Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Belz...]

ridiculously obvious reactions

In other words, they seem that way to you and you can't fathom why anyone else would interpret them differently.

 

[JayUtah]

Excellent. So can we agree...

Do not assume statements I never made. You asked me if I was implying a certain thing. I was not. That does not mean I agree with your assertions.

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.

There are scrollbars and back reference links for that. Do not attempt to direct the debate.

Nonsense. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I only asked for your opinion.

Asking me what I think happened instead, as a response to me asking upon what basis you have asserted a certain thing, is shifting the burden of proof.

There is no need to concern yourself with anyone's "methodology". The verifiable facts and evidence I have presented, make my case.

Then I have my answer regarding how strong a case that is. Thank you.

 

[BStrong]

RH -

I took the time to provide a detailed explanation of suppressed weapons, subsonic ammunition and suppressor technology circa 1963.

If you can refute my observations with factual information proving otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[grmcdorman]

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?

That's not what he said, Mr. Harris. There is no agreement in any of his posts that the 'reactions were not caused by a commotion' (or a disagreement, for that matter). He is asking how one determines that a reaction, if any, is a 'startle' reaction. To be specific, I do not see anywhere where the methodology for making this determination has been explained.

 

[JayUtah]

I took the time to provide a detailed explanation of suppressed weapons, subsonic ammunition and suppressor technology circa 1963.

And also a detailed explanation of organized crime. I'd like to see a little more regarding that from Robert beyond the cheerleader icon. It affects directly the credibility of the notion that an officer in American organized crime would order the assassination of a U.S. head of state.

 

[Belz...]

Everybody is in on the conspiracy! The mafia, the government, the Russians, the Cubans. They got together and planned this. Everyone at the plaza was a sniper. They altered the video, altered the body, bribed the Warren commission and every other expert in the world, just to replace a president.

You'd think it'd be easier to just pay Oswald to do what he was already inclined to do, instead.

 

[BStrong]

And also a detailed explanation of organized crime. I'd like to see a little more regarding that from Robert beyond the cheerleader icon. It affects directly the credibility of the notion that an officer in American organized crime would order the assassination of a U.S. head of state.

Thanks Jay, and I'd like to point out that I started out being indoctrinated at home from just about day one to believe that LCN did the deed, but I went out into the world and learned enough first hand to make it impossible for me to believe that they in fact did assassinate JFK.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not assume statements I never made. You asked me if I was implying a certain thing. I was not. That does not mean I agree with your assertions.

I asked you a question, which you evaded, just like you have evaded countless others. I asked,

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

The answer requires only a single syllable reply and you certainly didn't have to agree. So why wont you answer me?

There are scrollbars and back reference links for that. Do not attempt to direct the debate.

Why would you force your readers to go seek out my statements, especially since you know that most people won't be bothered to do that.

Deleting large portions of my arguments, makes it easy to take my statements out of context, but it's a poor way to debate.

Asking me what I think happened instead, as a response to me asking upon what basis you have asserted a certain thing, is shifting the burden of proof.

Utter nonsense. I have posted countless messages, article and presentations, which explain very precisely, the justifications for my claims.

How many more excuses will you have for evading the important questions and issues?

Here are the issues and questions you evaded, by your massive deletions of my post. Perhaps you can respond with answers, rather than excuses.

You saidPlease 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'"?

 

[JayUtah]

So why wont you answer me?

I have the answer to my question. Thank you.

 

[HSienzant]

There is no need to concern yourself with anyone's "methodology".

So science is not spoken in your household?

That might help to explain your beliefs in a shot at Z285, and a suppressed shot at Z223, and a possible additional head shot after Z313, which apparently hit the president in the head and created a massive hole in the back of his head that only your untrained eye can discern but left no damage apparent to the doctors who performed the autopsy.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm

And the belief that a coverup was espoused by Katzenbach.
And that a shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building, despite there being no evidence of same.
And that Jim Braden was involved in the assassination.
Etc.

No science, and no logic. Got it.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

I have the answer to my question. Thank you.

But I don't have the answers to mine.

Why do you evade the large majority of my arguments and questions?

