Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[HSienzant]

That argument was refuted. Once again, we see the reactions prior to 313, so they couldn't have been caused by an echo. And numerous witnesses described the gap between those shots as about 2 seconds.

Please link to that refutation. Please cite those numerous witnesses that described the gap between those two shots as about 2 seconds.

You're up to five shots now (and holding out for the possibility of even more) and most witnesses said they heard three or fewer (95%).

Not exactly moving in the right direction, Bob.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm honestly not sure if Robert just really can't get this, or if, like consilience, it's a concept he needs to deny because he knows it puts him in an untenable spot. The way he missed the point of my "trashtalk" post recently inclines me to the former; if so, it doesn't say much for the guy who wants everyone to think he's able enough to overturn an established history with "startle reflexes" and whatnot. If it's the latter, it doesn't say much for a guy who claims to be arguing for "the truth."

Of course Robert gets this. Mr. Utah is pretending that his favorite theory gets to be elevated to the status of the theory of gravity or evolution.

But he represents a rather small minority, which directly contradicts the conclusions of the last govt. investigation as well as the head of that organization, who strongly believes that Marcello ordered the crime, and said so in his book, even before Marcello confessed to doing exactly that.

Yours is just one more theory and it is among the weakest. It directly contradicts most of the witnesses; it alleges 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots that went unheard and failed to startle anyone, and it is based entirely on an FBI, whose stated policy was to promote a predefined conclusion that Oswald acted alone and went so far as to fabricate evidence to prove it.

By comparison, "the driver did it" is quite reasonable

 

[JayUtah]

Mr. Utah is pretending that his favorite theory gets to be elevated to the status of the theory of gravity or evolution.

Link to where I stated this, verbatim.

In contrast, here is what I actually wrote:

Such argumentation would often be subject to caveats arising under arguments from silence, viz.,"If your position is based upon the absence of evidence, then it is not evidence of absence." If the landscape of evidence is sparse, it can be construed as likely that new evidence may indeed challenge the null hypothesis and provide evidence of presence. But new evidence must actually be presented. Otherwise the null holds. In any case, skeptics who express the null hold it only presumptively, not as a matter of assertion. That tenet accepts the effect of eventual shifts in the evidence while not requiring any response to premature or speculative propositions. "My position is indeed based on the absence of evidence; as such I do not assert absence, but merely note it parsimoniously explains the evidence as it presently stands."

Do not keep trying to put arguments in my mouth that I never made.

 

[Robert Harris]

It appears that you can only be

I'll be glad to reply to your post after we finish up with this Nellie thing. I think Nellie provides very solid proof of a shot at 285 - not just because of what she said, but because of what we see her doing.

If I am correct, then the conspiracy question is settled. Don't you think that is a few thousand times more important than criticizing me for asking your friends to support their claims?

And yes! I am asking you to help me prove there was a shot then, and TOTALLY against your will, because I don't think you can answer the questions plausibly, without admitting that she heard a gunshot and reacted to it precisely when she said she did, and in near perfect unison with the others.

I'm trying to put you in the terrible position of either having to admit you are wrong, or make a demonstrably ridiculous claim.

What's wrong with that Sandy? Surely you wouldn't want to be investing so much of you life promoting the LN theory, if it wasn't true, would you?



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.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

 

[Robert Harris]

Link to where I stated this, verbatim.

In contrast, here is what I actually wrote:

​

Do not keep trying to put arguments in my mouth that I never made.

Please define the "null" in relation to the JFK debate.

This is the closest example I can find.

Yours is just one more theory and it is among the weakest. It directly contradicts most of the witnesses; it alleges 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots that went unheard and failed to startle anyone, and it is based entirely on an FBI, whose stated policy was to promote a predefined conclusion that Oswald acted alone and went so far as to fabricate evidence to prove it.


Going on a break.

It's pile-on time!

 

[JayUtah]

Please define the "null" in relation to the JFK debate.

See the essay. Now without further evasion, please reconcile your characterization of my position with the quoted paragraph explaining what I actually said.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'll be glad to reply to your post after we finish up with this Nellie thing. I think Nellie provides very solid proof of a shot at 285 - not just because of what she said, but because of what we see her doing.

If I am correct, then the conspiracy question is settled. Don't you think that is a few thousand times more important than criticizing me for asking your friends to support their claims?

And yes! I am asking you to help me prove there was a shot then, and TOTALLY against your will, because I don't think you can answer the questions plausibly, without admitting that she heard a gunshot and reacted to it precisely when she said she did, and in near perfect unison with the others.

I'm trying to put you in the terrible position of either having to admit you are wrong, or make a demonstrably ridiculous claim.

What's wrong with that Sandy? Surely you wouldn't want to be investing so much of you life promoting the LN theory, if it wasn't true, would you?



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.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Bob, Nellie's face is hidden for much of that sequence and the resolution is too poor to define so precisely where and when she is looking anywhere. "Is anyone else reacting then?": What is that supposed to mean? People are reacting constantly there to what is going on around them. Your assumption that this one witness had perfect recall is unwarranted. Etc. etc.

But if this is so important and settles the issue of conspiracy once and for all, out with it: How do you think it does this, exactly?

 

[HSienzant]

I pointed out that Robert Harris avoided responding to the bulk of my points here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10752408#post10752408

Of course, Robert Harris perhaps is best qualified to explain why he tried to rebut only one snippet.

Which he does here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10752019#post10752019

 

[Belz...]

The questions are actually, pretty easy Sandy. Take your time studying the Zapruder segment.

Shifting the burden of proof again. At this point you have no excuse for not understanding this concept. The only conclusion is that you are dishonestly avoiding that burden because you know you cannot meet any sort of reasonable standard of proof.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Hank.

We're quite behind, actually. Please demonstrate that the movements you see in the Zapruder film are startle reactions and, once you've done that, show that the sound of a gunshot is the most probable cause and not, as others and myself have suggested, a change in the car's motion, or any other cause.

I will be happy to address the rest of your post, after we resolve this.

I "wager" that you will never admit that it has been resolved.

Of course Robert gets this.

Your posts indicate otherwise. For instance:

Mr. Utah is pretending that his favorite theory gets to be elevated to the status of the theory of gravity or evolution.

Jay has done NOTHING of the sort. Stop lying. If you truly get this, you wouldn't have posted that. It's not a "law". It's a convention, and I explained to you why it's essential. If the challenger gets to impose the burden of proof, then science and justice are essentially impossible.

Really! Why don't you tell me specifically, when I lost the first limb?

What's your obsession with that word ? Is it because CTers were accused early on in your membership here of never commiting to a specific set of claims, and adopted that word as your war horse ?

If so, it isn't working.

Please define the "null" in relation to the JFK debate.

That's quite easy: on the video we see two bullet hits. We found a rifle from the most probable vantage position, and found its owner, a communist sympathiser with sniper experience, fleeing the scene. Since there are no other competing theories supported by these and more, the accepted conclusion that Oswald killed JFK is the null theory. As a challenger, the burden is YOURS.

 

[HSienzant]

Jay explained to you what the burden of proof is. To summarize: someone claiming that a well-established theory, right or wrong, is incorrect, and who intends to present an alternative, must themselves prove their case. It is in no way their opponent's burden to prove an already proven theory again and again, every time a new hypothesis is dreamed up by a crackpot or a crack scientist.

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...

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.

Strawman argument. You're twisting the claim that was made beyond recognition.

The claim was that shifting the burden of proof is what you're doing, and the burden of proof goes back thousands of years. Your argument above is beyond belief.

Do note the first & second paragraphs in this scholarly treatment of Burden of Proof references Aristotle.
Nobody is making stuff up here about the burden of proof but you.

http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/view...gIVBjk-Ch3i_QCd#search="burden proof fallacy"

I think our work is done here. You're apparently saying you don't recognize as legitimate points that have been accepted as logical for thousands of years. Perhaps, before you deal with how the Warren Commission got things wrong, you might want to backtrack a few thousand years and tell us what Aristotle got wrong about logic.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

See the essay. Now without further evasion, please reconcile your characterization of my position with the quoted paragraph explaining what I actually said.

Please define the "null" in relation to the JFK debate.

 

[JayUtah]

This is the closest example I can find.

Scouring the forum for some straw man doesn't compel your critics to adopt it, or to accept that it constitutes the null hypothesis or any hypothesis. Please go read some examples of null and alternative hypotheses in science and then re-read what you've posted here. And please stop trying to cram words into your critics' mouths.

 

[JayUtah]

Please define the "null" in relation to the JFK debate.

Asked and answered.

 

[Robert Harris]

Asked and answered.

No you didn't. You're just trying to evade the fact that I was correct in stating that you're trying to elevate your theory to point at which you bear no burden of proof to support it.

Please define the "null" in relation to the JFK debate.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Strawman argument, Bob.

Everyone here knows it.

You claimed that you delete trash talk and ad hominems.

Yes, I have the terrible habit of deleting ad hominm crap and trashtalk.

You deleted a ton of stuff from my post. Show us the trash talk and ad hominems in the part you deleted. There was plenty of points you didn't address, and plenty of evidence referenced that I believe you're familiar with. None of it was trash talk nor ad hominems.

But you deleted it. So we know your excuse for deleting stuff is incomplete. Why don't you try offering a better, more complete excuse for why you delete stuff from your response? You know, like you didn't have a good rebuttal to the points made so you choose to simply ignore the points away?

So, since you're advocating discussing the JFK assassination so much (and not you), I find it curious that you snipped all my references to the JFK assassination evidence and only quoted one sentence. Maybe you should take a swing at my points and the evidence I referenced now.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Strawman argument, Bob.

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, and if you cannot do that, admit it.

Please elaborate.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Because I asked first and because my questions are infinitely more important than yours.

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

Nonsense. What difference does it make whether I see what you claim to see, if what you claim to see could break the case wide open? Present that claim so it can be discussed here.

It wouldn't do to have somebody else tell me what they see there, if I am so myopic that I can't see it myself (got my glasses on, though), and if you want my opinion. But why should the opinion of li'l ol' me matter, if it's so obvious?

This is just a game you are playing, but you are the only person who knows the crazy rules.

 

[JayUtah]

No you didn't.

Yes I did. I said the definition was in my essay, which it is.

You're just trying to evade the fact that I was correct in stating that you're trying to elevate your theory to point at which you bear no burden of proof to support it.

The highlighted phrase is not what you originally wrote. You wrote:

...to be elevated to the status of the theory of gravity or evolution.

I quoted a paragraph from my essay clearly describing the null being held presumptively, not by way of assertion. I went into some detail about that in later paragraphs.

I have spent most of today correcting your attempts to shove arguments in my mouth which I never made, most of which have gone unheeded by you. Making things up to attribute to me does not advance your argument.

Please define the "null" in relation to the JFK debate.

Asked and answered.

 

[JayUtah]

LOL!! You won't find that on the Internet except by googling this forum.

I didn't claim you wouldn't find it on this forum. I said that your lifting a sentence from the forum does not automatically make it the null hypothesis, or any sort of hypothesis, nor does it make it something any of your critics would necessarily subscribe to.

I composed it, and it is flatly true.

If you composed it then this is just another example of you trying to cram words into your critics' mouths.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

LOL!! You won't find that on the Internet except by googling this forum.

https://www.google.com/search?q=null+hypothesis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8