Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Mudcat]

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.

Well, when you put it like that it makes the idea seem kind of silly.

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.

I'm not familiar with firearms in general or silencers in particular but I definitely knew this. Anyone putting forth the ideas that Robert has needs to brush up on their physics.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, one more thing.

Yeah, you're a modern-day Columbo.

 

[Belz...]

The early shots (app. 160 and 223) were not loud enough to startle anyone, and most witnesses only heard one of them. Obviously, they were fired from low caliber, suppressed weapons.

"Obviously" ? Your fantasy conclusions are far from obvious, and even if they were, you have no evidence that they are correct.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I cited Britannica, stating that a classic startle reaction is an "avoidance movement of the head", which is also perfectly consistent with Greer's reaction.

Turning to face in the opposite direction might be regarded as an appropriate "avoidance movement" if threatened by the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal*, but not when facing any non-imaginary peril. Particularly unhelpful when one is being shot at.

*For anyone unfamiliar, a creature so monumentally stupid that if you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you. It is, consequently, extremely ravenous.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Yeah, you're a modern-day Columbo.

Animated Gifs: Providing Excitement to Conspiracy Theorists since 1989

There is a small section of society, within a narrow age range - they're all getting on a bit now, who discovered the joys of the intertubes and the "modern" PC a couple of years too late.

They were amazed that by spending ten minutes downloading a 160 pixel wide animated .gif they could, from the comfort of their armchair, become master sleuths simply by watching the incredibly lo-res animation backwards and forwards over and over again.

Even better, in true television sci-fi stylee, they could magnify the images whilst imagining they were saying "Computer, Magnification Factor 3.4".

The end result was sad to witness. Old guys arguing on Internet forums about imaginary shadows, claiming new never before seen evidence to be found.
They would claim to be experts in fields they knew nothing about because... they read something on another woo site. After all, they read it on this new-fangled internet thing so it must be true. (1)

Of course nothing new was ever found. Yet the schoolyard arguments continued for decades. The interesting thing though- even after a few decades the game tactics are exactly the same. They never alter or move with the times.

The same animated .gifs, (with added squiggly lines to emphasise the important bits that no sane person can actually see).
The same silly arguments and name calling.
The same willingness to endlessly copy & paste rubbish as if it's proof of... something.

The pointless arguments and name calling went on, and still does.
The sheer number of websites, or single 75ft long pages in yellow fonts, is testimony to this. Many are still live, many are stored for eternity with the original plagiarist unable to remove or modify them.

The players in this game like to start with the old, oft seen, "Who would like to discuss X" tactic. Discussion, however, is not the true goal. Agreement and driving up page hits is top of the agenda list. Dare to point out flaws in "X" and the player throws a tantrum. After running out of people to argue with the player moves on to Forums anew to start all over again.

"For the benefit of the lurkers" simply do a basic search for examples of the above. There are tons of wasted internets devoted to this claptrap from the likes of Robert and the other main players. Check out the JFK section at theeducationforum to go back in time and witness the exact same tactics being used here.

It's important, especially in an age when access to gibberish is so easy, that the younger generations know how things really happened. JFK, Apollo, 9-11 etc., all important historical events that are, unfortunately, seen by some as ways to play a sad, childish game on the Internet.

Discussion of why individuals like Robert persist in playing this game is an interesting one.
However discussing their silly claims is pointless.

As has been stated previously I agree that Robert should don his raincoat, put a cigar in his mouth and take his irrefutable evidence to The FBI. Unless, that is, he is merely trying to create and prolong an argument.
--

Education Forum : Controversial Issues in History

(1) The Jack White Effect

 

[Border Reiver]

Yes, of course. But I was responding to an allegation that suppressors were uncommon. Obviously, any suppressed rifle used to fire the early shots, would have been of relatively low caliber and subsonic.

Try reading my post for comprehension - I was saying that the use of supressors by the military is uncommon.

 

[Belz...]

Even better, in true television sci-fi stylee, they could magnify the images whilst imagining they were saying "Computer, Magnification Factor 3.4".

