Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

Asked and answered. Kellerman *surmised* a flurry based on the number of wounds the two limo passengers suffered:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.
Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--
Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.
Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

You need to read your own citation. Kellerman never said that he "surmised a flurry based on the number of wounds the two limo passengers suffered."

He was arguing that there was MORE than three shots.

But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

And why did you leave this little tidbit out?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least.


Kellerman heard the same thing that all the other witnesses heard. You shouldn't misrepresent his testimony.

Asked and answered. Greer could have been hearing the impact of the bullet on the skull, and then the arrival of the sound of the bullet being fired.

Nonsense. He felt that concussion, at the time of the SECOND shot, not the third.

The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it.

Concussion: a violent shock as from a heavy blow. "the ground shuddered with the concussion of the blast"

I have no idea what your point is. We both know that he wasn't talking about being bashed in the head by a ball bat.

Greer could have felt the impact of a piece of brain matter or skull upon his person. All the other passengers in the car described how the car was pelted with brain matter after the shot that struck JFK in the head.

He very well might, but that had nothing to do with the "concussion" he felt from the second shot. Did you even read his testimony?

For example, Governor Connally not only described the brain matter, he clearly differentiated between the sound of the final bullet being fired and the sound of the impact on the head.
== QUOTE ==
Governor CONNALLY. ... and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise,just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

I have no idea what you are talking about. He never said anything even remotely like what you claimed. In fact, he was very clear that he only heard two shots in total. Unlike the other witnesses, he only heard one of the final shots, which isn't too surprising, considering that he was only a few seconds from losing consciousness.

Nellie Connally also spoke of being pelted with brain matter from the President's head shot.
== QUOTE ==
The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.
== UNQUOTE ==

I have no idea what your point is.

Roy Kellerman also described it.
== QUOTE ==
Senator COOPER. One other question: You said the flurry of shots came in the car. You were leaning forward talking to the driver after the first shot. What made you aware of a flurry of shots?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.
Senator COOPER. What was that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Body matter; flesh.
Senator COOPER. When you were speaking of a flurry of shots, was there a longer interval between the first shot and the second shot as compared to the interval between the second shot and the third shot?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?
Mr. KELLERMAN. When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice it flying past you at any time prior to your arrival at the hospital?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; I know there was something in the air.
Mr. SPECTER. When, in relation to the shots, Mr. Kellerman, did you notice the substance in the air?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Fine. When I have given the orders to Mr. Lawson, this is when it all came between the driver and myself.
Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe what it was in a little more detail as it appeared to you at that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. This is a rather poor comparison, but let's say you take a little handful of matter--I am going to use sawdust for want of a better item--and just throw it.
== UNQUOTE==

Yes, they said they were pelted with brain tissue, because they were.

WTH is your point?

Jackie said she heard two shots total. She was quite clear about that.

Actually, she wasn't. Her testimony seemed vague and contradictory in places. It took me years before it sunk in, but when the light finally came on, everything made perfect sense.

Mrs. Kennedy told two entirely different stories - one which included her original recollections and another, which was obviously, heavily altered. She prefaced the original/true version, with phrases like, "I used to believe".

Here is a key passage.

first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around,

Keep in mind, that she never believed that first "noise" was actually a gunshot. Not only did she describe it as nothing unusual, but we can see her trying to push JFK's arm down, obviously thinking he wasn't acting very presidential. Now look closely at that passage and let's dissect it a bit.

1.I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him,

Ok, so we know that she heard what she believed was the first shot, when she wasn't looking at her husband. But why wasn't she looking at him?

2. then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around


Ok, so now it becomes clear. She didn't see the "first shot" hit him, because Connally had drawn her attention to him. So, when did she turn her attention to Connally? I get frame 253. What do you get?

http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif

So the "first shot", which she believed, wounded her husband came after 253. That could only have been the 285 shot. Nellie thought that shot hit her husband and Jackie thought it hit hers. In reality, it almost certainly, didn't hit anyone. It missed and went on to cause Tague's minor wound.

