Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

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

Circular reasoning. "Away from the source of the sound" presumes you know the reason for their behavior. But you're trying to prove what that reason is as part of your claim.

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

Only for certain values of "then." Your timeline is alternatively fluid when you need it to be in order to interpret the witness statements, then razor sharp when you're dissecting people's movements frame by frame.

 

[grmcdorman]

I take a few days off to observe Independence Day and the thread goes wild!

I’ll try to answer questions as best I can going through the thread - if I miss something please don’t take offense.
...
[snip lengthy and good post]

And this is what makes these threads worthwhile (see also the Electric Comet thread in Sci, Math, Med & Tech, the Turin Shroud thread in R&P, and others). Thanks BStrong.

 

[Robert Harris]

Circular reasoning. "Away from the source of the sound" presumes you know the reason for their behavior. But you're trying to prove what that reason is as part of your claim.

As you know, I was responding to your assertion,

Being startled involuntarily by a loud noise is not the same as reacting to a sound by turning to see what it is.

None of those reactions involved someone turning in the direction of the noise. That's why I pointed out your error by explaining that they turned "away from the source of the sound". This was not "circular reasoning". I was just pointing out another of your mistakes.

Only for certain values of "then."

"Then" was when the reactions occurred.. duh.

Your timeline is alternatively fluid when you need it to be in order to interpret the witness statements, then razor sharp when you're dissecting people's movements frame by frame.

That's a ridiculous argument. Here is what I said,

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

The reactions to the final shots were at the end of the attack, which is exactly when most of the witnesses said they were fired. The time of the reactions was perfectly consistent with when the shots were heard.

There was no need for "razor sharp" time calculations by the people who reported the shots. The fact that they occurred at the end of the attack, and were the last shots they heard, takes care of that.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Thanks BStrong.

Hear, hear! Very nice job.

 

[JayUtah]

I was just pointing out another of your mistakes.

But you missed the point of the post, which was to differentiate between different types and degrees of reactions that are possible.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hear, hear! Very nice job.

 

[Robert Harris]

But you missed the point of the post, which was to differentiate between different types and degrees of reactions that are possible.

I don't think so. Stating that, "Being startled involuntarily by a loud noise is not the same as reacting to a sound by turning to see what it is."


clearly implied that I was doing that. If that was not your intention, then you should have been more clear, since almost everything you assert is some form of attempted rebuttal.

 

[JayUtah]

...you should have been more clear...

I'm being more clear now. The point of the post was to differentiate qualitatively between the different types and degrees of reaction that are possible. I would like you to discuss how your method addresses that.

 

[Robert Harris]

Isn't this the topic that you've been involved with for the last 20 years? It seems very important to you. So important that you see every challenge to your pet hypothesis as an affront to you personally. And yet you got something wrong. Do you see what Hank is trying to get you to see?

Mods, this was an analogy.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Ambiguous, nonspecific accusations don't cut it.

The passage you cited, didn't even hint that I thought I was being "affronted personally", nor did anything else in that post.

Edited by Agatha: 

edited breach of rule 12

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm being more clear now. The point of the post was to differentiate qualitatively between the different types and degrees of reaction that are possible. I would like you to discuss how your method addresses that.

The different types of what? Please be specific.

And whatever sin you are accusing me of, you bear the burden of proving.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

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

I guess that means you agree, Bob. But I hope you will give a more detailed response to BStrong's excellent post.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm being more clear now. The point of the post was to differentiate qualitatively between the different types and degrees of reaction that are possible. I would like you to discuss how your method addresses that.

The different types of what? Please be specific.

"the different types and degrees of reaction that are possible."

And whatever sin you are accusing me of, you bear the burden of proving.

 

[JayUtah]

The different types of what? Please be specific.

And whatever sin you are accusing me of, you bear the burden of proving.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10755289#post10755289

 

[Robert Harris]

"Sinister motives"? Not at all- that's why I asked why you thought BazBear was referring to Greer when he was responding to your post about Kellerman.

It's also why I posited two choices- dishonest, or can't keep up. Since you seem to only be able to see and take umbrage at the "sinister" one, I cheerfully withdraw the "sinister" interpretation and grant you the more charitable one of "can't keep up."

