Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

Would you like to discuss or debate the assassination?

A lot of us would. Sadly, you seem to apply some pretty personalized gatekeeper criteria on what constitutes in your mind a discussion or debate. Hence while both of those are raging around you, you seem to be oblivious to it.

If I have misinterpreted the nature of the those alleged reactions, then a debate would give you an excellent opportunity to discredit me.

The debate begins and ends with noting that you are simply foisting your personal subjective judgment of what those alleged reactions are and what they mean. The rest is just your stubborn denial of that. If we cannot lead you to recognize the nature of your own actions, then we can proceed nowhere else.

That's not ad hominem, so don't bother trying to report it.

You seem to envision that the debate must require your opponents to offer some alternative counterclaim to characterize and explain the observation. That's just a subtle shift of the burden of proof. If you argue that those reactions exist and that they mean a certain thing, you have the burden to prove both the existence (i.e., the salience) of those reactions and the explanation you attribute them to, irrespective of anything else they might be.

You still apparently don't know why we have the concept of a burden of proof. And you still apparently don't know what the purpose of the null hypothesis is in the hypothetico-deductive paradigm of reasoning. All I can say is that the knowledge is out there, and it is in full force in the universe whether you agree to it or not.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I guess I wasn't clear.

Would you like to discuss or debate the assassination?

If I have misinterpreted the nature of the those alleged reactions, then a debate would give you an excellent opportunity to discredit me.

You should be eager to do that.

But if you are not, would you mind answering a few questions for me?

This seems to me nonsensical. What is the difference between "debating" you and answering these few questions?

I have already answered questions for you, and I will certainly answer more, if they are relevant to the case.

What questions have you answered to my satisfaction?
I am unaware of any.

Perhaps I could just ask a few?

Bob, we have been down this road before (at aaj). I told you that I see Jackie's and Nellie's actions in the frames you isolate as part of motions that begin earlier in which they turn to look at their wounded husbands.

I have challenged you repeatedly (at aaj) to present any scientific basis for your contention that spinning around, or turning the head to look behind, has ever been offered in the scientific literature as a kind of startle reflex reaction.

I have chimed in with the ever-growing chorus saying that your interpretation of what we can see of Kellerman's motions is overly imaginative.

I have pointed out that startle reactions are typically too subtle to ever be reliably discerned in a low-res film such as that under discussion, and that it is impossible for you to base any argument on an alleged absence of startle reactions at other parts of the Z film.

I have highlighted your inability to distinguish between startle reflex reactions, which are involuntary contractions of certain muscles, and other things a person might do deliberately (even if nearly instantaneously) after being startled (turning to run, for example).

So if there is any question you could possibly ask me about your alleged "reactions," I have trouble imagining what it might be. But fire away, Bob! If what you ask is not worth a new response, perhaps I'll take the time to copy from the Google archives of our previous conversations. It's also highly likely that your question has already been answered by others here in this thread, and I'll only need to point you to what they have said.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hear, hear!

(But, of course, female skeptics have the same concerns. So it would seem that they must, as you suggested, have more sense than to argue with a wall.)

Claiming that I am a "wall" is a poor excuse for dodging honest debate on the assassination.

In McAdams forum, you repeatedly claimed that you have refuted the shot at 285. But when I challenged you roughly a dozen times, to describe it, you said that you wouldn't tell me because my memory was no good.

Strangely, none of the other LNers would come forward and talk about your amazing "refutation" either. (Is Alzheimer's communicable

But now is the perfect time to unveil your devastating refutation, which will finally put me in my place. And if I am too thick or my memory sucks, you will at least be edifying the folks around here.

So, please proceed. I am scrunched down in my chair, braced for the onslaught. I only ask that you be very specific and avoid ambiguous generalizations that you couldn't prove to save your life.

The floor is yours, Sandy

 

[Robert Harris]

Claiming that I am a "wall" is a poor excuse for dodging honest debate on the assassination.

In McAdams forum, you repeatedly claimed that you have refuted the shot at 285. But when I challenged you roughly a dozen times, to describe it, you said that you wouldn't tell me because my memory was no good.

Strangely, none of the other LNers would come forward and talk about your amazing "refutation" either. (Is Alzheimer's communicable;-)

But now is the perfect time to unveil your devastating refutation, which will finally put me in my place. And if I am too thick or my memory sucks, you will at least be edifying the folks around here.

So, please proceed. I am scrunched down in my chair, braced for the onslaught. I only ask that you be very specific and avoid ambiguous generalizations that you couldn't prove to save your life.

The floor is yours, Sandy

Sandy?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Bob, it looks like our posts crossed.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Claiming that I am a "wall" is a poor excuse for dodging honest debate on the assassination.

Aw, you shouldn't take it so personal.

In McAdams forum, you repeatedly claimed that you have refuted the shot at 285. But when I challenged you roughly a dozen times, to describe it, you said that you wouldn't tell me because my memory was no good.

Now, see, you only remember the dozen times you asked me that came after the two dozen times I answered.

Strangely, none of the other LNers would come forward and talk about your amazing "refutation" either. (Is Alzheimer's communicable;-)

I hope not by cyber-communication! Or I'd better log out now.

But now is the perfect time to unveil your devastating refutation, which will finally put me in my place. And if I am too thick or my memory sucks, you will at least be edifying the folks around here.

So, please proceed. I am scrunched down in my chair, braced for the onslaught. I only ask that you be very specific and avoid ambiguous generalizations that you couldn't prove to save your life.

The floor is yours, Sandy

Sandy?

Like I said, Bob, our posts just crossed. But all should be clear now.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

But you trust the confession of a Mafioso when it suits your purposes.

