thread are legitimate firearms experts. Bluff and bluster doesn't go very far. Your previous attempts to speak knowledgeably about the properties of firearms and their projectiles didn't go very well. Hence the reader is rightly suspicious of your judgment regarding what is likely or possible.

 

[Robert Harris]

Not even a specialist weapon - it would need to be a completely custom job, from the rifle to the ammo.

You mean a custom installation. Check Youtube. You will find a small army of people who have installed very effective suppressors made from flashlights, oil filters, beer cans and other equally exotic items. Watch this video of a guy using an oil filter. Move the timer to 1:20

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

Making an effective suppressor is not that difficult.

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.

That is incorrect. We have no idea what the caliber was of the apparent missed shot circa 150-160. Nor do we know the caliber of the shot that caused James Tague's minor wound and smear on the Main St. curbing. And CE399 could not possibly have been the bullet that wounded Connally and probably JFK. That fact was confirmed by Connally himself, the Dallas DA Henry Wade and the officer who was guarding Connally's room. It was further confirmed by half a dozen others. This article explains in detail. PLEASE read it in it's entirety. The evidence in this article is extremely important.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

It is true that fragments found in the limo were alleged to be a match with Oswald's rifle, which may be because he actually fired that shot. But it's important to remember that to accept that, one must have a certain amount of faith in the FBI, that they presented the actual fragments, which might be a bit hard to muster after reading that article.

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);

No sir. This was not the Green Berets. This was a few thugs whose plan was to start firing when the target came in range. No communication or coordination was necessary. Do you think the Mafia required walky-talkies on the their other hits?

b. One shooter to leave physical evidence, while the other leaves none;

Yes. Oswald was not recruited for his shooting skills. He was recruited for his communist/Cuban legend. If the crime could be blamed on a commie who was a leader in the FPCC, perhaps the US would declare war on Cuba and get rid of Castro, freeing the mob to re-establish their lucrative casino business. So, it was important that Oswald or someone, made sure he left a large evidence trail.

And the plan almost worked. The DPD in fact, stated in their indictment of Oswald that he was part of an international communist conspiracy.

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.

No sir, the last suppressed shot that I can see, was at 223, when the limo was about 100 feet from the Daltex. After that, the high powered rifles took over and were extremely loud. Of course, they were not suppressed.

It is easy to see the difference in the reactions to the early shots and the ones following 285 and 313. Of course, people reacted to one of the early shots. Their reactions were spread out over roughly 100 frames, from 169 when Jackie began to react, to app. 270 when Kellerman began to turn to the rear.

The reactions following 285, all began in the same 1/6th of a second and at exactly the same instant where Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction. These are the reactions:

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif

and this demonstrates that the reactions all began in the range of 290-292, or 3/18ths of one second.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

 

[RoboTimbo]

You mean a custom installation. Check Youtube. You will find a small army of people who have installed very effective suppressors made from flashlights, oil filters, beer cans and other equally exotic items. Watch this video of a guy using an oil filter. Move the timer to 1:20

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

Making an effective suppressor is not that difficult.

Now you just need evidence that there was a shot fired, that it came from the Dal-Tex building, that it was fired by a suppressed rifle, and that it fired subsonic rounds.

Do you have anything other than the need for its existence, to show that it existed?

That is incorrect. We have no idea what the caliber was of the apparent missed shot circa 150-160. Nor do we know the caliber of the shot that caused James Tague's minor wound and smear on the Main St. curbing. And CE399 could not possibly have been the bullet that wounded Connally and probably JFK. That fact was confirmed by Connally himself, the Dallas DA Henry Wade and the officer who was guarding Connally's room. It was further confirmed by half a dozen others. This article explains in detail. PLEASE read it in it's entirety. The evidence in this article is extremely important.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

It is true that fragments found in the limo were alleged to be a match with Oswald's rifle, which may be because he actually fired that shot. But it's important to remember that to accept that, one must have a certain amount of faith in the FBI, that they presented the actual fragments, which might be a bit hard to muster after reading that article.

So the only objective, verifiable bullet evidence you have is from bullets that came definitively from Oswald's MC?

No sir. This was not the Green Berets. This was a few thugs whose plan was to start firing when the target came in range. No communication or coordination was necessary. Do you think the Mafia required walky-talkies on the their other hits?

Now you'll need evidence for this band of a few thugs. Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence for them?

Yes. Oswald was not recruited for his shooting skills. He was recruited for his communist/Cuban legend.