Why do you pretend that a simple, highly relevant question is an attempt to "shift the burden of proof", when you know all too well, that I wasn't asking you to prove anything?

What's next? The sun got in your eyes

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Why would you cite someone whose statement is demonstrably false? I have only stated that Carlos Marcello was behind the assassination. That was also the opinion of the head of the HSCA

Oh, the same HSCA that concluded it had found no evidence of mob involvement? Despite the chief's own ideas about the assassination?

and the most respected JFK researchers, including Anthony Summers.

Respected by whom? Ha ha.

Oh, almost forgot. That was also the opinion of Carlos Marcello.

That was the boast of Carlos Marcello. To a nobody sharing his cell, wasn't it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

But I don't have the answers to mine.

What questions do you have?

 

[JayUtah]

Why do you evade the large majority of my arguments and questions?

Because they're little more than distraction. I asked you some questions about your methodology. You provided an answer. Thank you for cooperating.

 

[Robert Harris]

So science is not spoken in your household?

Why do you cite me out of context and then totally misrepresent my argument? I said,

"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."

I simply stated that the evidence trumps anything related to methodology, NOT that methodology is unimportant. And in fact, no one has even come close to demonstrating that my methodology is flawed.

Edited by Agatha: 

edited breach of rule 11

That might help to explain your beliefs in a shot at Z285, and a suppressed shot at Z223,

It sure does. My statement (in it's proper context) that the evidence trumps all, explains perfectly, my conclusion that there was a shot at 285 and a suppressed shot at 223.

Are you prepared, to explain why only one of the early shots was audible to most witnesses?

Are you prepared to explain why Oswald's 130 decibel rifle shots failed to cause reactions that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

Your endless, silly accusations related to everything except my table manners is, meaningless. It's just a way of diverting the discussion away from the verifiable, empirical evidence, which is ALL that matters.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm thinking that this would only be true if you happen to clip off, as you've done here, fully half a post that does, in fact, discuss your favorite topic.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you are prepared to discuss the case. Perhaps you will provide a few simple answers that your colleagues have been dodging.


Mrs Connally testified that she heard one shot and then looked back and saw JFK with his hand raised up to the level of his face.

She said that some time after that she heard a second 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 that second shot?

3. Do you see anyone else reacting then?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Why do you cite me out of context and then totally misrepresent my argument? I said,

"There is no need to concern yourself with anyone's "methodology".

You made an absolute statement.

The verifiable facts and evidence I have presented, make my case. You would need to deal with them if I had never been born."

But the whole issue is the way you have determined, to your own satisfaction (and apparently no one else's), that you are presenting "verifiable facts."

You are the only person I am aware of who has claimed they can determine with any degree of certainty that people are exhibiting clinically definable startle reflex reactions (as well as other indications that they have been startled, although you do not seem to grasp this distinction) and that this proves a shot around Zapruder frame 285.

The only way to determine if you are on to something there is to examine the method by which you have arrived at this conclusion.

Your methodology has been found to be, well... virtually nonexistent.

I simply stated that the evidence trumps anything related to methodology, NOT that methodology is unimportant. And in fact, no one has even come close to demonstrating that my methodology is flawed.

Ludicrously untrue.
The majority of posts responding to you here have pointed out flaws in your methodology. That is, when they have not pointed out factual and scientific errors.

Are you prepared, to explain why only one of the early shots was audible to most witnesses?

Begs the question, as explained above.
More question-begging below:

Are you prepared to explain why Oswald's 130 decibel rifle shots failed cause reactions that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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 that second shot?

3. Do you see anyone else reacting then?

Attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[BStrong]

But I don't have the answers to mine.

Why do you evade the large majority of my arguments and questions?

Why do you pretend that a simple, highly relevant question is an attempt to "shift the burden of proof", when you know all too well, that I wasn't asking you to prove anything?

What's next? The sun got in your eyes

I was just going to ask you the same question.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oswald's 130 decibel rifle shots

You haven't given any indication yet that you appreciated Jay's setting you straight on the physics for the shockwave of the bullet, as opposed to the shockwave from the muzzle blast.