• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
You made an absolute statement.



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.



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



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

AFAICT, Robert's whole methodology consists of making assertions that beg the question ("startle reflexes"); every once in a while, though, he gets tricky and adds words like "obviously"- cleverly changing tactics by begging the question strenuously.
 
Last edited:
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.

cmikes wrote:

My understanding has always been that the American Mafia, especially at that time, had very strict rules when dealing with the authorities. I had always heard that to even kill off a beat cop or a low level judge was something that had to be approved at the highest levels of their organization, since something like that could easily bring down a world of hurt on them, that the authorities would be all over them in order to avenge "one of their own". So why would they jump immediately from "we have to be really careful about taking out a beat cop that won't play ball with us" to "let's kill the President of the United States"? Has anyone else ever heard this line of thought?

For a good primer on LCN I heartily recommend Thomas Reppetto’s book American Mafia


Reppetto is an ex-CPD detective and ended up a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. By his name I believe he’s Genovese, not Sicilian, but he certainly knows his subject matter from a practical viewpoint.

The chance that the hypothetical “beat cop” could actually pose a threat real enough to warrant being injured or killed by an LCN member or associate (from here on I’ll refer to LCN associates simply as KA’s – Known Associates) is more fiction than fact. The chance that a street cop would run into the situation where they’d encounter a LCN or KA doing serious business is pretty much slim to none, and the types of bad actors a street cop might encounter at all would at best be the lowest level of LCN operator one could find – some guy moving a car, running errands, that type of thing, and issuing a citation isn’t something that’s going to merit Big Guy involvement and violence.

The Mafia and how they operate here in the U.S can be best viewed and explained by dividing it into two parts chronologically – before the establishment of The Commission and after.

Look, I hate to blow off this rather immense history and explanation of normal mafia tactics in such a brief manner, but this was not a typical, mafia hit. It was a personal vendetta by Carlos Marcello, who suffered the greatest humiliation of his life, when he was the butt of Bobby Kennedy's joke, of literally kidnapping Marcello, dragging him out of his home in the middle of the night and dumping him in the jungles of Guatemala with little more than the shirt on his back.

Bobby's act was probably illegal and certainly, a joke at Marcello's expense, since everyone knew that he lied when he claimed citizenship in Guatemala. It would have been surprising if Marcello hadn't attempted to seek revenge.

Marcello was heard to swear that he would kill JFK (not Bobby) as he explained in his infamous "tail of the dog" rant. Later, he confessed to ordering the assassination, to an FBI informant as well as Frank Ragano, who was also told by Trafficante, that Marcello was behind the assassination.

The bottom line here is, that this was a totally different and unique situation. It is irrelevant what the mob "usually" did in the past. And it wouldn't matter anyway, so long as the killers didn't get caught.

Have you seen this article, by the Pulitzer prize winning editor of Rolling Stone, Howard Kohn? Kohn had developed contacts with investigators for the HSCA, and made the the amazing discovery that within 24 hours after they had been calling mafia contacts, trying to subpoena Charles Nicoletti, the man was murdered.

http://jfkhistory.com/mobsters/Nicoletti.html

Did you also know that Sam Giancana was murdered exactly five days before he was to testify before the Church committee, investigating connections between the CIA and the mob?

And did you know that shortly after testifying about the mob's connection to the JFK case, and telling the Washington Post that the mob ordered Ruby to kill Oswald, Johnny Roselli's dismembered body was found floating in an oil drum off the coast of Miami?

Marcello told the FBI informant that David Ferrie was an accomplice who introduced him to Oswald in a meeting at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans.

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that almost immediately following newspaper stories that Ferrie was being investigated by Garrison, he was found dead? Yes, the coroner claimed it was by "natural causes", but Marcello is well known to have had public officials in his pocket and in fact, they finally got him convicted for bribing a public official.

Tell me, in his like of work, who would be the FIRST one on his shopping list?

As for the rest of your article, please break it into smaller parts. Taking on the entire forum, I just don't have time to deal with that much data in one sitting.
 