I think Jackie agreed, probably with great reluctance, to change her story. How does she refuse an FBI agent telling her that if her testimony suggested conspiracy, that it could lead to WW3?

That's why she said she didn't remember retrieving brain tissue from the trunk. Of course she remembered it. She shouted immediately afterward that "I have my husband's brains in my hands", and then carried it all the way to Parkland, where she turned it over to Dr. Jenkins.

The FBI had to have interviewed Jackie and the Connallys, but where are the FD-302's for those interviews? Hoover and the justice dept. made their policy very clear, that the public must be convinced that Oswald acted alone. I think they meant it.

She said she read about a third.

No she didn't. She said her original recollection was that there were three. Please read her testimony so that you don't continue to misrepresent her.

She also said there was always noise in the motorcade, and she heard terrible noises (plural) while facing to her left,

Look at the full context of her testimony and her visible movements in the limo. When Connally began to shout, she turned to her LEFT, away from JFK and toward Connally. That's what she was talking about.

She was indeed, turned further to her left earlier, but she was quite clear that nothing she heard then sounded like a gunshot. The "terrible noises" all came after Connally began to shout.

then turned and saw her husband receiving a bullet.

Yes, but that was after Connally had drawn her attention away from her husband, at about 253. She thought he was "receiving a bullet" at 285.

Her testimony doesn't support your argument, unless you have a special interpretative device no one else has.

Read the full context of what she said, and particularly, her original, earliest recollections. She couldn't have supported me more if I had written her testimony for her.

== QUOTE ==
Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
Mr. RANKIN. Did he turn toward you?
Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything.
...
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember. And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two.
== UNQUOTE ==

This particular phrase is interesting.

Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling.

Mrs. Kennedy who was multilingual and went on to be an editor at Doubleday, would never have made a statement like that, which was basically gibberish. Obviously, Connally was not a gunshot

I think this was an error in transcription. She probably said,

Well, there must have been two because what made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling.

Besides being a coherent sentence, that is consistent with her other statement, I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around

No, we examined a lot of those witness claims, and found they are unclear, or susceptible of other interpretations.

No "interpretation" is required. Just read her testimony in full context and accept Gerald Posner's oft repeated advice to go with the witness's earliest recollections.

You are simply shoehorning the eyewitness statements into your theory, forcing pegs of various shapes into round holes.

No sir, not one of the three witnesses you cited, contradicted me. In fact, every one of them are among my star witnesses.

Yes, I do. I offered the bulk of this before, but you simply hand-waved it away, or ignored it entirely.

In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10748978#post10748978 you admitted there's no evidence of a shooter in the DalTex building, and then tried to make head-scratching meaningless excuses for why not. Like the building was never searched. But that's an excuse, not an explanation for why this weapon was never seen.

The absence of evidence found in an unsearched building doesn't mean much. The fact that Braden was there, who had connections to Ferrie and Marcello and was at the same hotel with Ruby, means a great deal.

In any other case, connections like that in conjunction with Braden being in arguably, the best sniper location in Dealey Plaza, would be setting off all kinds of alarms and would have resulted in his arrest and a great deal of investigation.

But I certainly don't claim that to be proof-positive of anything. The specific locations of the shooters is a secondary issue. All that matters, is that there are plausible locations for other shooters. The primary issue is that Oswald couldn't have fired the early shots, which obviously, did not come from a high powered, unsuppressed rifle, and he couldn't have fired all the final shots because they were too close together.

My explanation doesn't invoke multiple shooters that arrive unseen,

How do you know they were unseen? I seriously doubt that, considering that several hundred people were there that day. And Braden was certainly seen, by the elevator operator who placed him in the Daltex, and members of the Sheriff's dept.