You trust the word of a convicted Secret Service agent when it suits your purposes, asking "Why would you doubt the statements of an ex-Secret Service agent?", did you not?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bolden.txt

Well, if you don't find a good reason to doubt the word of a convicted ex-secret service agent, why would you doubt the word of the then-current FBI, Secret Service, and DPD personnel who collected and analyzed the first and second day evidence? (And it's important to remember that the Secret Service was the agency that found the two fragments you appear to be questioning in your argument above, not the FBI nor the DPD).

So you accept the word of an ex-Secret Service agent with a conviction on his record and doubt the word of other Secret Service agents.

Hilarious.

It appears from here you doubt implicitly anything that points away from a conspiracy and trust implicitly anything that points to a conspiracy.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Bob, it looks like our posts crossed.

No it doesn't.

Your previous post makes no attempt to refute the shot at 285.

Your assertion that no one would spin around in reaction to a loud noise is unsupported and your claim that I don't understand startle responses is insulting and equally unsupported.

Post your rebuttal. If you have forgotten my analysis, you can read about it here:

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

 

[RoboTimbo]

The floor is yours, Sandy

Nope, the floor is still yours, Robert. You should read some of the posts which aren't yours.

 

[HSienzant]

Removed duplicate posting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your previous post makes no attempt to refute the shot at 285.

What shot?

 

[Robert Harris]

Aw, you shouldn't take it so personal.

That certainly is an impressive response.

Now, see, you only remember the dozen times you asked me that came after the two dozen times I answered.

Nonsense, I remember your answers quite well and I just described them. If you think you actually posted a refutation, then cut 'n paste it right here.

I hope not by cyber-communication! Or I'd better log out now.

You have no refutation Sandy, you never seriously tried. All you have are truckloads of excuses.

What is sad is that all these guys are sitting around, thrilled that someone has come along who will finally put me in my place. You're breaking a lot of hearts this evening, Sandy

Like I said, Bob, our posts just crossed. But all should be clear now.

Yes, your nonexistent rebuttal makes it crystal clear.

 

[turingtest]

Bob, we've discussed this at length before.
Let me just clarify a couple points:
"The reactions": this is you begging the question again. You have failed to prove that the actions of the limo passengers in the frames you select from the Zapruder film are "reactions" to one specific thing.
"Are you up for it now?" You are alleging that the reason I do not want to engage in a more detailed argument at this moment is that I am not capable of rising to the occasion (no male-centric metaphor intended). But I think it should be understandable that any reasonably normal person—or even I myself—might get tired of going over the same ground again and again.

Right there, you put your finger on the advantage the fanatic has in a debate like this one- his totally unreasonable ability to just keep going and going and going...the innate inertia necessary to simply override any reasonable person's objections to his cycle of assertions, and grind down the willingness to continue engaging in the cycle. (Shrug) It's in the nature of the crank to just keep on cranking. He "wins" by virtue of attrition, not the merits of his position; and that's perfectly fine with him.

I'm past that point; the only question I have left is "now what?" Bob's already made his excuses for why his theory won't be accepted (at least for one reporter), and for why no lurkers will come forward to support him (because the folks who would are the "quiet, reflective types," who, apparently, don't want to get involved- a thesis proven by Bob himself *snicker*). I suspect Bob knows himself, in his own deepest heart, that the only "now what?" ahead for him is to just keep on cranking. Well...a man's gotta have a hobby, I guess.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

No it doesn't.

Your previous post makes no attempt to refute the shot at 285.

Excuse me? It is all about your assertion that you see reactions to a shot at 285.

Your assertion that no one would spin around in reaction to a loud noise is unsupported

Now, Bob, this exemplifies the reason people say you don't understand the critiques made of your theory. I didn't say—and what kind of idiot would?—"that no one would spin around in reaction to a loud noise."

I said that spinning around is not the result of a startle reflex reaction, which by definition is the spasmodic, involuntary contraction of certain muscles.

and your insulting claim that I don't understand startle responses is insulting and equally unsupported.

But you just demonstrated that you don't.
You have never brought forth anything from the literature on startle reactions to support your claim that spinning around is a type of startle reflex action. All you've ever come up with is the vague reference in an edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica to "a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head"—from which you had a marked tendency to elide the "spasmodic" part.

 

[Robert Harris]

.... And that did no damage. Right?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Please elaborate.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Post your rebuttal. If you have forgotten my analysis, you can read about it here:

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

Stop posting that damned link.
We've seen it.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
.... And that did no damage. Right?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Please elaborate.

Wow. Talk about your "spasmodic avoidance movements of the head."

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Wow. Talk about your "spasmodic avoidance movements of the head."

HAH!

 

[JayUtah]

Claiming that I am a "wall" is a poor excuse for dodging honest debate on the assassination.

Not really. Stubborn denial is a common problem when debating deeply entrenched proponents. And it is not ad hominem to say so. Civil and gentlemanly debate assumes the proponents are able to see a problem with their arguments once it is brought to their attention. When a valid refutation is rejected simply because the refuted party doesn't understand it or want to acknowledge it, an impasse can ensue. And sometimes that denial, if forcefully asserted enough, serves the refuted party's desire that his critic abandon the most damaging refutation and move on to one that he can more easily handle. Then it becomes a rhetorical ploy to filter rebuttals.

This is why debates whose outcomes are enforced -- i.e., court trials -- have a separate trier of fact, to separate from the parties the decision regarding whose case is more convincing. One party's intransigent denial is simply obviated in that case.

 

[JayUtah]

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Because burden of proof.