Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Sandy McCroskey]

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.

BStrong was not asking for an description of how a conspiracy theorist will typically make their case (which you might have considered stereotyping) but, rather, an explanation of how a person might go about proving the existence of a conspiracy to the satisfaction of a skeptical mind.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Sure. Found it this morning:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9300252#post9300252

 

[Robert Harris]

Sure. Found it this morning:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9300252#post9300252

Excellent article! I think this phrase is particularly enlightening.

No matter how much you want your theory to be taken seriously it will be judged on the evidence.

But that does not just apply to theories which suggest that more than one perp was involved in a crime. It applies to all theories.

For example, the "lone nut" theory, which is rejected by most people and researchers, as well as the most recent federal investigation, contradicts most of the witnesses who heard the shots. It requires Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired shots at the end, which were "closely bunched", which based on tests by the FBI and HSCA, makes the theory virtually impossible.

It also contradicts the science of the physicists, who determined that there was a loud noise, just 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal shot that killed the President. The witnesses told us that both of those noises were gunshots, which could not possibly, have both been fired by Oswald.

Even more absurd is the requirement of this theory, that Oswald fired 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots that weren't loud enough to startle anyone, or even be heard.

Adherents to this theory go into a rage, when anyone reminds them that there is no evidence of any kind, which supports the foundation of their theory, which is their unshakable belief that Oswald acted alone.

Thank you sir, for the excellent article, and the reminder of how ludicrous theories like this can get.

 

[JayUtah]

Thank you sir, for the excellent article, and the reminder of how ludicrous theories like this can get.

Repeating all your claims yet again and mentioning the article in passing does not change how the world evaluates your theory. In fact, the evaluation of it doesn't seem to differ here from that which you've received everywhere else.

 

[HSienzant]

I'll be breaking up my reply by witness to your lengthy post, pointing out your logical fallacies, quotes out of context, and unsupported conclusions.

Starting with Kellerman:

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.

Asked and answered. Yes, he was arguing for more than three shots, based on what he learned afterward about the wounds suffered by both victims in the limo. Ergo, Kellerman *surmised* a flurry based on the number of wounds the two limo passengers suffered. He did not argue for more than three shots based on his own independent recollection of the assassination, but on what he learned later. We're not interested in his suppositions, or surmises, or conclusions. As an eyewitness, we're interested in his recollections of the event, not his later conclusions about the event. You're quoting his conclusion, which matters not at all. He recalls three sounds, and only three sounds.

Here's what he said in his first report (Dated 11/22/63): http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-kelle.htm
"... We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m.

Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice, "My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out..."

He said he heard three sounds, a firecracker sound, and two additional shots. At most, three shots in total. Not your inventive four, or five, or six or more.

Here's his Warren Commission testimony:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
...
Representative FORD. You don't recall precisely a second shot and a third shot such as you did in the case of the first?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? That is it.
Representative FORD. This is for the second and the third, or the flurry as you described it?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; that is right, sir.
...
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 ==

So Kellerman is clear in his testimony - he hears three sounds in total, the last two of which are, in his words, "instantaneous" (okay, that's only one word). As I've noted in the past, that agrees with Clint Hill's description of two shots and an impact of a bullet on something hard, like a skull.

Here's Hill's first report (Dated 11/22/63): http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm
"On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left."

Only two shots, and the sound of something else, like shooting a revolver into something hard.

And here's his testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

Two shots, and the sound of something else, like shooting a revolver into something hard. The last two sounds were on top of each other, like a double-sound. Like hearing the gunshot and the impact on the President's skull.

Fully consistent with Kellerman's testimony, and it invokes no extra shooters who mysteriously pop up, shoot, and disappear.

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.

Referenced and explained to you previously three different times in the recent past.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10752298#post10752298
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10744334#post10744334
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10743597#post10743597

But thanks for bringing it up again. It explains that Kellerman heard two sounds on top of each other, consistent with many other witnesses. Which is entirely consistent with what his fellow Secret Service agent, Clint Hill, said.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thank you sir, for the excellent article, and the reminder of how ludicrous theories like this can get.

You do realize that your "theory" has become a caricature and the butt of jokes, right?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Excellent article! I think this phrase is particularly enlightening.

No matter how much you want your theory to be taken seriously it will be judged on the evidence.

But that does not just apply to theories which suggest that more than one perp was involved in a crime. It applies to all theories.

For example, the "lone nut" theory, which is rejected by most people

That Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy is still a prevalent presumption among the masses of people who have never looked into it too deeply. But this doesn't prove anything.

and researchers,

I think you can get a final tally like that only by counting people like Jim Marrs as researchers.

as well as the most recent federal investigation,

The HSCA's conclusion was that there was no evidence of conspiracy (by the mob, Bob, or anybody else) before that Dictabelt nonsense was brought in. How anyone who recognizes that the Dictabelt recording is irrelevant can still tout the HSCA's conclusion that there was a fourth shot is absolutely beyond me.

contradicts most of the witnesses who heard the shots. It requires Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired shots at the end, which were "closely bunched", which based on tests by the FBI and HSCA, makes the theory virtually impossible.

Do you wonder why the Warren Commission had this information about what the witnesses reported and it did not change their conclusion, let alone make it "virtually impossible"? Or do you assume that the Warren Commission was just a cover-up (and the corollary that the government wasn't interested in doing a real investigation into whether there was a conspiracy behind the killing of our president)?

It also contradicts the science of the physicists, who determined that there was a loud noise, just 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal shot that killed the President. The witnesses told us that both of those noises were gunshots, which could not possibly, have both been fired by Oswald.

What your physicists "determined" remains their opinions until (somehow) objectively verified. Alvarez also "determined" that the supposed loud noise was not a shot. The witnesses can't "tell" us any different, and you are counting those who heard two nearly simultaneous sounds (possibly the shot and its impact) as if they heard something that corresponds to the 1.5 second interval between frame 285 and the shot between 312 and 313.

Even more absurd is the requirement of this theory, that Oswald fired 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots that weren't loud enough to startle anyone, or even be heard.

You need to get back to JayUtah with your rebuttal to his statement, which seems to me irrefutable, that you have confused the shock wave of the muzzle blast with the one that would emanate from the traveling bullet.

Adherents to this theory go into a rage, when anyone reminds them that there is no evidence of any kind, which supports the foundation of their theory, which is their unshakable belief that Oswald acted alone.

Thank you sir, for the excellent article, and the reminder of how ludicrous theories like this can get.

"No evidence of any kind [that] supports the foundation of [our] [']theory[']"...?
Now, Bob, I know you accept at least a great deal of the evidence that implicates Oswald. You are still repeating, as illogically as ever, that we cannot prove that Oswald "acted alone." But no non-conspiracist bases their explanation of how the president was killed on an "unshakable belief that Oswald acted alone." At the end of the day (to repeat this for the umpteenth time), we can only assert that it remains highly improbable that anyone else shot at the president... phantom bullets from impossible silenced weapons notwithstanding.

 

[HSienzant]

This is a rebuttal to a portion of your lengthy rebuttal post concerning John Connally. Let's look at a portion of Connally's testimony and see if it's consistent with Clint Hill's and Roy Kellerman's version of events. We'll double-back to look at Kellerman's "concussion" testimony.

Did Connally remember two sounds at the end, the sound of the rifle shot and the sound of the impact?

He said he did. Your denials of his testimony changes that not a whit.

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.... I heard it hit.
== UNQUOTE ==

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.

So when Connally said, "...the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something.... I heard it hit", that's not two sounds to you? That's not saying he heard both the shot, and the impact of the shot?

You think he described the sound of the final rifle shot five different times in one breath? Really?

Connally was quite clear about what he heard. Two shots, and an impact of the final shot. And he described two separate sounds connected with the final shot.

"... the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something.... I heard it hit."

Six words:

I heard the shot hit something...

Those six words pretty much destroys your claim that Connally said nothing of the sort.

Connally's testimony is fully consistent with the two other men quoted earlier, and especially with Clint Hill's. Both said they only heard two shots, and a sound of something else. Connally said he heard both the shot and the impact ("I heard the shot hit something") and Hill said it sounded like an impact ("The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head").

Kellerman also described a firecracker sound, and then an "instantaneous" double-bang sound.

All three of these men were among the closest to the President during the shooting, and all three were familiar with firearms and the sound of rifle fire.

All three described what they heard in terms that could fit two shots, and an impact of the final shot on the skull to a 'T'.

Wouldn't it?

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

For example, the "lone nut" theory, which is rejected by most people and researchers, as well as the most recent federal investigation, contradicts most of the witnesses who heard the shots. It requires Lee Harvey Oswald...

Please share with the forum the prevailing, established, agreed-upon-by-most-people-and-researchers theory for who killed JFK. Take your time.

 

[HSienzant]

For example, the "lone nut" theory, which is rejected by most people and researchers, as well as the most recent federal investigation, contradicts most of the witnesses who heard the shots. It requires Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired shots at the end, which were "closely bunched", which based on tests by the FBI and HSCA, makes the theory virtually impossible.

I see others have already dealt with some of the begged questions and other unproven assertions in the above.

Your *interpretation* of the evidence is the only version that would require LHO to have fired two closely bunched shots at the end of the assassination.

I know of no "lone nut theory" that requires that.

If you cannot state the lone-nut theory correctly, you can't even begin to rebut it.

In short, what you're advancing about is a straw man argument, putting forth a claim that sounds *something* like your opponents have said, and then knocking that down. But you're not actually knocking down anything your opponents have said.

In other words it's just more Robert Harris Logical Fallacies again. I may shorten that to "RHLF" in the future.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Now, Bob, I know you accept at least a great deal of the evidence that implicates Oswald. You are still repeating, as illogically as ever, that we cannot prove that Oswald "acted alone." But no non-conspiracist bases their explanation of how the president was killed on an "unshakable belief that Oswald acted alone." At the end of the day (to repeat this for the umpteenth time), we can only assert that it remains highly improbable that anyone else shot at the president... phantom bullets from impossible silenced weapons notwithstanding.

