Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[abaddon]

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

http://blah.com/kellerman2.gif

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Attempt to switch the burden of proof. Again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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



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

Have you seen any convincing rebuttals yet?

Yes, dozens of times. You simply refuse to see them because you insist that any rebuttal be an affirmative counter-claim. You're getting a rebuttal, it just isn't the one you insist on getting so you are unable to comprehend it.

The rebuttal was that your inferences aren't evidence. How do you overcome that fatal flaw in your arguments?

 

[JayUtah]

Utter nonsense! You deleted almost the entire content of my post because you couldn't deal with my very detailed explanation...

No, I deleted almost the entire content of your post because it was unrelated to the asssertion you made to Sandy, for the reasons I already gave. Your fallacy in that case is Ignoratio Elenchi followed by Ad Hoc Revision.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

That's correct. Looking at many other such videos, I think that most reactions take the form of ducking, as the majority of passengers did. But certainly, some people react by turning away from the startling sound.

By my calculations, Greer spun around from rear to front, in four frames or 2/9ths of one second, which is why some alterationists thought (incorrectly of course) that his turns were physically impossible.

Why do you think he turned that fast, simultaneous with slowing the limo? Do you think it makes sense that he was panicked at the time?

He said that the 2nd and 3rd shots were almost simultaneous and that he fell a "concussion" from the second shot. I think that was the result of the shock wave from a passing bullet. Can you think of a better explanation?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why do you think he turned that fast, simultaneous with slowing the limo? Do you think it makes sense that he was panicked at the time?

Can you think of a better explanation?

Inept attempt to switch the burden of proof.

 

[JayUtah]

It's not good enough to just blurt out that my arguments are weak.

Pointing out the errors in reasoning that you're committing is not simply "blurting out" something. You may not wish to recognize them as errors in reasoning, but stonewall denial will not advance your case.

 

[JayUtah]

That's correct. Looking at many other such videos, I think that most reactions take the form of ducking, as the majority of passengers did. But certainly, some people react by turning away from the startling sound.

But elsewhere you describe a "classic, textbook startle reaction." Would you like to quote where in what textbook you are allowed to interpret all these different kinds of movements as the involuntarily response Hunt & Landis studied?

 

[JayUtah]

I think...
Can you think of a better explanation?

Do you understand that this is not a valid way of proving an affirmative claim?

 

[Robert Harris]

But elsewhere you describe a "classic, textbook startle reaction." Would you like to quote where in what textbook you are allowed to interpret all these different kinds of movements as the involuntarily response Hunt & Landis studied?

No expertise is required to identify someone raising his shoulders, especially when he is wearing a dark coat and a white shirt, and hides his collar when he raises his shoulders and exposes it again, when he drops them.

Anyone with even mediocre vision can make that determination, to a certainty.

Why do you make arguments like this?

 

[Robert Harris]

Do you understand that this is not a valid way of proving an affirmative claim?

I didn't say it was.

You stated that everyone here was more knowledgeable on the JFK case than I am, so it makes perfect sense to seek out these expert's opinions.

Instead of attacking me for asking some very important questions, why don't you attack them for refusing to answer?

 

[grmcdorman]

You are confusing the interpretation of the images with the content of the images. What makes this motion, if present, a 'startle' response? How can it be differentiated from other actions that are not said to be 'startle' responses?

 

[ComfySlippers]

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.

I didn't say that "only" crackpots use animated .gifs.
But since you asked; Crackpots love them because of their belief that endless loops of nothing prove their point.

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?

I thought I was called Doug.

I can say, specifically, that the animated .gifs in question show "things" but prove nothing whatsoever.

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.

I didn't say "everyone" who uses .gifs is a crackpot. Their usage by JFK Conspiracy Theorists is, however, laughable.

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

You've argued with them often enough. You should be familiar with them.

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.

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

How do you know this? I haven't presented an animated .gif of it so it can't be true.

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.

(Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free by 2013)

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??

Its not necessarily where they are but the fact that its all your own stuff.

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?

I didn't say only crackpots use animated .gifs.
Repeatedly linking to your own stuff is Fetzerism pure and simple.
Noone can address the evidence as you imagine it. Because... you imagine it.

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

I must have missed the verifiable facts and empirical evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

No expertise is required to identify someone raising his shoulders...

Expertise is required to decide that some specific movement is the startle reaction you allude to.

Why do you make arguments like this?

Because inquiring about the foundation of putative expertise is a valid method of testing a claim.

 

[Robert Harris]

Pointing out the errors in reasoning that you're committing is not simply "blurting out" something. You may not wish to recognize them as errors in reasoning, but stonewall denial will not advance your case.

"blurting out something" is EXACTLY what they do when they make an allegation that they not only cannot support, but refuse to even try.

And your claim that they are "pointing out errors" really is a classic example of begging the question, since neither you nor anyone else so much as attempted to prove this accusation, let alone, actually proving it.

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say it was.

Your critics may assume that if you make an argument, you consider it valid. Your latest excuse for trying to shift the burden of proof isn't faring any better than your others. Consequently I urge you to recall my admonition that your critics here are well attuned to such rhetorical shenanigans in all their flavors and colors. You aren't advancing your argument by attempting them.

 

[Robert Harris]

Expertise is required to decide that some specific movement is the startle reaction you allude to.

Which reaction by Kellerman requires expertise to identify?

 

[Belz...]

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

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

I asked for real-time videos. Frame-by-frame encourages nonsensical interpretations.

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

Bob, you simply ignore such proofs. At some point you can't expect people to repeat themselves indefinitely. Read the posts you ignored, first.

I am like that.

Your history here shows otherwise, and it seems you actually have a reputation for this that predates your membership here.

Have you seen any convincing rebuttals yet?

Several.

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

Of course not. It's very hard to judge things when your brain doesn't "get" the timings. People who are experts at doing this are different, but you're basically asking me to look at individual frames and somehow construct a narrative of what happened. Neither I or, I suspect, you, are able to do this.

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

Ad hominem. I thought you didn't do those ?

No expertise is required

Well, there you go. Anti-intellectualism at its best.

 

[JayUtah]

Which reaction by Kellerman requires expertise to identify?

Straw man; I didn't say "identify." The attribution of some particular movement to the special "startle response" cause is what requires expertise.

 

[Belz...]

"blurting out something" is EXACTLY what they do when they make an allegation that they not only cannot support, but refuse to even try.

Yeah, that's a lie. A lot of virtual ink has been expended in trying to make you understand your errors, but you simply hand-wave them away, switch to personal attacks, play victim, and then gish gallop back to your disproven claim, pretending that no one has expended said ink.