Last edited:
AFAICT, Robert's whole methodology consists of making assertions that beg the question ("startle reflexes"); every once in a while, though, he gets tricky and adds words like "obviously"- cleverly changing tactics by begging the question strenuously.

I think you worry waaaay too much about Robert, and waaaay too little about the case. Are you having a problem answering my very simple questions?

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?

nellie2.gif
 
Robert Harris said:
AFAICT, Robert's whole methodology consists of making assertions that beg the question ("startle reflexes"); every once in a while, though, he gets tricky and adds words like "obviously"- cleverly changing tactics by begging the question strenuously.

I think you worry waaaay too much about Robert, and waaaay too little about the case.

Actually, his remarks were about Robert's methodology.
Such as it is.
 
You made an absolute statement.

Nothing gets by you, does it:-)

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."

The question of whether I have presented "verifiable facts" is a debate topic. I have presented countless facts which I claim, constitute, verifiable evidence.

If you disagree, then be specific about which you think I have misidentified, and then proceed to make your case.

You keep trying to make this about "Robert Harris", instead of the facts and evidence related to this crime.
 
Actually, his remarks were about Robert's methodology.
Such as it is.

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?

nellie2.gif
 
The question of whether I have presented "verifiable facts" is a debate topic. I have presented countless facts which I claim, constitute, verifiable evidence.

If you disagree, then be specific about which you think I have misidentified, and then proceed to make your case.

You keep trying to make this about "Robert Harris", instead of the facts and evidence related to this crime.

Not at all, I am addressing your methodology, and I and others have already pointed out the things that you are assuming as factual sans proof (i.e., begging the question).

Claims, assertions do not amount to evidence.

If I were in your shoes, the fact that no one is convinced or even intrigued would give me pause, even if I hadn't understood the critiques (as you apparently do not).
 
Robert's so invested in this whole silly game of his that he will never see the difference.

And, no, Robert- I'm not playing your childish games. If you were really as interested in "the truth" as you pretentiously claim to be, you wouldn't feel the need to play them.

Socratic questioning is NOT a game, my friend. It is the standard of every form of civilized debate on the planet.

What is a "game" is evading the tough questions.
 
Not at all, I am addressing your methodology, and I and others have already pointed out the things that you are assuming as factual sans proof (i.e., begging the question).

How many times do I have to refute this same idiotic accusation?

I have presented a mountain of evidence to justify my presumptions.

You haven't even made a serious attempt to prove me wrong.

And when I give you wide open opportunities to prove me wrong, based entirely on YOUR ANSWERS to some of the most critical questions, all you come up with are lame excuses.

I have done my job by presenting numerous, detailed articles and presentations. The ball is in your court now, and has been since the first day I posted to this forum.
 
It is the standard of every form of civilized debate on the planet.

No, only of Socratic debates. Trying to force a dialectical debate is just another way of trying to direct it. Bombarding your critics with a flurry of turnabout questions every time they put a question to you is not the Socratic method.
 
Attempt to switch the burden of proof.

Perhaps I can help you out with this.

The Socratic method of questioning has nothing to do with burden of proof. It is fundamental to all forms of debate in the civilized world.

And even demands of evidence do not constitute a switched burden of proof, if the request is to provide evidence to support a specific assertion, made by the questioned party.

I'm surprised that you don't realize these very fundamental principles.

And speaking of questions, would you like to answer one or two? Or would you rather evade questions, like your friends?
 
No, only of Socratic debates.

Interesting. How many debates have you heard in which there were no questions?

How many debates have you heard in which asking questions was not acceptable or even expected?

Socratic questioning is fundamental to debate. Evasion is fundamental to dishonestly.
 
Good, then no doubt you won't evade the questions asked of you since you have the burden of proof.

You don't want to admit to dishonesty, do you?

What is your coherent alternative hypothesis for the JFK assassination?

I answered that question at least a dozen times and have linked the relevant presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

Now it's your turn. Are you up for a question or two?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom