• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
.... And that did no damage. Right?

Other than your desire for more shots, if shots were inaudible and did no damage, how do you know there were more shots?







Whoa, there, big fella. You're about to run off a cliff.

About ten witnesses who saw a shooter or a rifle in the sniper's nest window.

Oswald's weapon found on the same floor as the sniper's nest.

Three shells found in the sniper's nest traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Two large fragments found in the limousine traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

A nearly whole bullet found in Parkland traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

That's the evidence indicating Oswald fired those shots (I left out a ton of other evidence you may or may not be aware of, like his fingerprints on the trigger guard of the weapon recovered on the sixth floor, a paper bag bearing his prints found at the sniper's nest, two witnesses who saw him with a long paper sack that morning, him admitting he was in the building during the shooting, him having no alibi for the time of the shooting, him lying in custody about numerous items of evidence, him killing one police officer and attempting to kill another. etc. etc.). It's been referenced as "consilience". Hopefully you learn what it means sometime soon.

Now, on the other side, for those other shooting positions, you have what hard physical and what eyewitness evidence and what else that mutually reinforces each other and we can weigh against the evidence above?

Jay Utah explained it better but without all the messy detail I can't avoid going into:



Hank

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
.... And that did no damage. Right?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Please elaborate.

Quote: [Belz]
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.
Yes, I have the terrible habit of deleting ad hominm crap and trashtalk. Shame on me!

Just for the information of any lurkers who would like to see what Robert considers "ad hominem crap and trashtalk"; my god, look at all that trash talk in HSienzant's original post that Robert had to delete to get at a point he then avoided anyway.
 
[...]you actually cited me talking about the absence of evidence to support the LN theory and falsely claimed that I was demanding such evidence.

Would you like to retract that ugly accusation now?

HUH?!
Do you really think there is an "absence of evidence to support the LN theory"?
I said you were demanding proof "that Oswald acted alone," which you have done repeatedly (I quoted you).

Here's an example, of which there are many.
30th June 2015, 06:04 PM , Robert Harris wrote:
"You have NEVER proven that Oswald acted alone, which is why you are so upset that I would challenge you to do so."

I said that "proving Oswald acted alone" would be essentially proving a negative and that all we poor mortal non-conspiracists can say is that there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else even knew what Oswald was planning.

Oh, and also no evidence whatsoever of another shooter.
 
Last edited:
Ooh, ooh !! Let me !

Jay explained to you what the burden of proof is.

No he didn't. He explained a totally fabricated set of "rules" that have never been approved by the forum or anyone else outside of a little group of hardcore, LN advocates.

Burden of proof is a ridiculously easy term to define. It doesn't require a long winded rant.

He who asserts bears the burden of proving his assertion.

End of discussion.
 
Yes, in the context of my claim that you constantly make unsupported, ambiguous accusations.

What does that have to do with my use of the verb "to wager" ?

Of course you would. You'd say I abuse puppies if you thought you could get away with it:-)

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

It seems that you lie very habitually.

Our discussion was about posting ambiguous accusations that you cannot justify or support.

Yes, indeed, and I have supported them, so that's another lie from you.

Instead of going on and on and on about this, why don't you just agree to support your claims and especially your accusations, with specificity.

I ask again, since you dishonestly snipped it: how specific would you like us to be ?
 
No he didn't. He explained a totally fabricated set of "rules" that have never been approved by the forum or anyone else outside of a little group of hardcore, LN advocates.

As Jay pointed out, this "rule" has been known in philosophical circles for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. You're simply trying to avoid making any specific claim that can be challenged. Ironic, considering your accusations towards me and others.

Burden of proof is a ridiculously easy term to define. It doesn't require a long winded rant.

In other words you didn't read it because it was too long.

He who asserts bears the burden of proving his assertion.

Exactly. Therefore you have the burden. Stop trying to shift it, and provide your evidence. When people point out problems with your evidence or your reasoning, address those, and stop personalising the issue.

You may start now.
 
As Jay pointed out, this "rule" has been known in philosophical circles for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

No it hasn't.

Cite even one famous philosopher who ever said that in a debate, one side gets to make up arbitrary rules without the agreement of their adversaries.
 
In other words you didn't read it because it was too long.

I read it up to the point where it got ridiculous, which admittedly, wasn't far.

At first I thought this was some kind of joke.

Exactly. Therefore you have the burden.

LOL!!

So, let me see if I have this right. If Jay demands it I must comply.

I guess you do have a sense of humor after all:-)
 
No it hasn't.

Cite even one famous philosopher who ever said that in a debate, one side gets to make up arbitrary rules without the agreement of their adversaries.

What were you unable to comprehend from JayUtah's previous explanation? Perhaps he could explain those parts again in different terms.
 
The overwhelming consensus of the witnesses that day, who commented on the spacing of the shots, was that they heard a single shot or noise, followed by a delay and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.

Clint Hill was the closest person to the car who was licensed to carry a firearm and was familiar with what they sounded like. He described two shots only, and a third sound, which he surmised was the sound of the impact on the president's head from the last bullet. Two shots, three sounds. With the last two sounds almost simultaneous.

Many of the Secret Service agents in Dealey Plaza (those men who by occupation were most familiar with firearms said almost exactly the same thing.

In general, the witnesses you cite fall into a couple of different categories: Those who specified no time for the shooting and weren't specific enough to be certain they fit your scenario, those who were quite specific and who we can eliminate as fitting your scenario, and those who heard two shots on top of each other, almost simultaneous, which fits the Clint Hill two shots and one impact sound scenario.



Of course, we all know that witnesses are not infallible, but any rational person has to wonder how so many could have made exactly the same mistake.

You're assuming what you need to prove. Watch me point out the issues. Please tell me how you eliminate just two shots from Oswald's weapon and one impact from the head (sounding to many like a third shot).

Specific examples:
Motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood

Mr. Belin. Mr. Haygood. The last two were closer than the first. In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close.

"...two were real close". "real close" is meaningless. It could mean 1/10th of a second apart or 2.5 seconds apart. Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. Nothing says they were 1.5 seconds apart. He could be describing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


[
Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front, passenger seat of the Presidential limousine, referring to the time between the last two shots he recalled,

Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? that is it.

"bang, bang".
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. He could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


QUOTE=Robert Harris;10740677]Secret Service agent William Greer who drove the Presidential limousine,

The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other...
[/QUOTE]

"The last two seemed ... simultaneously."
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. Nothing says they were 1.5 seconds apart. He could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


Secret Service agent George Hickey in the followup car immediately behind the President,

At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which... were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.

"Two shots... practically no time element between them."
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. Nothing in there says there were shots 1.5 seconds apart. He could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


Secret Service agent Warren W. Taylor,

In the instant that my left foot touched the ground, I heard two more bangs and realized that they must be gun shots.

"In the instant my left foot touched the ground ... I heard two more bangs"
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. He could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described. One could claim he was saying two shots were instantaneous, which doesn't mean separated by 1.5 seconds.



Railroad superintendent Lee Bowers, who was well positioned fifteen feet above the ground in the railroad tower behind the Dealey Plaza pergola,

I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together.

"Two very close together".
That's too indistinct to say how much time separated them.
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. He could be describing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


Mary Woodward (reporter for the Dallas Morning News)

I heard a very loud noise.... And then I heard the second one, and this time I knew what had happened, because I saw the president's motion, and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one.

"third shot ... on top of the second one."
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. She could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described. She aligns the second shot with the President's motion, which puts it after Z223 (when he raises his hands to his throat), not between Z285 and Z313 (the President is practically motionless in those frames).


Billy Lovelady, standing in the front entrance of the depository,

After he had passed and was about 50 yards in front of us I heard three shots. There was a slight pause after the first shot then the next two was right close together.
"two...right close together."
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. He could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


Edward Shields,

I heard one shot and then a pause and then this repetition - two shots right behind the other..

"two shots right behind the other..."
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. He could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


Mrs. Earle Cabell, who was riding with her husband,

It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot” and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a.." the second two shots rang out.

Nothing in the above says the last two shots were about two seconds apart. Nothing in the above says there was a longer pause between the first shot and the next two. It's just begging the question for you to assert otherwise.


Ladybird Johnson (wife of Lyndon Johnson),

..suddenly there was a sharp loud report; a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession.

Nothing in the above says the last two shots were about two seconds apart. Nothing in the above says there was a longer pause between the first shot and the next two. It's just begging the question for you to assert otherwise.


Linda Willis, the fifteen year old daughter of Phil Willis (responding to a question about the number of shots),

Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together.

"Two real fast bullets together."
Nothing in here says there was a shot at Z285. She could be hearing the sound of two shots, and an impact on the head, exactly as Clint Hill described.


