Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Sandy McCroskey]

All of the reactions are consistent with known startle reactions and I have demonstrated that Kellerman exhibited clear startle reactions, including the fact that he hunched his shoulders upward, which Landis and Hunt concluded, is a classic startle reaction.



No it isn't. My use of that word was spot on and conveyed exactly what I wanted to say. This is from the American Heritage/Apple dictionary

Demonstrate: clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence: their shameful silence demonstrates their ineptitude.

You explained what you think is evidence and proof, but you did not prove anything.

I said,
I suppose we could argue all day about what actually constitutes "proof"



No sir, "assertions" are pretty much all we do around here - right, wrong or somewhere in between. In fact, your claim that "assertions won't be one of the options" is also an assertion.

A discussion is impossible if expression is limited to assertions. It would be as if we were all talking to ourselves.

Perhaps you might wish to reassess your thinking about our respective mastery of word usage

Hmm...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." [Lewis Carroll]

 

[Robert Harris]

To recap

You tell us there was a silenced rifle present which was fired, but didn't hit anybody.

No, the 223 shot obviously hit Connally and JFK.

You're tripling down on a sound-of-gunshot theory for a crime committed in an area where the echo is bad enough to make even non-CT testimony of sound inadmissible.

The HSCA people who tested the rifle in DP, had no problem differentiating between rifle shots and echoes.

And if the DP witnesses were fooled by echoes then why did most of them only report a single, early shot?

You ramble on

Do you really think demeaning speech is a good way to discuss these issues? I speak to you respectfully. I think you can do the same.

about the Dal-Tex building no being searched even though it might have been, at least in part in the hour after the assassination as DPD officers canvased the area. The problem is the shots all came from the 6th Floor of the TSBDP, witnesses saw the barrel of the rifle and sent the police into the building.

That is a rather blatant example of begging the question.

You need to earn the right to declare that Oswald fired all the shots. To do that, you can start by explaining why most witnesses only heard one of the 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots then and why none of them provoked the kind of reactions we see following 285 and 313.

And the fact that witnesses saw a sniper in that 6th floor window, only means that the man there was one of the snipers.

If you could produce a silenced rifle, or a custom made silencer, or commercially available silencer from 1963, or perhaps KGB or CIA custom weapons from the day you would have so much more traceable information to work with.

I wish I could, but consider the last several hundred terrorist assassinations or attacks in which none of them were wounded. How many left their rifles behind?

These things would have only been made by a small group of people, and would have been used by a smaller group of people. This would set the foundation for a plausible line on inquiry. You just assume a silenced weapon was present without any solid grounds to do so.

If you were a hit man in the mafia, would you want a suppressed weapon in your arsenal?

As for "solid ground", I don't know how much solider it could get, than that at least one of the early shots was heard by no one or almost no one.

Think about the Connallys. Nellie heard one shot and then looked back at JFK circa 258. She heard a second shot, some time after that, which she believed, wounded her husband. Obviously, she never heard 223.

Now consider her husband. He heard one shot and then only FELT the second one. He also never heard 223.

Greer heard ONE shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Kellerman heard one shot and then a flurry at the end.

Jackie requires some rather complex explanation, but I can show you that she heard the same thing the others did.

And they heard pretty much the same thing that the other DP witnesses heard.

The 223 shot was inaudible or close enough that it was silent to most people.

Just to throw this in, why have a second shooter present armed with a rifle that wasn't going to hit anything?

It did. The 223 shot obviously hit JFK and probably Connally.

Nobody has presented an example of the Mob killing someone with a rifle at range. They usually conduct their hits face-to-face.

Perhaps, but humans are adaptable. They did what they needed to do under the circumstances.

Why kill a President when you could blackmail him? There's no money in dead bodies.

Marcello wasn't after money. He hated the Kennedys probably more than anyone on Earth, after Bobby relentlessly hounded him and had him dragged him out of his house in the middle of the night, then flown to Guatemala, dumping him in the jungle with not much more than the shirt on his back.

And Marcello was the butt of Bobby's joke, because he had falsely stated on his immigration papers that his home country was Guatemala. Of course Bobby knew that as well as he did.

Marcello was heard to have sworn to murder JFK (not Bobby). I'm sure you are familiar with his alleged comments about killing the dog and the tail will die. He confessed to ordering that crime to an FBI informant as well as mafia attorney, Frank Ragano.

 

[Robert Harris]

You explained what you think is evidence and proof, but you did not prove anything.

I'm sorry Sandy but there are too many people now who are willing to discuss this with specificity, for me to waste time on those who just blurt out things, without a shred of evidence or even explanation.

Show me specifically where you think I went wrong, so that we at least have something to talk about, and I will be happy to reply.

 

[JayUtah]

Show me specifically where you think I went wrong...

Confusing the 130 dB of the muzzle shockwave with the shockwave of the bullet. Because a volume of 130-137 dB was measured within 10 feet of the rifle muzzle, where it catches the explosive expulsion of propellant gas, you somehow think that translates to the same sound level (130 dB) measured within 10 feet of wherever the bullet goes, even dozens or hundreds of feet from the muzzle. The bullet shockwave is formed by entirely different physics, has a different shape, different decay profile, and consequently a different volume.