Sadly, I must admit that in this case, that was true. I do rush a bit, and sometimes fail to pay a lot of attention, especially when dealing with arguments that lack substance.

"Can't keep up" it is then. Doesn't say much for your mad detecting skills that you couldn't do so when, in fact, both the post you were responding to and yours (that he was responding to) were visible on the same page.

Edited by Agatha: 

edited breach of rule 11

I guess we're not supposed to accuse anyone of ad hominem obsessions, so I won't do that. Instead, I'll just wait until you get around to discussing my favorite topic.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The passage you cited, didn't even hint that I thought I was being "affronted personally", nor did anything else in that post.

You mean other than this which I had quoted you saying verbatim as you ask?

You are attacking me for what Greer said.

LOL.

 

[Robert Harris]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10755289#post10755289

So, you are implying that the limo passengers reactions were caused by a "commotion", rather than a gunshot?

Is that correct?

Ok, do you think this "commotion" that Greer never heard, generated sound levels of 130 decibels? Were they loud enough to provoke reactions like Kellerman's?

Do you think that the limo passengers and other witnesses just mistook this "commotion", for rifle shots?

My crazy conspiracy theory, is that they heard what they said they did, and that one of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century, was correct, in stating that there was a startling noise at frame 285.

I think they were corroborated by the ridiculously obvious reactions to that shot, which began at precisely the instant that Zapruder's reaction began - defining "precisely" as in the same 1/18th of one second.

Cutting to the chase Jay, if you were betting with the devil and faced with shoveling poop without air conditioning for eternity, if you were wrong, what would you say is the most probable cause of those reactions?

 

[JayUtah]

So, you are implying...
Is that correct?

No, just asking for the details of your methodology.

Ok, do you...

Do you think...

Do not try to shift the burden of proof.

I think they were corroborated by the ridiculously obvious reactions to that shot...

I'm looking for more detail in your methodology than simply labeling something "obvious." Will you kindly provide it?

Cutting to the chase Jay, if you were betting with the devil and faced with shoveling poop without air conditioning for eternity, if you were wrong, what would you say is the most probable cause of those reactions?

Please answer my question without trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[turingtest]

Sadly, I must admit that in this case, that was true. I do rush a bit, and sometimes fail to pay a lot of attention, especially when dealing with arguments that lack substance.

Edited by Agatha: 

edited previously moderated content

I guess we're not supposed to accuse anyone of ad hominem obsessions, so I won't do that. Instead, I'll just wait until you get around to discussing my favorite topic.

You see that little arrow in the box next to my screen name in your quote of me? What that does is link directly back to the entirety of that post.

Edited by Agatha: 

edited breach of rule 12

 

[Belz...]

Please be specific.

You're repeating this way too often. Seems like a dodge, to me.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, just asking for the details of your methodology.

Excellent. So can we agree that these reactions were not caused by a commotion in the limo?

And BTW, would you please stop deleting parts of my statements that you are replying to? Anyone following our debates, needs to see the full context of my arguments.

Do not try to shift the burden of proof.

Nonsense. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I only asked for your opinion. Misusing this "burden of proof" thing is poor way to evade the tough questions, Jay.

I'm looking for more detail in your methodology that simply labeling something "obvious." Will you kindly provide it?

There is no need to concern yourself with anyone's "methodology". The verifiable facts and evidence I have presented, make my case. You would need to deal with them if I had never been born.

Diverting the conversation to irrelevant arguments about me, is not the way to get this stuff right.

Please answer my question without trying to shift the burden of proof.

I did no such thing and you know it. You constantly use that phony excuse to evade the tough question's, Jay.

Socratic questioning is SOP in virtually every form of debate, from the courtroom, to congressional hearings, to high school debates, and to every forum in the civilized world, in which controversial issues are discussed.

When you dodge questions, you are actually saying that you cannot answer without demeaning your position.

I have answered countless questions by you guys, in a straightforward manner, often accompanied by a small mountain of verifiable evidence.

When you evade a simple question, asking for your opinion, you suggest that your opinion is the same as mine.

Why couldn't you have just said, "No, I think that it is more probable that they were reacting to 'commotion'"?