Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Hans]

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.

Yet you have not done what Al Gore did all you have done is fail, no scientific or judicial body believes in your ideas and you've spent 15+ years yakking about it on obscure internet boards.

Compare yourself to Al Gore - absurd. You are more like a Richard Hoagland or Von Daniken, trying to sell nonsense and no one is buying.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

What do you think is the most probable explanation for these reactions?

Do you know what the people we see reacting, said they were hearing then?

Do you know what most of the other relevant witnesses in DP that day, said they were hearing then?

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

Mrs Connally testified that she heard one shot and then looked back and saw JFK with his hand raised up to his face.

She said that some time after that she heard the shot which she thought, wounded her husband and that she immediately turned to him and pulled him back to her.

1. When do you see her look back at JFK?

2. When do you see her turn to her husband as she said she did, in reaction to the second shot?

3. Do you see anyone else reacting then?

This very slow motion Zapruder segment should be helpful to you.

 

[JayUtah]

What do you think is the most probably explanation for these reactions?

Nope. Your burden of proof that there is a reaction. Your burden of proof that it was caused by the thing you say. That burden is not satisfied by, "It could only be..." or "It's obvious that..." or "What else could it be?"

 

[JayUtah]

I love how you snip everything I said...

Because it wasn't relevant. You changed horses. If you now want to discuss valid reasons for questioning Alvarez, that's fine. But that wasn't your rejoinder to Sandy. Your rejoinder to him was along the lines of, "How dare you question a Nobel Prize winning physicist, one of the brilliant scientists of the 20th century." If that's your position, then the rebuttal is, "With the same justification you claim for yourself."

 

[Robert Harris]

Nope. Your burden of proof that there is a reaction. Your burden of proof that it was caused by the thing you say. That burden is not satisfied by, "It could only be..." or "It's obvious that..." or "What else could it be?"

I'm not asking you to prove anything.

But since you have said you were more knowledgeable about the case than I am, I am seeking out your expert opinion.

What do you think is the most probable explanation for those reactions?

 

[JayUtah]

There is no conflict of interest.

As I have proven over and over again, my conclusions...

I meant the conflict of interest over linking and hit count.

No it won't. My Youtube account has never been monetized and never will...

I didn't say anything about monetization. Don't try to put arguments in my mouth that I didn't make.

...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

Fair enough, but the point is that you identify attention paid to you as a suggestion that you are right, or at least should be taken seriously. When arguments seem aimed at getting the most attention versus discovering and testing evidence, it is cause for concern.

In any case this is a tangential issue, not related to JFK. I don't intend to pursue it further. I've aired my concerns and given you my advice, and you've addressed it. The way in which you carry out the debate is not strictly part of the argument, but it does color people's impression of why you're making the argument.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not asking you to prove anything.

But since you have said you were more knowledgeable about the case than I am, I am seeking out your expert opinion.

No, you're trying to shift the burden of proof. And you're not going to succeed.

What do you think is the most probable explanation for those reactions?

What reaction? I see no reaction. Reminder: Your burden to prove there is a reaction that requires explanation.

 

[grmcdorman]

I'm not asking you to prove anything.

But since you have said you were more knowledgeable about the case than I am, I am seeking out your expert opinion.

What do you think is the most probable explanation for those reactions?

No, Mr. Harris. You do not invert the question; he is asking you for your proof. The scenario you are promoting requires this to be a 'startle' reaction.

 

[Belz...]

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

That's simultaneously the truest and most ironic things you've posted so far.

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.

No, actually we know that already.

Small point: are you aware that GIFs are limited to 256 colours ? That kind of limits their quality.

Of course it was an attack. You are trying associate me with the most idiotic "crackpots" on the Internet.

You can extirpate yourself from that category by producing better evidence and reasoning than you've mustered so far.

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.

Ad hominem.

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

Exactly.

Why do you think it is a sin to store some of them at my own website?

Let's just say that one view here is that you're only doing all this to get views and clicks on your website.

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

You first.