And yes, I've read your article on the subject and you just pluck numbers out of the air (pun intended) after making the qualitative error of confusing muzzle shockwave with bullet shockwave.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm sorry Sandy but there are too many people now who are willing to discuss this with specificity, for me to waste time on those who just blurt out things, without a shred of evidence or even explanation.

Show me specifically where you think I went wrong, so that we at least have something to talk about, and I will be happy to reply.

You pointed out where Kellerman exhibits what appears to you to be "startle reactions." (You have used this term to refer both to involuntary, reflex reactions and to other things that people may do when they are startled. For example, raising a hand to one ear would be the latter.) This impression does not amount to empirical proof. There are other possibilities for his actions (which, I would add, cannot be seen and defined as clearly as you like to claim). I can't imagine, in fact, how your proposition could be proved.

And I'm afraid the people here who have been addressing the specifics of your argument will find this statement quite banal and self-evident.

 

[CORed]

That certainly is a deep and meaningful analysis.

Did you also diss Posner and Bugliosi for describing a bullet that was also "nearly silent and for which no bullet was ever found"??

Since you seem to have this all figured out, perhaps you will explain why most witnesses only heard one of the early shots and why neither of them were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see, following 285 and 313.

I'm sure you realize that Oswald's rifle was proven to have generated a 130 decibel sound level at street level and that the early shots would have been louder and more startling to the limo passengers than the later ones, if Oswald had fired them all.

[qimg]http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif[/qimg]

It's as deep and meaningful an analysis as your claim deserves. In support of your claim of a fourth shot and second shooter, all you have offered is an opinion that some movement by passengers in Kennedy's car could only be a reaction to a gunshot. I find this claim totally unconvincing. For Oswald's three shots, we have a weapon, and empty shell casings. You, unlike many others, at least have enough sense not to claim that Oswald didn't fire those shots, but you have failed miserably in your attempt to show that there were any other shots fired.

No matter how you try to dress it up as irrefutable proof, what you have offered is a poorly supported opinion that the forward movement of passengers was a reaction to gunshot, when it could just as easily been a result of the driver lifting his foot off the gas or tapping the brake.

Even by the CT standard of showing the common narrative to be impossible, or even unlikely, you have failed miserably.

 

[JayUtah]

...and to other things that people may do when they are startled.

Or simply when they hear something. Being startled involuntarily by a loud noise is not the same as reacting to a sound by turning to see what it is. And that sound need not be percussive; it can be the commotion of people realizing they're being shot at.

 

[Robert Harris]

Confusing the 130 dB of the muzzle shockwave with the shockwave of the bullet. Because a volume of 130-137 dB was measured within 10 feet of the rifle muzzle, where it catches the explosive expulsion of propellant gas, you somehow think that translates to the same sound level (130 dB) measured within 10 feet of wherever the bullet goes, even dozens or hundreds of feet from the muzzle. The bullet shockwave is formed by entirely different physics, has a different shape, different decay profile, and consequently a different volume.

And yes, I've read your article on the subject and you just pluck numbers out of the air (pun intended) after making the qualitative error of confusing muzzle shockwave with bullet shockwave.

Sigh...

Barger,

..the shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle... The shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels. The muzzle blast at 30 feet is more intense. It has an intensity of 137 decibels

 

[Robert Harris]

Or simply when they hear something. Being startled involuntarily by a loud noise is not the same as reacting to a sound by turning to see what it is.

Those who turned following 285, turned away from the source of the sound. Those are called evasive reactions.

And that sound need not be percussive; it can be the commotion of people realizing they're being shot at.

The people who reacted then, told us exactly what they were hearing then and it wasn't "commotion" or sirens. They were hearing gunshots.

 

[Robert Harris]

It's as deep and meaningful an analysis as your claim deserves. In support of your claim of a fourth shot and second shooter, all you have offered is an opinion that some movement by passengers in Kennedy's car could only be a reaction to a gunshot.

How many of the articles and presentations that I have linked here, have you read/viewed? I'm betting it's less than one.

If you have not studied them all, then how do you know that an "opinion" is all I have presented? You couldn't possibly have studied any of my analyses if you think that "opinion" is all I have to offer.

If you want to attack my work, the least you could is read this brief article, so you have a clue about what you are attacking.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

 

[Robert Harris]

You pointed out where Kellerman exhibits what appears to you to be "startle reactions." (You have used this term to refer both to involuntary, reflex reactions and to other things that people may do when they are startled. For example, raising a hand to one ear would be the latter.) This impression does not amount to empirical proof. There are other possibilities for his actions (which, I would add, cannot be seen and defined as clearly as you like to claim). I can't imagine, in fact, how your proposition could be proved.

And I'm afraid the people here who have been addressing the specifics of your argument will find this statement quite banal and self-evident.

I'll let this, make my case.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'll let this, make my case.

So it is just your opinion and interpretation. Nothing you are willing to discuss in detail, just something along the lines of 'he looks startled to me so he is startled'?