Don't forget "Enhance !" to make the image magically sharper, or at least, using Photoshop to play with the colour and contrast and 'bring out' details you otherwise can't see! You know, like a Hollywood super-nerd.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Don't forget "Enhance !" to make the image magically sharper, or at least, using Photoshop to play with the colour and contrast and 'bring out' details you otherwise can't see! You know, like a Hollywood super-nerd.

Indeed!
By the magic invoked by the mighty word "enhance" the invisible shall become visible on your IBM 286.

 

[Robert Harris]

Isn't it an amazing non-coincidence that all the other people depicted in video failed to react to the detonation in the way you claim constitutes the "classic" reaction?

Not at all. Startle reactions take various forms. We see that in the Olympic village vid and we see that in the Zapruder film.

There is no reason to expect them all to have reacted identically.

 

[Robert Harris]

Try reading my post for comprehension - I was saying that the use of supressors by the military is uncommon.

That isn't true at all, but it's a moot question, since this was obviously, not a military op.

 

[Belz...]

Not at all. Startle reactions take various forms.

Wait a second. I thought they exhibited "typical" startle reactions or somesuch. Now it can look like anything you want ? Seems like a good way to ignore evidence you don't like.

 

[Robert Harris]

Animated Gifs: Providing Excitement to Conspiracy Theorists since 1989

There is a small section of society, within a narrow age range - they're all getting on a bit now, who discovered the joys of the intertubes and the "modern" PC a couple of years too late.

They were amazed that by spending ten minutes downloading a 160 pixel wide animated .gif they could, from the comfort of their armchair, become master sleuths simply by watching the incredibly lo-res animation backwards and forwards over and over again.

Even better, in true television sci-fi stylee, they could magnify the images whilst imagining they were saying "Computer, Magnification Factor 3.4".

The end result was sad to witness. Old guys arguing on Internet forums about imaginary shadows, claiming new never before seen evidence to be found.
They would claim to be experts in fields they knew nothing about because... they read something on another woo site. After all, they read it on this new-fangled internet thing so it must be true. (1)

Of course nothing new was ever found. Yet the schoolyard arguments continued for decades. The interesting thing though- even after a few decades the game tactics are exactly the same. They never alter or move with the times.

The same animated .gifs, (with added squiggly lines to emphasise the important bits that no sane person can actually see).
The same silly arguments and name calling.
The same willingness to endlessly copy & paste rubbish as if it's proof of... something.

The pointless arguments and name calling went on, and still does.
The sheer number of websites, or single 75ft long pages in yellow fonts, is testimony to this. Many are still live, many are stored for eternity with the original plagiarist unable to remove or modify them.

The players in this game like to start with the old, oft seen, "Who would like to discuss X" tactic. Discussion, however, is not the true goal. Agreement and driving up page hits is top of the agenda list. Dare to point out flaws in "X" and the player throws a tantrum. After running out of people to argue with the player moves on to Forums anew to start all over again.

"For the benefit of the lurkers" simply do a basic search for examples of the above. There are tons of wasted internets devoted to this claptrap from the likes of Robert and the other main players. Check out the JFK section at theeducationforum to go back in time and witness the exact same tactics being used here.

It's important, especially in an age when access to gibberish is so easy, that the younger generations know how things really happened. JFK, Apollo, 9-11 etc., all important historical events that are, unfortunately, seen by some as ways to play a sad, childish game on the Internet.

Discussion of why individuals like Robert persist in playing this game is an interesting one.
However discussing their silly claims is pointless.

As has been stated previously I agree that Robert should don his raincoat, put a cigar in his mouth and take his irrefutable evidence to The FBI. Unless, that is, he is merely trying to create and prolong an argument.
--

WOW!!

Let me see if I have this right. You think that animated GIF's are only used by Satan and his minions. And you think that my annotations are used to point to things that you can't see.

Think how much more effective your attack would have been, if you had actually pointed out something I annotated that was either incorrect or not visible. You obviously, couldn't do that, which is why you could only come up with these vague, nonspecific generalizations - none of which you could prove, to save your life.

You also equate my work with Apollo hoax and 9/11 theories, but can't lift a finger to prove that anything I said was in that category.

Ambiguous, nonspecific allegations just don't cut it. Did you notice that throughout this thread, you have never once, demonstrated that anything I said was untrue, let alone in the woo category?

I have posted links to detailed articles, video presentations and GIF segments from the Zapruder film. It is not the format that is important. It is the content.

The GIF presentations are great, because they can run continually and give viewers the opportunity to fully understand what was going on. They constitute an excellent form of empirical evidence. Is it possible, that that is what has you so troubled?

 

[Robert Harris]

Indeed!
By the magic invoked by the mighty word "enhance" the invisible shall become visible on your IBM 286.

LMAO!!

So now I am presenting altered videos!!

Please proceed with your justification for that accusation. I' m sure everyone wants to hear about it.

You guys have lots of accusations, but never even attempt to prove them.
Why don't you be specific and talk about what I altered, Doug - er.. Comfy?

 

[RoboTimbo]

BTW, Sandy, what are your thoughts on Kellerman? Do you have a better explanation than I do for why he simultaneously ducked, raised his hand to his ear for 5/18ths of a second and briefly shrugged his shoulder upwards?

<snipped link spam>

Attempting to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Robert Harris]

Turning to face in the opposite direction might be regarded as an appropriate "avoidance movement" if threatened by the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal*, but not when facing any non-imaginary peril. Particularly unhelpful when one is being shot at.

Given a choice between just blurting out statements with no justification, and actually proving what you claim, which do you think is best?

Watch this young man react to the extremely loud explosion of a basketball, by "Turning to face in the opposite direction", just like Greer did. At 30fps, it's easy to see BTW, that his turn began within a third of a second - which proves that this was in involuntary reaction.

Also look closely to confirm that he is not being confronted by a ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal.

 

[JayUtah]

But the sound level drops off rapidly.

How rapidly? As I recall, there was some confusion about that last time it was discussed.

They were undoubtedly startled, but their reactions were not nearly as visible as the people in the limo.

Consider Zapruder who was further away yet. He barely twitched, causing blurred frames in his movie.

The problem with that explanation is that the correlation you're relying upon -- a scaled response -- isn't anywhere in any of the science you're quoting in alleged support. It's just an effect you made up.

 

[JayUtah]

It is outrageously disingenuous to label this man's work as a "guess".

So why do you get to dismiss him when he disagrees with you? You yourself seem to think Alvarez can be wrong. So what's the problem with someone else thinking he could be wrong?

Nonsense. I cited Britannica, stating that a classic startle reaction is an "avoidance movement of the head", which is also perfectly consistent with Greer's reaction.

But not every movement of the head is an "avoidance" movement. You refer in some cases to people who studied reactions formally. But you yourself are not an expert. You're asking everyone to take your word for it that your interpretation of that movement is the only one that can be right.

 

[Robert Harris]

Posting the URL again, just for good measure? *cough* WHOIS jfkhistory.com *cough*

LOL!! You must be the last person in the forum to realize that I made and annotated those Zapruder segments.

Of course that's my website. The articles I wrote and linked are ALL from there. Why are you pretending to have made a major discovery, outing me?

And why would you think it is a sin to post information from my own site?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do you think that was just a coincidence, Sandy?

but I couldn't care less what you "think".

Don't you feel that you are being dishonest in asking what Sandy thinks and then saying you don't want the answer?

 

[JayUtah]

Watch this young man react...

And watch all the other people there do something completely different. All your comparisons are cherry-picked. It's hard for you to tell us you can reliably tell from movement alone when someone has heard a loud noise when you inadvertently show us a variety of responses. The real startle response is not so broadly defined in your sources, and it is involuntary.

...to the extremely loud explosion of a basketball...

Exactly how loud is an "exploding" basketball?