Now you'll need objective, verifiable evidence that Oswald was recruited.

If the crime could be blamed on a commie who was a leader in the FPCC, perhaps the US would declare war on Cuba and get rid of Castro, freeing the mob to re-establish their lucrative casino business. So, it was important that Oswald or someone, made sure he left a large evidence trail.

And the plan almost worked. The DPD in fact, stated in their indictment of Oswald that he was part of an international communist conspiracy.

But do you trust the Dallas PD to speak on international matters?

No sir, the last suppressed shot that I can see, was at 223, when the limo was about 100 feet from the Daltex. After that, the high powered rifles took over and were extremely loud. Of course, they were not suppressed.

Actually, you can't see a suppressed shot at all. That's just your interpretation and that's what isn't at all compelling. Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence for suppressed shots?

It is easy to see the difference in the reactions to the early shots and the ones following 285 and 313. Of course, people reacted to one of the early shots. Their reactions were spread out over roughly 100 frames, from 169 when Jackie began to react, to app. 270 when Kellerman began to turn to the rear.

So they were all reacting to a braking event?

The reactions following 285, all began in the same 1/6th of a second and at exactly the same instant where Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction. These are the reactions:

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif

and this demonstrates that the reactions all began in the range of 290-292, or 3/18ths of one second.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

I can see why you've been so coy about stating any testable hypothesis. Now look at all the evidence you have to provide.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

Yes of course. I spun the wheel of fortune and it landed on 285.

I was just incredibly lucky that two of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century, identified a loud and startling noise at exactly that frame.

I was even luckier that every nonvictim in the limousine began to duck or spin around within a fraction of a second following 285 and that the scientists confirmed that Zapruder reacted at the same frame in which the passengers began to react.

And thank God that the wheel didn't land on a lower number, or I would have been in contradiction to the large consensus of witnesses that the final shots were closely bunched, as another really bad theory contends.

It it hadn't been for my crazy, wild, good fortune, I would have had to make up evidence to support my theory. But I guess it's better to be lucky than to be smart, eh turingfest

 

[RoboTimbo]

It it hadn't been for my crazy, wild, good fortune, I would have had to make up evidence to support my theory. But I guess it's better to be lucky than to be smart, eh turingfest

What did the FBI say when you turned over all of your objective, verifiable evidence?

 

[Robert Harris]

As a reminder to any late arrivals, this is the article which explains my analysis of the shot at Zapruder frame 285.

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

And this is a comprehensive presentation, which analyzes the shooting from start to finish.

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

This article will prove beyond reasonable doubt, that CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally and JFK. That fact is proven by Connally himself and a multitude of other very reliable witnesses, including the Dallas district attorney.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

 

[RoboTimbo]

As a reminder to any late arrivals, this is the article which explains my analysis of the shot at Zapruder frame 285.

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

And this is a comprehensive presentation, which analyzes the shooting from start to finish.

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

This article will prove beyond reasonable doubt, that CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally and JFK. That fact is proven by Connally himself and a multitude of other very reliable witnesses, including the Dallas district attorney.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

What did the FBI say when you showed them a YouTube video?

 

[abaddon]

As a reminder to any late arrivals, this is the article which explains my analysis of the shot at Zapruder frame 285.

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

And this is a comprehensive presentation, which analyzes the shooting from start to finish.

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

This article will prove beyond reasonable doubt, that CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally and JFK. That fact is proven by Connally himself and a multitude of other very reliable witnesses, including the Dallas district attorney.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Enough with the link spam. No more. Nobody cares.

 

[JayUtah]

As a reminder to any late arrivals...

Fringe reset. The late arrivals, aside from the few who are your former acquaintances, are regulars in this thread and know to read the scrollback. As for the other few, they profess deep familiarity with your claims. Rather than repeat your claims, please address the criticism of them.

 

[ComfySlippers]

As a reminder to any late arrivals, this is the article which explains my analysis of the shot at Zapruder frame 285.
<LinkSpamSnip>

Still wondering why, exactly, you seem to think that constantly doing this helps your case. It never has in the past.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Harris:

Have been able to contact Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Eric Lipton (c/o The New York Times at (212) 556-1234)?

 

[Pooneil]

That is correct. I include that information in the presentation.

It is not that I am unwilling. It is that I don't know the total number of shots, but I am certain that there was at at least four.

Well this is confusing, either I am correct, as you seem to agree that "you have candidate locations but are unwilling, in this forum, to name or weigh the probabilities for any of them."