What you really mean is, that they didn't flaunt their weapons, don't you?

fire unseen weapons, hit the President but leave no discernible damage to the autopsists, leave no fragments behind that are traceable to any weapons but Oswald's, and then vanish into thin air.

LOL!! Do you have any idea how ludicrous that argument is?? The fact that these guys wanted to remain unseen and avoid leaving an evidence trail, hardly suggests that they weren't there. It only means that they did exactly what any other snipers on the planet would have done.

Do you have any evidence, for example, of the Dal-Tex shooter and weapon you conjecture?

No. Did you think he would have left such evidence?

The weapon is never seen brought into the building,
The weapon is never seen fired from the building,
The weapon's bullet(s) cause(s) no discernible damage,

Nonsense, the 223 shot, obviously came from a different weapon than Oswald's. There is conclusive evidence of that.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

The weapon's bullet(s) leaves(s) no discernible remnants of bullet(s) behind

Wrong again. See the article, linked above.

The weapon is never seen removed from the building,
The weapon is never found within the building after the shooting.

Hank, all of this is irrelevant. People murdering a President, have a rather powerful motive to avoid leaving evidence behind or flaunting their weapons around Dealey Plaza, don't you think? Obviously, such weapons would have been broken down and carried in briefcases or some other innocent looking container.

You're just wasting bandwidth, describing what any sane sniper would have done and pretending that constitutes evidence that there were no accomplices.

Gee, almost like the weapon never existed at all.

In fact, exactly like the weapon never existed at all.

Sigh..

 

[Robert Harris]

I most assuredly do not accept your phantom gunshot as "fact". Cherry picking the witness statements that can be made to fit your pet theory doesn't constitute the creation of "facts"

How do I "cherry pick" what the WC confirmed was what "most" of those witnesses reported?

Your theory contradicts almost all of the witnesses who heard those shots.

Why don't you take a crack at answering those questions?

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

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

3. Do you see anyone else reacting then?

This very slow motion Zapruder segment should be helpful to you.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Here's what I see in that brief film: Mrs Connally, realising that something is wrong, looks back and forth and then leans in toward her husband to find out what the matter is.

I'm sorry, with all due respect for what you "see", I think I will stick with what she said happened, and what I can verify in the Zapruder film.

Your subjective opinions have no value, especially since we have detailed testimonies from the witnesses and an excellent view of what they actually did, which enables us to corroborate their statements and pinpoint the exact time in which they did them. Check this Zapruder segment and see if you don't agree.

http://jfkhistory.com/annotated.gif

 

[Tomtomkent]

LOL!! Do you have any idea how ludicrous that argument is?? The fact that these guys wanted to remain unseen and avoid leaving an evidence trail, hardly suggests that they weren't there. It only means that they did exactly what any other snipers on the planet would have done.

Any sniper on the planet would have not shot somebody to avoid leaving an evidence trail?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the complete lack of evidence for a somebody firing additional bullets from a location is not a good enough reason to be unconvinced of their existence?

What would you suggest we were convinced by in lieu of evidence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

How do I "cherry pick" what the WC confirmed was what "most" of those witnesses reported?

Your theory contradicts almost all of the witnesses who heard those shots.

The witnesses who heard the shots reported a large spread of numbers due to a number of reasons.

Can you directly quote the WC stating the number of shots most people heard? Supply the statistic?

Perhaps then we can discuss how they came to conclusion three shots were fired from the TSBD.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Your theory contradicts almost all of the witnesses who heard those shots.

It contradicts your interpretation of what the witnesses said.

Anyone who said anything along the lines of the last two reports being close together or almost at the same instant or closer together than the first shot they heard somehow gets lumped together into your preferred category of "about 1.5 seconds apart". It's really not compelling "proof".

Whether they meant they heard two rifle shots in what seemed to them to be rapid succession for a single shooter, or two sounds so close together that one was probably the shot and the other either an echo or an impact, or even if they just meant the gap between the second and third reports was less than that between the first and second, you somehow just know they all meant one shot at frame 285 and another at shot 313, because... something.

