Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

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

What makes you think some newfound discovery is why I was drawing attention to ownership of the site?

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

Why is it necessary to post the same links to your site over and over again, within the space of a few hours? Did so many new posters join the forum in that time that you would need to make sure they saw the link?

I told you what the problem was. When you bring up visit-count to your online materials as a measure of how convincing you think your arguments are, efforts to increase traffic to your site become disingenuous in that respect.

 

[JayUtah]

So now I am presenting altered videos!!

Actually, you weren't mentioned at all. Nor was "alteration" of the video, except in the form of annotations ("squiggly lines"). You protest too much.

But now that you bring it up, you did just tell me you "annotated" the videos on your site. If someone were to accuse you of "altering" videos in the way that Comfy Slippers facetiously described it, I would cite that as evidence.

And yes, you are using the same techniques to support your point as other conspiracy theorists in other genres such as 9/11 and Apollo. That's not to claim anyone who uses video evidence is a minion of Satan, or whatever hyberbole you tried to pin on Comfy. It's to claim you develop it in the same way.

Annotations predispose a viewer. When your evidence is in the form of something a viewer is supposed to see that's allegedly out of the ordinary, predisposition is considered cheating. Slowing down and zooming in alter spatial and temporal coherence to the point where context is lost. That makes it easier for a proponent to claim something that doesn't make as much sense back in the original context. The treatment of video evidence involves many techniques that wouldn't be considered strictly alteration, but do change the perception. You have to be very, very careful with annotation if you want your interpretation of video evidence to remain dispassionate and objective.

ETA: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Mars-curiosity-rover-pyramid/2015/06/24/id/652094/ Here's an example (in the video) of a photograph enlarged and rotated. Normally that would not be considered alteration, but you can see how it changes the viewer's perception of what he sees.

 

[Robert Harris]

So why do you get to dismiss him when he disagrees with you?

I dismiss him when he is wrong. And I previously explained in considerable detail, precisely why he was wrong. Pretty much everyone from Posner to Bugliosi, agree(d) that he was mistaken about shots at 177 and 250, based on some very solid evidence that I will be happy to discuss with you, if you like.

But the reason for his errors is obvious. Since none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke visible startle reactions, none of them startled Zapruder either. So Alvarez had no reactions from Zapruder, to identify a shot at either 150-160 or 223. So all that was left with was false positives.

Make sense?

Of course, 285 and 313 were MUCH different and extremely loud, as the visible reactions confirm. So he was spot on, on those.

You yourself seem to think Alvarez can be wrong. So what's the problem with someone else thinking he could be wrong?

Nothing, but the issue was the ludicrous attempt to demean this Nobel prize winner, by saying he just guessed to form his conclusions. Sandy and I have discussed Alvarez's analysis in detail, in the past. He knew that his "guess" statement was not true.

But not every movement of the head is an "avoidance" movement.

Of course.

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.

You're spinning my statements. I am arguing that these reactions, which I have proven, all began in the same 1/6th of one second, were caused by a gunshot.

And I am asking no one to "take my word for it". I am arguing that the timing and nature of the reactions suggest that these people have been startled, and that the testimonies of each of the nonvictims as well as the large consensus of other witnesses that they heard closely bunched shots the end, further corroborates the conclusion that this was a gunshot.

And I am pointing out that the passengers' reactions began in the same 1/18th of a second in which Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction, which is further confirmed by the two heavily blurred frames at 290-291.

Pretending that I just want everyone to "take my word for it" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think, considering that I have consistently made my case on ONLY the facts and evidence?

BTW, have you looked at this brief segment on Kellerman yet? Do you dispute any of my claims?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

 

[JayUtah]

I dismiss him when he is wrong.

Irrelevant. If you think he can be wrong, then so can someone else. He's either infallible or he's not. Therefore the "How dare you dispute this eminent scientist!" defense is just noise.

Pretty much everyone from Posner to Bugliosi, agree(d) that he was mistaken...

So apparently lots of people think it's okay for him to be wrong, just not when it hampers your argument.

But the reason for his errors is obvious. Since none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke visible startle reactions...

Circular reasoning.

 

[Robert Harris]

What makes you think some newfound discovery is why I was drawing attention to ownership of the site?

Why is it necessary to post the same links to your site over and over again, within the space of a few hours?

I reposted them in the form of questions, as I'm sure you realize. Some people here, make a career out of evading the evidence, much like evangelists I have debated who reject evolution while refusing to even talk about the evidence which proves them wrong.

By challenging them to discuss it, they either have to admit their evasion or deal with the facts and evidence.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Well I looked to see if he turned his head "just like Greer did" and to be honest I think there were some more movements involved - springing in the air, ducking his head, hunching his shoulders, covering both ears, running away - which weren't quite identical.

Of course, I'm not an expert. But so far as I can glean, neither are you.

If I am now turning my head involuntarily please be assured it is only a rueful shake; not all head movements are startle responses.

 

[JayUtah]

You're spinning my statements.

No, I'm de-spinning them.

And I am asking no one to "take my word for it". I am arguing that the timing and nature of the reactions suggest that these people have been startled

You aren't an expert in the nature of reactions -- you can say the word "argue," but your argument consists of expressing your personal judgment and opinion. And all that can be inferred (and even that, not too reliably) from the perceived simultaneity of the behavior in a silent film is that the cause affected all the people in the car. You are begging the question that it was an audible event and that it was a gunshot.

...and that the testimonies of each of the nonvictims as well as the large consensus of other witnesses that they heard closely bunched shots the end, further corroborates the conclusion that this was a gunshot.

"Closely bunched" is vague. You need more precision than that if your other evidence is at the sub-second level.

 

[JayUtah]

I reposted them in the form of questions, as I'm sure you realize.

Do not personalize the argument. And your answer doesn't address the conflict of interest. If hit count is to be your metric for success, then repeatedly posting the same links, under any guise, will look suspicious. You will do better to assume your critics have read the thread, and that if they haven't followed the link the first time you post it, they won't follow it any of the subsequent times you post it.

Some people here, make a career out of evading the evidence...

No, do not attempt to blame your critics for your alleged need to repeatedly post links to the same material over and over.

 

[Robert Harris]

Irrelevant. If you think he can be wrong, then so can someone else. He's either infallible or he's not. Therefore the "How dare you dispute this eminent scientist!" defense is just noise.

I love how you snip everything I said, explaining why my argument was based entirely on the relevant facts and evidence and NOT on a demand that everyone take my word for it. Do you REALLY think that citing me totally out of context is an impressive tactic?

You're spinning my statements. I am arguing that these reactions, which I have proven, all began in the same 1/6th of one second, were caused by a gunshot.

I am asking no one to "take my word for it". I am arguing that the timing and nature of the reactions suggest that those people have been startled, and that the testimonies of each of the nonvictims as well as the large consensus of other witnesses that they heard closely bunched shots the end, further corroborates the conclusion that this was a gunshot.

And I am pointing out that the passengers' reactions began in the same 1/18th of a second in which Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction, which is further confirmed by the two heavily blurred frames at 290-291.

Pretending that I just want everyone to "take my word for it" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think, considering that I have consistently made my case on ONLY the facts and evidence?


Why don't you deal with what I actually said, rather than your distortion? Are you having a little trouble, 'splaining away the simultaneous nature of the reactions and the fact that they began in precisely the same eighteenth of a second of when Alvarez identified the heavily blurred frames which indicated that Zapruder was startled?

Are you at a loss to explain why the large consensus of witnesses described a shooting pattern that matches perfectly with shots at 285 and 313 and directly contradicts the lone nut theory?

So apparently lots of people think it's okay for him to be wrong, just not when it hampers your argument.

That's quite an impressive statement, after evading and deleting all of the text I presented, explaining in detail, the verifiable facts and empirical evidence that I used to justify my conclusions.

And speaking of evasions, why did you also snip this question? That presentation includes empirical, measurable evidence which proves that Kellerman exhibited textbook startle reactions, following 285.

BTW, have you looked at this brief segment on Kellerman yet? Do you dispute any of my claims?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

 

[Hans]

More than fifteen.

Thanks! I see we have a major case of script reading here!

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not personalize the argument. And your answer doesn't address the conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest.

As I have proven over and over again, my conclusions are the product of the evidence. And claiming there is a "conflict of evidence" is a poor substitute for actually addressing the facts.

The fact that Alvarez could not identify the shots at 160 and 223 is a powerful confirmation that those shots were not loud enough to startle Zapruder, just as they weren't loud enough to startle anyone else.

160 might be in dispute I suppose, but 223 is a virtual certainty, based on the near simultaneous reactions of JFK and Connally. Why do you suppose, that Alvarez never found an angular acceleration associated with it?

If hit count is to be your metric for success, then repeatedly posting the same links, under any guise, will look suspicious.

No it won't. My Youtube account has never been monetized and never will, and there is no hit count for the GIFs, other than the one that will increase my monthly bill if they go above a certain level

In fact, I am going to use some of those animations more frequently, to challenge people to address the evidence.

You will do better to assume your critics have read the thread

I will do better by challenging them to address the evidence.

 

[Hans]

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

Oh how do you know that? Has your idea eliminated all possible other scenarios?

 

[Hans]

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

Well it fits with his objective; we must respond to him so the script can be read out over and over again but that doesn't mean any attention needs to be paid to what he is responding too.

 

[ComfySlippers]

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.

Not by Satan, that I'm aware, but they certainly are the ammunition of choice used by crackpots who think that an animated .gif which endlessly repeats the same nothingness over and over is compelling viewing.

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.

Actually, despite your continuing wish to be seen as a martyr, its wasn't an attack. It was an observation shared by anyone who's ever paid any attention to how the JFK Conspiracy crowd operate.
(I underlined a phrase you keep repeating so you don't have to again)

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've also never demonstrated that the light in my fridge switches off when I close the door. So what?

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.

Fetzerism. You keep posting links to your own stuff. Repeatedly.

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?

You overestimate your magic powers over me.
I'm in no way troubled by your nonsense, only in why you continue to post it.
Calling me Doug was a bit weird but whatever.

This post has been stabilised and digitally enhanced.

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh how do you know that? Has your idea eliminated all possible other scenarios?

I've explained in great detail, why I am virtually certain that Marcello was behind the assassination.

 

[Hans]

I've explained in great detail, why I am virtually certain that Marcello was behind the assassination.

But as noted before your opinion is not fact nor have you in anyway eliminated any other possible CT scenarios. They are all still very much 'in play' just like yours and have the same level of believability.

 

[Belz...]

I dismiss him when he is wrong.

And how do you know that he's wrong ? Because he disagrees with you ?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've explained in great detail, why I am virtually certain that Marcello was behind the assassination.

Others have explained in great detail why they don't think he was. Your beliefs simply aren't compelling as evidence.

Remember, your inferences aren't evidence and the ball is still in your court.

 

[Belz...]

As I have proven over and over again, my conclusions are the product of the evidence.

Irrelevant. Even if we allowed that the reactions are there, your conclusion is only ONE possibility. You are assuming that it's a gunshot without any evidence to back up your assumption, other than some vague mention of bunched noises, which are possibly echoes.

 

[Robert Harris]

Not by Satan, that I'm aware, but they certainly are the ammunition of choice used by crackpots who think that an animated .gif which endlessly repeats the same nothingness over and over is compelling viewing.

It's not good enough to just blurt out nonsense that you couldn't prove to save you life.

Why don't you tell everyone how you learned that only crackpots use animated GIFs? I'm sure we all will be curious to see your source on that.

And why can't you be specific in your accusation that my GIFs constitute "nothingness". Why don't you point out a few of them specifically and explain why you think the content is worthless?

You CAN do that, can't you Comfy?

Actually, despite your continuing wish to be seen as a martyr, its wasn't an attack.

Of course it was an attack. You are trying associate me with the most idiotic "crackpots" on the Internet. But since you couldn't do that by talking about anything I specifically said, you made up this ludicrous theory that everyone who uses GIF's is a nutcase.

It was an observation shared by anyone who's ever paid any attention to how the JFK Conspiracy crowd operate.

Interesting. And exactly how many others in this "crowd" have been using animated GIFs? What are their names?

(I underlined a phrase you keep repeating so you don't have to again)

I will stop saying that you blurt out accusations that you couldn't prove to save your life, just as soon as you stop doing it.

I've also never demonstrated that the light in my fridge switches off when I close the door. So what?

The difference is that the light in your fridge, really does switch off.

Fetzerism. You keep posting links to your own stuff. Repeatedly.

I present articles and presentations to make my case, just like Al Gore has done to prove his case for global warming and thousands of other people do every day to make their cases.

Why do you think it is a sin to store some of them at my own website? If I put them on a friend's website, will they be OK then??

Do you have any idea how ludicrous your claims are, that only crackpots use GIFs or that there is something sinister about linking articles and presentations from my own website??

Have you ever considered the wild and crazy concept of actually addressing the relevant evidence associated with the JFK case?

You overestimate your magic powers over me.

What I overestimated was, your willingness to deal with the verifiable facts and empirical evidence, objectively.