Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

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.

I have no idea what your are talking about. You need to be specific in your accusations, preferably, citing me verbatim, and for God's sake, IN FULL CONTEXT without deleting 90% of the relevant content.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no idea what your are talking about. You need to be specific in your accusations, preferably, citing me verbatim, and for God's sake, IN FULL CONTEXT without deleting 90% of the relevant content.

No, I'm not going to ride this tired hamster wheel for your amusement. If you don't understand my posts, I suggest you go back and read them again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have no idea what your are talking about. You need to be specific in your accusations, preferably, citing me verbatim, and for God's sake, IN FULL CONTEXT without deleting 90% of the relevant content.

You are unique in one respect: Your fringe resets occur more frequently that anyone else's.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

I do no such thing. If I did, you would be able to cite me verbatim, committing these terrible sins, instead of posting vague generalizations.

And people who just blurt out things that they are cannot support or justify prove nothing except that they are unable to deal with the issues specifically and honestly.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, I'm not going to ride this tired hamster wheel for your amusement. If you don't understand my posts, I suggest you go back and read them again.

No sir, you have constantly cited me completely out of context, deleting nearly 90% of the content which proves you wrong, on the basis of verifiable evidence.

And you make endless insulting accusations that you could never justify by citing me specifically and in proper context. Until you do that, your accusations are about as convincing as a bout of flatulence.

(the accusations, mods, not him

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, what is your complete and comprehensive alternative hypothesis for the events leading up to the JFK assassination?

Once you've committed to that, being sure to name specific names, locations and methods, then you may begin to show how each piece of evidence dovetails into it.

Be sure that actual consilience comes into play, whereby disparate evidence points to one conclusion. Don't do it backwards, as you've been doing, where you invent "startle reactions" and then invent scenarios to make it work.

 

[Hans]

Robert made this claim:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
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.

Hans;10751760]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.

As noted above Al Gore was very successful you have failed completed over a period of two decades - why do you think that is?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

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".

By the nature of the evidence adduced for the conclusion, it cannot be an absolute objective certainty that the cameraman's arm was jostled at that moment because he was reacting to anything, let alone specifically a loud noise.

Alvarez also decided the reason the president's head moved backward a couple frames after the bullet passed through it was because of a "jet effect" of ejected brain matter. I am not the only one to find the neuromuscular spasm explanation more convincing.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

What do you mean by a "special" startle response?

He was startled - just like Greer and the others - nothing special about it.

We need to stop playing word games. This guy told us why he reacted like that - this is a perfect match for when he heard a "flurry" of shells and Greer heard shots that were "just simultaneously, one right after the other".

And it was a perfect match for Mrs. Connally's testimony and visible reactions, in which she turned to her husband, exactly as she testified, beginning within a small fraction of a second following 285.

Isn't that why you refused to answer my questions about her actions?

At some point, you need to switch out of advocate mode and talk about this thing objectively. And you need to stop pretending that I am Fetzer or just another nutcase conspiracy theorist, who thinks there was a cast of thousands involved in the assassination.

 

[Robert Harris]

By the nature of the evidence adduced for the conclusion, it cannot be an absolute objective certainty that the cameraman's arm was jostled at that moment because he was reacting to anything, let alone specifically a loud noise.

Alvarez also decided the reason the president's head moved backward a couple frames after the bullet passed through it was because of a "jet effect" of ejected brain matter. I am not the only one to find the neuromuscular spasm explanation more convincing.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I asked you some very important questions yesterday that you have not answered. Are you prepared to do that now?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

What do you mean by a "special" startle response?

An involuntary, spasmodic reflex reaction.
Not just something somebody will typically do (deliberately) when they are startled.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you prepared to do that now?

Clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Isn't that why you refused to answer my questions about her actions?

Isn't that another attempt to shift the burden of proof?

 

[Hans]

Hey guys how many years you guys gonna spent discussing this modern version of

"How many angels can dance on the head of pin"?

Robert isn't gonna change his mind and he has nothing worth while to convince anyone that he is right - he has failed to do so for nearly 2 decades

What is anyone hoping to do here?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Bob: To my knowledge, the only questions of yours to me that I didn't answer were about Nellie's testimony. So much nonsense, so little time. The woman was traumatized and confused.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

I have never heard a more ridiculous accusation in my life. The "hit count" at my site is not visible and isn't known unless someone goes to considerable trouble to find it.

What benefit do I get from increasing the number of hits at my site?? Please be specific.

I didn't say anything about monetization.

Well I did, because your next accusation would have been that I link my Youtube presentations to make a fast buck.

No, I'm not psychic, but if you will accuse me of having the ulterior motive of raising my monthly fees by increasing the hits at my site, you sure as hell wouldn't miss a chance to claim that I was trying to make a fast buck from my videos.

Fair enough, but the point is that you identify attention paid to you as a suggestion that you are right,

You seem to be getting to the bottom of your insult barrel.

So I suffer the delusion of thinking that being called a lunatic and being accused of every sin known to man, means that I am getting agreement??

Even the most radical CT's don't say things that are that crazy.

You need to find much better insults Jay. I can suggest a few sites for you.

 

[JayUtah]

Well I did, because your next accusation would have been that I link my Youtube presentations to make a fast buck.

Do not attempt to put arguments in my mouth that I did not make.

So I suffer the delusion of thinking that being called a lunatic and being accused of every sin known to man, means that I am getting agreement??

Do not attempt to put arguments in my mouth that I did not make.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bob: To my knowledge, the only questions of yours to me that I didn't answer were about Nellie's testimony. So much nonsense, so little time. The woman was traumatized and confused.

No sir, you evaded others, including one about Kellerman's reactions.

And Nellie was not "traumatized", in fact she stated that she heard nothing that she thought was a gunshot until well after looking back at JFK, which she did at about 257.

So that excuse goes down the crapper. Got any more, or would you finally agree to post some straight answers?

 

[Belz...]

I have no idea what your are talking about. You need to be specific in your accusations

I wager that no amount of specificity would satisfy you.

I do no such thing.

I'll let the peanut gallery make a final judgment on this, but your behaviour is still there for all to see.

Also, I note that you snip a lot of content from posts you quote, a behaviour you decry from your opponents, here. Usually people would take it as a sign of hypocrisy.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, I'm not going to ride this tired hamster wheel for your amusement. If you don't understand my posts, I suggest you go back and read them again.

Interesting.

So you would prefer to continue making ambiguous, insulting generalizations, without lifting a finger to prove them?

That's disappointing but kudos for being candid.