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

[qimg]http://jfkhistory.com/bb.gif[/qimg]

You noted though that most of the people there did not react in the same way - most remained facing the direction of where the ball had been.

 

[Belz...]

What do you think is the most probable explanation for these reactions?

Well I answered this before but I guess I was in the penalty box, so I'll say it again:

The driver put on the brakes, and the occupants lurched forward. Their reactions are not consistent with hearing a gunshot, and their testimonies do not, in my view, support your contention. For one, Dealey Plaza is notoriously echo.

 

[Belz...]

1. When do you see her look back at JFK?

Since neither of us are experts at analysing human reaction, perhaps it would be best if you posted a real-time video.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Eric Lipton can be reached c/o The New York Times at (212) 556-1234.

 

[Robert Harris]

Because it wasn't relevant.

Utter nonsense! You deleted almost the entire content of my post because you couldn't deal with my very detailed explanation that my arguments are totally evidence driven and that your accusation that all I have is a demand to "take my word for it", is not just false, but preposterous.

And you even snipped Alvarez's chart and my entire explanation for WHY he was wrong.

Worse yet, you deleted and evaded the fact that Alvarez's failure to identify the early shots amounted to a powerful confirmation that those shots were not loud enough to startle Zapruder.

You need to face the evidence and deal with it, not delete it. That's what the evangelists do.

You changed horses.

More nonsense, especially in light of your other accusation that I am too repetitious. I have been 100% consistent all along and you will confirm that by failing to cite me verbatim, being otherwise.

If you now want to discuss valid reasons for questioning Alvarez, that's fine. But that wasn't your rejoinder to Sandy. Your rejoinder to him was along the lines of, "How dare you question a Nobel Prize winning physicist, one of the brilliant scientists of the 20th century." If that's your position, then the rebuttal is, "With the same justification you claim for yourself."

You are setting all kind of records for nonsense, today. I already explained to you that my complaint about that guy was that he claimed Alvarez's conclusion, as presented in his paper to the American Journal of Physics, was nothing more than a "guess".

I notice that you deleted that as well. Was that so you could just repeat this false accusation that totally misrepresented what I said?

If you believe nothing else I ever tell you Tony, believe that people who become blind advocates, cripple themselves, and become incapable of ever understanding the issue they are "debating".

 

[Belz...]

Utter nonsense! You deleted almost the entire content of my post because you couldn't deal with my very detailed explanation that my arguments are totally evidence driven

Trust me: Jay is quite capable of "dealing" with the weak stuff you've been posting.


The thing is, a lot of people who espouse "wrong" theories have interesting arguments and are quite reasonable, to the point where they change their minds after reasoned debate, and that their arguments merit discussion and analysis. Why aren't you striving to be like that ?

 

[Robert Harris]

Well I answered this before but I guess I was in the penalty box, so I'll say it again:

The driver put on the brakes, and the occupants lurched forward. Their reactions are not consistent with hearing a gunshot, and their testimonies do not, in my view, support your contention. For one, Dealey Plaza is notoriously echo.

Do you believe that Kellerman's reactions were the result of inertia?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

 

[Robert Harris]

Trust me: Jay is quite capable of "dealing" with the weak stuff you've been posting.

It's not good enough to just blurt out that my arguments are weak. Why don't you prove it?

The thing is, a lot of people who espouse "wrong" theories have interesting arguments and are quite reasonable, to the point where they change their minds after reasoned debate, and that their arguments merit discussion and analysis. Why aren't you striving to be like that ?

I am like that. As soon as I see a convincing rebuttal, I am out of here.

Have you seen any convincing rebuttals yet?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What do you think is the most probable explanation for these reactions?

Attempt to shift the burden of proof. Just like every other CTist.

 

[Robert Harris]

Since neither of us are experts at analysing human reaction, perhaps it would be best if you posted a real-time video.

No, slow motion is an infinitely better way to examine these actions and determine when they occurred.

And no expertise is required to identify Mrs. Connally turning her head. Or to put it another way, everyone is an expert on that.

Is it possible that the real reason you won't address my questions is, that you don't like the answers?