Joe R. Molina.

... Of course, the first shot was fired then there was an interval between the first and second longer than the second and third.

Molina merely said the "interval between the first and second was longer than [the interval between] the second and third". Nothing in the above says the last two shots were about two seconds apart. His description above is too unclear to fit your scenario. It's just begging the question for you to assert otherwise.


James N. Crawford,

..the second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one..

Disingenuous. Crawford said, and of course you don't quote:
Mr. CRAWFORD - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - In your remark to Mary Ann Mitchell, did you say "If those were shots, they came from that window"?


Mary Ann Mitchell said Crawford said that:
Mr. BALL - You heard Jim Crawford say something about if they were shots - what were his words exactly?
Miss MITCHELL - Well, I'm not sure that he said - I think he just said, "Those shots came from that building," just assuming that everybody could have figured out by then that they were shots.



Motorcycle Police Officer, Marrion Baker,

..I looked up, as the shots started, I immediately looked up, you know. I was already facing ahead and I just kind of raised, I sighted up, and while I was looking-up, those other two shots came off.

Nothing in the above says the last two shots were about two seconds apart. Nothing in the above says there was a longer pause between the first shot and the next two. It's just begging the question for you to assert otherwise. Moreover, Baker thought all three shots came from the roof of the Texas School Book Depository building.


Barbara Rowland,

...the second and third were closer than the first and second.

Nothing in the above says the last two shots were about two seconds apart. It's just begging the question for you to assert otherwise.


Special Agent Forrest V. Sorrels in the lead car,

There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.

That would mean the entire assassination lasted just 4.5 seconds, with just 3 seconds between the first and second shots, and 1.5 seconds between the second and third (if we grant, for the sake of argument, your shots at Z285 and Z313. That puts Sorrels' first shot at approximately Z230, not Z150-160 as you argue. If you want to peg that shot at Z223, fine. Now you're arguing Sorrels heard the supposedly suppressed shot, instead of the unsuppressed one. Sorrels doesn't support your scenario, unless you argue he was a poor judge of the time elapsed. But that would destroy your entire reason for including him.


Bonnie Ray Williams

... I remembered three shots, because there was a pause between the first two shots... The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot..

Nothing in the above says the last two shots were about 1.5 seconds apart. It really isn't specific enough to fit your scenario, except in the most general fashion. It's just begging the question for you to assert otherwise.

Etc. etc. etc.

Hank
 
Just for the information of any lurkers who would like to see what Robert considers "ad hominem crap and trashtalk"; my god, look at all that trash talk in HSienzant's original post that Robert had to delete to get at a point he then avoided anyway.

Are you saying that I posted "trashtalk" in my discussion with Hank? If so, this is the entirety of what you cited me saying to him.

Perhaps you would like to highlight the part that you consider trashtalk?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Please elaborate.
 
No it hasn't.

Cite even one famous philosopher who ever said that in a debate, one side gets to make up arbitrary rules without the agreement of their adversaries.

Stop lying. It isn't about people making arbitrary rules: it's A RULE that has been around for thousands of years, simply because there is no other efficacious way of debating science.

I read it up to the point where it got ridiculous, which admittedly, wasn't far.

You're the only one who seems to think so. If I were you I'd seriously consider the possibility that I'd be wrong.

At first I thought this was some kind of joke.

Your total and willing ignorance on the topic certainly doesn't help, but that isn't anyone else's problem.

So, let me see if I have this right. If Jay demands it I must comply.

No, as usual you understand nothing of what others tell you. You have the burden because it's the only way for theories to evolve and become better. Constantly requiring established theories to be proven again and again is counterproductive. It'd be really nice if you made some effort to understand this.
 
No it hasn't.

Cite even one famous philosopher who ever said that in a debate, one side gets to make up arbitrary rules without the agreement of their adversaries.

There is a difference between you being unaware of best practice, the rules recognised by others, and those rules being arbitrary.

Especially when those have been discussed at length previously in parts one and two of this never ending thread.
 
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Just for the information of any lurkers who would like to see what Robert considers "ad hominem crap and trashtalk"; my god, look at all that trash talk in HSienzant's original post that Robert had to delete to get at a point he then avoided anyway.
Are you saying that I posted "trashtalk" in my discussion with Hank? If so, this is the entirety of what you cited me saying to him.

Perhaps you would like to highlight the part that you consider trashtalk?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank. You previously alleged that the articles and presentations I linked here, did not contain valid evidence.

When I asked you to support that accusation, you said you didn't have to and that you bore no obligation to support your own assertions.

I would like you to explain why you think that you have no responsibility to support your claims.

Please elaborate.
Seriously, Robert- can you not read?
 
I propose that we answer the questions in the order they were asked.

I posted mine yesterday.

Any more excuses?

But I replied: Nellie was confused.
You are, too.

Not that I would be required to respond.
You are the only one attempting to prove something here.
I don't have to prove a counterclaim to demonstrate why your proof fails.
 
Stop lying. It isn't about people making arbitrary rules:

Wrong again my friend. That's EXACTLY what it is.


it's A RULE that has been around for thousands of years, simply because there is no other efficacious way of debating science.

Well, don't be bashful, tell me whatever you interpret this rule to be. Or are you having a hard time doing that without admitting that these idiotic "rules" are indeed arbitrary and nothing more than an attempt to stack the deck?

You're the only one who seems to think so.

Yes, which might have something to do with me being the only adversary you have here, which is kind of strange in itself, considering that most people disagree with you.

You guys wouldn't do anything to drive the dissenters away, would you:)

If I were you I'd seriously consider the possibility that I'd be wrong.

I will if you will?

Whaddya say?
 
Wrong again my friend. That's EXACTLY what it is.

You can repeat that as many times as you want, but you are wrong. The principle is well-established in science. If you want to call it arbitrary, then so be it, but it's the law of the land on the entire planet, so you'll still have to go by this rule.

Yes, which might have something to do with me being the only adversary you have here

Well, again that's false. We've had plenty.

which is kind of strange in itself, considering that most people disagree with you.

I'll have to ask you to prove this claim. I assume that by "most people" you mean people with expertise relevant in the fields concerned by this topic, not laymen, who are irrelevant. Reality isn't a popularity contest.

You guys wouldn't do anything to drive the dissenters away, would you

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

I will if you will?

Whaddya say?

I do consider that possibility. Your turn.
 
You just asserted that my arguments are insufficient, with no justification whatsoever.

Are you saying that you get to refute me by just blurting out that my evidence is not legitimate, without engaging in any kind specific explanation or debate?

No, I get to refute you by pointing out that you've committed a multitude of logical fallacies, from begging the question to shifting the burden of proof; by pointing out that the evidence you cite does not always support what you claim (like with the witnesses you cite); and that many of your claims haven't been cited for, let alone proven (like Braden having anything to do with the assassination).

To support the last, you claimed there were a couple of tenuous links to persons you also claim were part of the conspiracy (again, with little to no actual evidence cited by you to support those claims either), and that was the sum and substance of your attempt to link Braden to the assassination.

You didn't cite any evidence of a weapon found in the Dal-Tex building, you didn't cite any evidence of witnesses seeing a shooter in the Dal-Tex building, you didn't cite any evidence of a weapon being seen brought in or out of the building, you didn't cite any evidence of a nearly whole bullet or fragments being traceable to a weapon other than Oswald's... in short, you merely conjured up the entire Dal-Tex shooting scenario from your imagination, and imagined Jim Braden had something to do with it. That's not evidence, and it's certainly not proof of anything.


No sir, he who asserts, bears the burden of proving his assertions.

Yes. Absolutely. You asserted as many as five shots, from at least three different locations. You've establish none of that. The fifth shot, you asserted made a large blowout in the back of JFK's head, but you cite no autopsy finding that concurs with that. Neither do the known expert pathologists who reviewed the autopsy materials concur with you. In short, you ignore the experts and substitute your own interpretation of a frame of the Zapruder film as your evidence. Your interpretations are not evidence.

You do the same with the shots at Z223 and Z285. You imagine the shot there was suppressed, but provide no proof of that. You imagine another shot at Z285, but the evidence you cite reduces again to your interpretation of what you think you see in the Zapruder film. Your interpretations are not evidence.


You asserted that the dozen or so articles and presentations I posted here, contain no valid evidence.

No, that resembles not at all what I actually said in my prior posts where I detailed some of my criticisms of your points. You don't gain credibility by invoking the LOGICAL FALLACY of a strawman argument.


You bear the responsibility of justifying that claim. It really is that simple, and you don't get to talk your way out of it by refusing to support your own words.

Sorry, no. I need not defend the strawman arguments you advance.

Hank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom