Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

How much did the vehicle deccelerate and over what period of time?

(edit) Alvarez said the limo decelerated from about 12mph to 8mph. That bowl of goldfish in the front seat would have been relatively undisturbed

When did the driver start to accelerate?

That's irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion, all that matters is that the reactions preceded the slowdown.

What was the effect of the slowdown?

Umm... the velocity of the limo was reduced.

How does this evidence support any notion of a conspiracy?

It demonstrates that the cause of the reactions was not a rapid slowdown of the limousine, as some people have claimed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Of course the passengers in the back were reacting, two of them had just been shot.

Yes, but that is irrelevant. We're discussing only reactions to a startling noise.

I did, I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

Then please be specific about your subjective opinion.

I sure he was reacting to the commotion in the back; you know, where two of his charges had just been shot.

Are you referring to Greer?

Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear anyone in the car say anything from the time of the first shot until the time of the third shot?

Mr. GREER. Not to the best of my recollection, I don't remember.

And Greer's reaction, which began simultaneously with the others, was to turn from the rear to the front.

He testified that he heard near simultaneous shots then and that he felt the "concussion" of the second shot, which is exactly what he would have felt from the shock wave of a passing supersonic bullet.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It demonstrates that the cause of the reactions was not a rapid slowdown of the limousine, as some people have claimed.

Have people been claiming it was a "rapid" slowdown? Remember your penchant for using the strawman fallacy. In searching the thread for the word "rapid", I only find you using it or others quoting you using it in relationship to the slowdown.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, but that is irrelevant. We're discussing only reactions to a startling noise.

Well, no. Only you are discussing reactions to a startling noise. Which is irrelevant since there has been no objective, verifiable evidence of a startling noise causing any reactions.

 

[Belz...]

That's irrelevant.

The timing is irrelevant ? It thought it was the entirety of your argument.

We're discussing only reactions to a startling noise.

Alledged.

 

[Robert Harris]

Have people been claiming it was a "rapid" slowdown? Remember your penchant for using the strawman fallacy. In searching the thread for the word "rapid", I only find you using it or others quoting you using it in relationship to the slowdown.

I think you need to look more carefully and less nitpickishly. This was a paraphrase and obviously, when they said that the reactions were caused by a slowdown, they were not talking about a slow or gradual deceleration.

If you doubt that, then just ask them.

 

[Robert Harris]

The timing is irrelevant ?

That's not what I said. I was responding to this argument.

Of course the passengers in the back were reacting, two of them had just been shot.

It is indeed, irrelevant that the victims were reacting to being shot. And their reactions to being wounded, began at about frame 225, well before the reactions by the others at 290-292.

Alledged.

Let me see if I have this right, if I say "alleged", my argument is worthless.

And if I don't say "alleged", I am "begging the question".

Do you really think this is a reasonable way to conduct this debate?

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, no. Only you are discussing reactions to a startling noise. Which is irrelevant since there has been no objective, verifiable evidence of a startling noise causing any reactions.

I disagree. Please examine this extreme, slow motion, annotated segment and tell me how you would interpret Kellerman's actions then.

Do you see any errors in the annotations?

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

It is demonstrably true, that Kellerman briefly hunched his shoulders upward, which is a classic, textbook startle reaction as defined by Landis and Hunt.

And in this segment from the Olympic village bombing, we see a lady in black, to the far right of the screen, briefly shrugging her shoulders and raising her hand to her ear in reaction to the bomb, almost exactly as Kellerman did.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

The timing is irrelevant ?

That's not what I said. I was responding to this argument.

Of course the passengers in the back were reacting, two of them had just been shot.

It is indeed, irrelevant that the victims were reacting to being shot. And their reactions to being wounded, began at about frame 225, well before the reactions by the others at 290-292.

Alledged.

Let me see if I have this right, if I say "alleged", my argument is worthless.

And if I don't say "alleged", I am "begging the question".

Do you really think this is a reasonable way to conduct this debate?

That's right. If you said "alleged reactions by the others…," your argument would not beg the question.
As for your argument's becoming ipso facto worthless then, that implies that you cannot offer a proof for what is alleged.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Of course it is. You can prove that by watching the second segment, in which the slowdown is quite easy to see.