Or you are not "unwilling" to present the information but don't have a sufficiently defined hypothesis because you cannot find an end to the plausible number of shooters.

So lets talk about only the four shots you are certain of. Which is what I have been asking about all along. Where were the shooters of each shot located. A list would be appreciated to aid in understanding what you are proposing.

No, I didn't say the "forum" was demanding an arbitrary level of certainty. I said that you were.

You have me confused with someone else in demanding a arbitrary level of "certainty." So that there will be no further misunderstanding on this point, please provide the level of certainty you propose to have for each location in whatever form you have made your determination of "certain" there were "at at least four" shots.

Once again, this is a thread to discuss the JFK assassination and links are not a discussion.

 

[JayUtah]

Well this is confusing...

If I may speculate:

What seems to be happening is a fallacy of composition and/or division. This is employed by conspiracy theorists who invoke a collection of points of evidence they claim are similar or identical, avoid drilling down to any particular one, and then claim there is strength in the sheer number of points. If he has a handful of candidate locations -- not just one -- then "surely" one of them will pan out as the actual location.

He seems to have mounted, as an excuse not to test each and every one, the argument that insufficient evidence was collected from those locations to allow him here and now to establish an affirmative case. And sadly he wants that deficiency to work in his favor.

At that point any claim to base one's beliefs on "objective, verifiable" evidence go right out the window. It is neither objective nor verifiable simply to presume that ambiguity should be resolved in one's favor. The null hypothesis is that no room bordering Dealey Plaza was used as a sniper's nest. There is affirmative proof for only one such room, such as to falsify the null: the room at the TSBD. The inability to prove any other room was so used simply allows the null to remain the presumption. Not the proved condition, but the presumption absent any proof to the contrary. No amount of handwaving or fervent desire falsifies the null. Similarly no amount of rhetorical legerdemain puts a burden of proof on it.

This is the same fallacy used by Apollo hoax theorists to forestall a close examination of their claims. They claim thousands of photographs exhibit "anomalies" that suggest they were faked. They want the sheer number of such photos to be the evidence. They don't want you to look too closely at any one.

The fallacy of division argues that the perceived properties of the group should also be vested in each member of the group. The fallacy of composition argues that the perceived properties of an element should also be manifest in a group of them (or even just including that element). Informally this would be stated in words such as, "There are so many places in Dealey Plaza the shots could have come from, you can't possibly eliminate all of them and surely one of them would fit my claim."

 

[Robert Harris]

Well this is confusing, either I am correct, as you seem to agree that "you have candidate locations but are unwilling, in this forum, to name or weigh the probabilities for any of them."

Or you are not "unwilling" to present the information but don't have a sufficiently defined hypothesis because you cannot find an end to the plausible number of shooters.

I certainly can present a "plausible" number of shooters. That would be three, but there may have been more. The fact that I do not know the precise number of assassins or shots, is not detrimental to my conclusions. It only demonstrates that I am not psychic and cannot consider shots that may have been inaudible.

So lets talk about only the four shots you are certain of. Which is what I have been asking about all along. Where were the shooters of each shot located. A list would be appreciated to aid in understanding what you are proposing.

I cannot give you a list of confirmed locations, since I have no way of confirming them, just as you have no way of confirming with certainty, that Oswald fired shots that day.

But as I stated before in this forum, I think the third floor of the Daltex is extremely probable, to explain the pre-285 shots.

As I also said before, I think the most likely sources of the shots at 285 and 313, is the alleged sniper's nest and from another shooter on that same floor, probably a bit further to the west.

You have me confused with someone else in demanding a arbitrary level of "certainty." So that there will be no further misunderstanding on this point, please provide the level of certainty you propose to have for each location in whatever form you have made your determination of "certain" there were "at at least four" shots.

I have no way of calculating a probability, but I consider the Daltex to be almost a certainty, and a shooter in the 6th floor sniper's nest to be the same. As for the other shooter I described, I am not as certain. To satisfy your latest demand however, I will estimate a probability of around 70%.

Once again, this is a thread to discuss the JFK assassination and links are not a discussion.

That is an absurd statement. Countless thousands of analyses on virtually every important issue known to man, has been demonstrated in the form of a presentation. Mine cannot be adequately replaced with a text response or even a combination of text and graphics.

But there is no reason why you cannot try to refute my arguments in that presentation, either by citing me or referencing specific sections by the timer.