 

[Tomtomkent]

How many of the articles and presentations that I have linked here, have you read/viewed? I'm betting it's less than one.

If you have not studied them all, then how do you know that an "opinion" is all I have presented? You couldn't possibly have studied any of my analyses if you think that "opinion" is all I have to offer.

There is another explanation.

It could be that the articles and presentations you offer rely too heavily upon subjective interpretation and offer too little objective evidence.

Unfortunately that is possible, given your posts here, despite your claim otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

This is crazy.

Sure is.

I'm sorry, but I have a bit an advantage over you when it comes to knowing what I did.

That remains to be seen.

I'm sure you realize that Oswald's rifle was proven to have generated a 130 decibel sound level at street level and that the early shots would have been louder and more startling to the limo passengers than the later ones, if Oswald had fired them all.

You throw words around like "demonstrated" and "proven", but we have nothing more than your word on many of those.

No it isn't. My use of that word was spot on and conveyed exactly what I wanted to say.

Then you simply don't know what the word means, and I can't help you. You believe that simply stating something amounts to proving it. No wonder you're so convinced of stuff you make up.

No sir, "assertions" are pretty much all we do around here

Well, at least you admit ti.

 

[Belz...]

Better yet, why don't you explain in detail, why you believe that my little Kellerman presentation fails to make my case.

Stop shifting the burden of proof.

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, and we're all lazy and have too many children so we can get bigger welfare checks.

Straw man argument.

I'm sorry, but I have a bit an advantage over you when it comes to knowing what I did.

I'm sorry, you don't. Your posts are public here, and you've already said you don't take the time to check back to see what was being referenced in earlier posts. Another poster [turingtest] illustrated it quite nicely, showing you were referencing Kellerman, then suddenly threw Greer's recollection into the discussion.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10754907#post10754907

To which you admitted:

I deal with numerous posts in a somewhat assembly line manner and it is tedious and time consuming to look up a post and the posts preceding it...

You also admitted to being careless.

Anyway, as you have reminded me, I'm starting to get sloppy.

It's clear you're just throwing mud against the wall with many of your assertions to see what you can get to stick.

Yes, to be honest, I assumed that it was the Zapruder film since it is almost the only film I ever mention, but I have no idea what the full context was and I couldn't possibly care less. I don't obsess on myself like some folks do.

Nobody is obsessing on YOU. I'm dealing with the facts of the case, which you seem to take great liberties with, throwing around assertions having little or no basis in fact (Tague film, Jim Braden, shot from the Dal-Tex building, Katzenbach memo , scant evidence Oswald fired a shot, witnesses for a shot at Z285, Ellsworth recollection, etc. etc.)

When I correct your incorrect assertions, you just ignore them or say you don't care what the facts are (" I have no idea what the full context was and I couldn't possibly care less").

But these are points you raised as evidence of conspiracy. If you're not willing to defend your claims, and if you don't care what the truth is, why are you making them? Just to spam the board?

And what I did has no relevance whatsoever to what Ellsworth did or remembered. This is all a waste of bandwidth.

You referenced the supposed Tague film (which doesn't exist), then excused it *four hours later* by saying you meant the Zapruder film, which is clearly not the case. You couldn't recollect what transpired over 240 minutes, yet you're quoting Ellsworth's recollection from more than 2400 days after the assassination. And that illustrates the issue with citing Ellsworth's recollection nicely.

I doubt there is a member of this forum who didn't know that you were going to say Ellsworth was full of crap. I could have written your post for you and probably have done a better job

Thank you for admitting you're aware of the issues with Ellsworth's recollection. Yet you've thus far failed to address any of those issues. You're just assuming Ellsworth's memory is 100% correct decades after the event despite there being no contemporaneous evidence of a rifle discovered on a different floor of the Depository.

And I see you didn't remark on the evidence contrary to Ellsworth's recollection, merely snipping it so as to better avoid it. Let's put it back here:

I see several reasons to doubt him.

1. There's no corroboration for his recollection.
2. His recollection is from decades after the fact.
3. The contemporaneous testimony and memos put the recovered weapon on the same floor as the recovered shells.
4. Photos and films show the weapon recovered was on the sixth floor.
5. No photos and films exist of this supposed other rifle.
6. Only one weapon was removed from the Depository on the afternoon of 11/22/63 - the MC with the serial # C2766.

Why should we trust the outlier recollection? Why do you put any credibility into it, when you can't remember what you were arguing a few hours earlier?

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Can you show where the occupants of the car do react to the deceleration event if not at 285?

 

[Belz...]

I'll let this, make my case.

That is why you fail.

 

[JayUtah]

How many of the articles and presentations that I have linked here, have you read/viewed? I'm betting it's less than one.

Or it could just as easily be all of them, rendering your presumptive pleadings that follow invalid.

 

[JayUtah]

..the shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle... The shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels. The muzzle blast at 30 feet is more intense. It has an intensity of 137 decibels

Oh, what a colossal pile of nonsense you've inferred from one data point. I said "wherever the bullet goes." I've asked you a number of times to fill in the math, but you simply always refer back to Barger and -- just like with all your other experts -- assume you know their science.