That appears to be a circular argument. You think you know when the car slowed down because you think you can see when it's going slower, and you know you can accurately judge when it was going slower because you think you know when the car slowed down.

 

[Robert Harris]

That's right.

Hi sandy. Glad you could make it.

What are your thoughts on Kellerman's reactions?

And do you see the reactions of the lady I mentioned in the Atlanta video? Do you think her reactions are extremely similar to Kellerman's?

 

[Robert Harris]

That appears to be a circular argument. You think you know when the car slowed down because you think you can see when it's going slower

No, I think YOU can see when the car slowed down and when it didn't.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think you need to look more carefully and less nitpickishly.

Well, no. You've been called out on strawmanning your interlocutors' positions already, numerous times. You need to know that it will be caught. Please be more careful in the future.

This was a paraphrase and obviously, when they said that the reactions were caused by a slowdown, they were not talking about a slow or gradual deceleration.

No, that is you putting words in their mouths. Again. The deceleration event could have been caused by the simple lifting of the foot from the accelerator. You may want to try it in your own vehicle.

If you doubt that, then just ask them.

Suppose you just read what they say and not what you say they say. If you are in doubt, you may ask them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I disagree.

Surely you don't mean that your interpretation of the video is your <GASP> opinion?

So it's your opinion that you've been trying to pass off as "objective, verifiable" evidence?

 

[BazBear]

Yes, but that is irrelevant. We're discussing only reactions to a startling noise.

You're discussing your interpretation that the reactions were startling reactions. I am pointing out that there are other more plausible reasons for the reactions we see, reasons that don't require unevidenced gunmen and mystery shots; reasons that don't require completely redefining what the term "startling reaction" means. Therefore my comment is indeed relevant.

My opinion is that all the reactions we see from the secret service agents - including Greer's deceleration/braking - were due to them reacting to the commotion in the back seat, where two men had just been shot.

 

[Robert Harris]

Surely you don't mean that your interpretation of the video is your <GASP> opinion?

Yes, but subjective opinions are not always unreliable. This is highly dependent on the situation. If you said you saw a black dog in your yard yesterday, should we conclude that because this was just your subjective opinion, there was no dog or that the dog wasn't black?

In this case, you are not asked to rely on my opinion or even the opinion of a Dealey Plaza witness. You are asked to rely on your own opinion, which you seem to be a bit reluctant to share

If the limo had slowed enough to throw everyone around like that, the slowdown would have to have been substantial and easily seen in this panoramic view of the Zapruder film. It would not have been subtle or a close call.

Do YOU see such a thing, prior to frame 293?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but subjective opinions are not always unreliable.

Depends on the source.

 

[JayUtah]

If you said you saw a black dog in your yard yesterday, should we conclude that because this was just your subjective opinion, there was no dog or that the dog wasn't black?

Observation is not opinion. If said you saw a black dog in your yard yesterday and that you are pretty sure he was there plotting the best time to eat your children, we could easily separate the observation of the dog from the subjective opinion for why he was there.

The law does this all the time. We have lots of witnesses testify to what they saw, smelled, heard, or otherwise observed with their senses. But the witness doesn't get to determine the whys and wherefores behind what they saw. That's reserved for the jury. Similarly we have lots of witnesses testify to matters of expert judgment, such as whether an injury was most likely caused by a certain accident. We take great pains to qualify such witnesses, and even then their judgment isn't considered evidence on par with a sensory observation.

A lot of people have been trying to explain the difference between observation and opinion. There really is a difference, and it's important to your case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do YOU see such a thing, prior to frame 293?

Attempt to switch the burden of proof. You've yet to show that it's anything else.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Hi sandy. Glad you could make it.

What are your thoughts on Kellerman's reactions?

And do you see the reactions of the lady I mentioned in the Atlanta video? Do you think her reactions are extremely similar to Kellerman's?

Bob, when I answered this earlier in the thread, I said that I find your interpretation of Kellerman's actions highly imaginative. I said in another post in this same thread that I do not see anything in Kellerman's actions and what the woman does in the video as amounting to even a coincidence.