Obviously the something is because the people in the car nod their heads in unison, which you feel can only possibly be interpreted as their all flinching simultaneously. I am driven to consider whether I should have taken it for granted that we are all familiar with the experience of being driven in a car.

In short, I have considered your suggestion and can report that I am not persuaded it has merit.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, maybe you could post a gif of a car braking and how the occupants heads don't all move forward in unison.

 

[Axxman300]

First off, Oswald did it. It was his weapon, fired from his place of employment, from the floor he was working on. He fled the scene, shot a DPD officer, and almost shot a second one during his arrest.

Oswald was a Marine, and spent hours on the range with his MC and also dry-firing it at home.

There was no silenced weapon in 1963 that could have made the kill shot from the Dal-Tex or TSBD building that could account for the damage to both bodies. In face, the MC was one of the few weapons capable of the damage recorded to JFK and the governor. The MC was a popular rifle with elephant hunters because it could penetrate the skull effectively. Better than the .50 caliber elephant guns because it was lighter.

The only silenced rifle of any reliability in 1963 was a British-made .45. Nobody was hit by a .45.


As for what a mafia hitman would carry?

They don't carry anything. The weapons are provided and then disposed of after use. Most mafia hitmen used ice-picks, followed by knives and straight razors, and then revolvers. If they needed to be dramatic (send a message) they used machine guns.

I cannot find any record of the mafia using a long rifle, silences or otherwise, to kill anybody. What does that tell you?

It tells me you don't understand organized crime on any level; operational or historical. For example, if the mob actually did kill Kennedy nobody talked. Ever. There would be no hushed conversations by the three or four people who would have knowledge of the event. So any so-called mob guy who has claimed to know something was lying. It is really that simple.

But the mafia didn't kill JFK, so the point is mute.

To recap: You're tripling down on questionable sound theory, claiming a non-existent silenced weapon was used.

Got it.

 

[Robert Harris]

The witnesses who heard the shots reported a large spread of numbers due to a number of reasons.

No really. Most of the descriptions of the final shots ranged, from nearly simultaneous, to 2 seconds. If you average them out, 1.3 to 1.5 is almost perfect.

One thing we can be sure of though, is that they weren't talking about a 5 second gap which your theory requires, if you accept a second shot at 223.

Can you directly quote the WC stating the number of shots most people heard? Supply the statistic?

Sure. p. 109

The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.

Perhaps then we can discuss how they came to conclusion three shots were fired from the TSBD.

Most folks on your side of the argument, believe that a missed shot was fired at app. 150-160 and I fully agree. But there is certainly no evidence that that shot was fired by Oswald.

And there is no evidence that Oswald fired the shot that caused Tague's minor wound.

CE399 was presented as evidence that he fired the SBT shot, but that bullet was not the one that wounded the two men. That fact was confirmed by Connally himself, DA Henry Wade and the police officer who was guarding Connally's room. It was further confirmed by a multitude of other highly credible witnesses.

If you read no other article I wrote, please read this one.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Oswald might have fired the shot at 313, although I suspect that he fired the 285 shot, mainly because 313 was obviously louder, and Oswald's weapon was at the low end of high powered rifles, in terms of loudness.

 

[pgwenthold]

The witnesses who heard the shots reported a large spread of numbers due to a number of reasons.

Can you directly quote the WC stating the number of shots most people heard? Supply the statistic?.

Yeah, but they didn't hear the "silent" shot.

 

[Belz...]

No really. Most of the descriptions of the final shots ranged, from nearly simultaneous, to 2 seconds. If you average them out, 1.3 to 1.5 is almost perfect.

Can you post the data for each of them here so we can calculate the average ourselves ?

 

[Robert Harris]

It contradicts your interpretation of what the witnesses said.

The Warren Commission, in it's final report stated,

"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together."

At one point during the hearings, Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles noted the overwhelming consistency of these witnesses, when he described the ratio of those confirming that shooting scenario in comparison with others,

"There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.."

Anyone who said anything along the lines of the last two reports being close together or almost at the same instant or closer together than the first shot they heard somehow gets lumped together into your preferred category of "about 1.5 seconds apart". It's really not compelling "proof".

Of course. Most witnesses described final shots ranging from near simultaneous, to about 2 seconds apart. My analysis is that shots were fired then 1.3-1.5 seconds apart, which is a near perfect match, and beats the hell out of your theory which has them 5 seconds apart

Whether they meant they heard two rifle shots in what seemed to them to be rapid succession for a single shooter, or two sounds so close together that one was probably the shot and the other either an echo or an impact, or even if they just meant the gap between the second and third reports was less than that between the first and second, you somehow just know they all meant one shot at frame 285 and another at shot 313, because... something.

You seem to want to make this much more complicated than it really is. These people said the shots were "closely bunched", which is exactly what I have been saying they were.

Obviously the something is because the people in the car nod their heads in unison

Please don't misrepresent my analysis.

Besides the fact that most of the witnesses corroborated me and contradicted you, a Nobel prize winning scientist concluded that there was a startling noise at frame 285. Later, the similarly qualified, Dr. Michael Stroscio confirmed Alvarez, with only the caveat that he disputed Alvarez's speculation that the startling noise was siren.

Alvarez identified Zapruder's reaction at the heavily blurred frames 290-291. The limo passenger's reactions began at 290-292. This really isn't complicated.

I have also presented a truckload of other evidence and testimony in my articles and presentations.

which you feel can only possibly be interpreted as their all flinching simultaneously.

No sir, I proved with empirical evidence that they all began to react at 290-292.

http://jfkhistory.com/simultaneous.gif

I am driven to consider whether I should have taken it for granted that we are all familiar with the experience of being driven in a car.

I have no clue what your point here is.

In short, I have considered your suggestion and can report that I am not persuaded it has merit.

How shocking is that

On a scale of 1-10, how objective do you think you are on these issues?

 

[Robert Harris]

Can you post the data for each of them here so we can calculate the average ourselves ?

Probably, but I'm not going to. I have better ways to spend the next 2-3 days

Tony says you guys are all experts and more knowledgeable than I am, so I'm sure you are familiar with these testimonies. Do you disagree with me?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No really. Most of the descriptions of the final shots ranged, from nearly simultaneous, to 2 seconds. If you average them out, 1.3 to 1.5 is almost perfect.

Yes. If you apply any number of irrelevant statistical methods, you can find any number of numbers perfect for other theories.

One thing we can be sure of though, is that they weren't talking about a 5 second gap which your theory requires, if you accept a second shot at 223.

Really? I was unaware I had posted a theory with any frame number for the second shot.

But then, I'm aware that the consensus was not established by trying to apply an average to the statements. I am aware that the number of shots, and the timings of shots differ in reports for reasons not limited to, but including, echoes and mistaken identification of sounds, making an average.

Sure. p. 109

The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.

Oh dear. The consensus and not the majority?

An easy mistake to make. Do you happen to understand the difference?

Most folks on your side of the argument, believe that a missed shot was fired at app. 150-160 and I fully agree. But there is certainly no evidence that that shot was fired by Oswald.

Other than filmed footage that recently identified the traffic light gantry it hit? Other than the spent shell?

And there is no evidence that Oswald fired the shot that caused Tague's minor wound.

Yes there is evidence. You mean there is no definitive proof. But as the two shots we know struck targets came from Oswald, and the wound is a plausible effect of these shots, you are wrong.
Given we have no evidence for any other shooter, or any other shots being fired, the balance of probability leans towards Oswald.

CE399 was presented as evidence that he fired the SBT shot, but that bullet was not the one that wounded the two men. That fact was confirmed by Connally himself, DA Henry Wade and the police officer who was guarding Connally's room. It was further confirmed by a multitude of other highly credible witnesses.

You still seem to misunderstand the word fact. At best the only fact here is the opinion these people shared in their testimony.
Putting aside the limitations of witness testimony (as has been discussed at length) for a moment, we have to ask how the DA or police officer guarding a room were able to offer such conclusive facts.

Were they perchance able to observe the bullets in flight and track their trajectory and number at the time? Could they see everybody in the plaza with perfect clarity to distinguish between the reactions to individual bullets?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Probably, but I'm not going to. I have better ways to spend the next 2-3 days

Tony says you guys are all experts and more knowledgeable than I am, so I'm sure you are familiar with these testimonies. Do you disagree with me?

Another shift of the burden? Really?

Why do you not want to convince us of your claims?

 

[BStrong]

Another shift of the burden? Really?

Why do you not want to convince us of your claims?

Tomtomkent - would you please repost for RH's enlightenment your most excellent explanation for how a conspiracy theorist can make their case?

 

[Belz...]

Probably, but I'm not going to.

Don't worry, I didn't expect you to do anything of the sort. Why support your claims, right ?

Tony says you guys are all experts and more knowledgeable than I am, so I'm sure you are familiar with these testimonies. Do you disagree with me?

I could probably answer that, but I'm not going to.

 

[Robert Harris]

Any sniper on the planet would have not shot somebody to avoid leaving an evidence trail?

I have no idea what your argument is. They wouldn't have shot anyone unless they saw them with exposed weapons.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the complete lack of evidence for a somebody firing additional bullets from a location is not a good enough reason to be unconvinced of their existence?

Of course not. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute, that additional shots were fired. How do you explain why most witnesses only heard one of the early shots?

How do you explain the absence of visible startle reactions prior to 285?

Oswald's rifle was proven to generate sound levels of 130 decibels, at street level. That's 16 times louder than 90db, which is the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur as well as permanent hearing loss with extended exposure.

There is no way Oswald could have fired those shots.

Nor could he have have fired both of the "closely bunched" shots at the end.

That constitutes indisputable evidence.

 

[abaddon]

Probably, but I'm not going to. I have better ways to spend the next 2-3 days

Sure, but why would you expect anyone else to expend much effort on your fringe theories if you yourself are not so willing?

Tony says you guys are all experts and more knowledgeable than I am, so I'm sure you are familiar with these testimonies. Do you disagree with me?

Plenty here are more than familiar and knowledgeable than you as has been amply demonstrated in this very thread. Who is "Tony" and why do his opinions matter to anyone?

Pretty much everyone here has rejected your on-going attempts to reverse the burden of proof and outright evasion directly.

Even the mods have seen fit to intervene on the matter of your ubiquitous link spam.

Did you have a point to make which will not result in yet more repetitious spam drivel?

 

[Robert Harris]

Don't worry, I didn't expect you to do anything of the sort. Why support your claims, right ?

Mr. Belz. I am not going to play games with you. What I said is common knowledge to anyone who has studied this case for over a month.

And you only made that request, knowing that I would never spend several days itemizing every statement made about the final shots. And if I did, you wouldn't believe it anyway, would you

This was nothing more than a very shabby tactic.

 

[Robert Harris]

Tomtomkent - would you please repost for RH's enlightenment your most excellent explanation for how a conspiracy theorist can make their case?

Mr. Strong, I don't waste time reading posts which try to stereotype all of your adversaries.

And after having moderated two JFK forums, one in partnership with John McAdams, I can assure you that I am quite familiar with the tactics of the worst of the conspiracy advocates. After 20 years, I have to suspect that I've seen many more of them than you and Tomtom have

Lecturing me is nothing more than a diversion from what really matters, which are the facts and evidence. Why don't we stick with that?