And remember that Robert's claim that it's our "unshakable belief that Oswald acted alone" also encompasses Oswald not being influenced by others to alone take shots at the President.

I for one believe Oswald was influenced by Castro's speeches and the communist propaganda he subscribed to (THE WORKER and THE MILITANT) to shoot at JFK.

Whether there was a more direct influence than that I have no way of knowing.

But Robert again misstates the "Lone Nut" premise, which is simply that all the available evidence indicates there was only one shooter, and that shooter was Lee Harvey Oswald.

In other words, RHLF (straw man argument).

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Please share with the forum the prevailing, established, agreed-upon-by-most-people-and-researchers theory for who killed JFK. Take your time.

This is why I made references to the difference between majority and consensus. The majority of people in the world may believe there was some form of conspiracy. Yet the informed agreement is still for the LHO solution. The only theory with consistent support is LHO.

In the same way, 'most people' may not have heard three shots, but the most sizable minority can be the consensus.

If facts will be stated but not supported, why should it be assumed the grand concepts can be supported? If it can not be shown that the consensus was a majority, and not the most common minority, or that timings for shots should be averaged by a mean, then frankly, it suggests that the author of the theory does not know if he stating facts or not.

The theory can not convince if assumptions are mistaken for fact.

 

[HSienzant]

Now let's deal with Mrs. Kennedy.

First you treat us to your special Robert Harris testimony interpreter, where everything needs to go through that device first to make any sense:

...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?

Because her husband was looking to the right and waving to those spectators and she was looking to the left and waving to those spectators. She said that.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. RANKIN. And you waved to them and proceeded down the street with the motorcade?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. And in the motorcade, you know, I usually would be waving mostly to the left side and he was waving mostly to the right, which is one reason you are not looking at each other very much.
...
Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises.
== UNQUOTE ==

You pretend she's saying something entirely different.

...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.

All the above is just begging the question. I pointed out the flaw in your version of Tague's recollection previously. Do you even remember it? I don't recall that you ever addressed it.

....I think Jackie agreed, probably with great reluctance, to change her story.

Ah, the common retort of every conspiracy theorist when the evidence says something different than what they want to believe. "The evidence is altered", "the witnesses lied", "the real evidence would show I'm right", and of course, your apparent favorite, "the lack of evidence for this shows I'm right"...

..That's why she said she didn't remember retrieving brain tissue from the trunk. Of course she remembered it..

RHLF. Pink Unicorns, Robert. Do you remember that exchange?

....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.

She shouted that immediately afterward when she had her husband's head in her lap in the back seat of the car, right?

....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.

And more of the same, "the evidence that would prove my point is suppressed". Common, run-of-the-mill, conspiracism. We dealt in detail with your claims about Katzenbach and showed how you took a claim out of context, ignored Katzenbach's testimony, and basically just substituted the common, run-of-the-mill, conspiracy interpretation over Katzenbach's memo.

...She said her original recollection was that there were three. Please read her testimony so that you don't continue to misrepresent her.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?
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.
== UNQUOTE ==



Back to the Robert Harris Testimony Interpreter:

...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.

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. ... Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling.

I read that as she heard some terrible noises and started to turn toward her husband, and Governor Connally was then also shouting. Are you arguing Connally began shouting BEFORE the first shot?

== QUOTE ==
Governor Connally: I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
== UNQUOTE ==

The Governor is clear he began shouting after he was struck.

....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

And you have to re-write her testimony to make it more to your liking.

....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.

Your argument that she's a great witness for you might be more believable if you didn't also claim she was lying and claiming there was at least one transcription error.

She said her recollection was only two shots.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Repeating all your claims yet again

I'm terribly sorry. But I absolutely promise that when the facts and evidence change I will change my analysis.

And don't you find it troubling that you cannot to save your life, explain why Oswald fired high powered rifle shots that no one heard, or were not loud enough to startle anyone?

 

[Robert Harris]

Hmm. Bob, I really think you need to provide some numbers to show the consensus was a majority of the witness total as you imply.

Why? Are you suggesting the WC was full of crap?

"..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.."

Oh. And learn that a qualifier goes before an assumption.

I ain't got no problems with my grammar.

 

[HSienzant]

No we don't. CE399 was not the bullet that hit JFK and Connally. That is a proven fact.

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

Oswald might have fired the 313 shot, but to believe that, you must have a lot of faith in an FBI, to have delivered the original frags, that you will find hard to muster after you read the article.

And as I pointed out previously, this *very issue* was dealt with *just before you got here*.

Making the same unproven assertions as a prior poster gets you points for ignoring the rebuttal, but nothing else.

Surely you can go back and review those posts, rather than having us go through it all over again solely for your benefit.

Here's the original post if you couldn't find it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10706385#post10706385

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why? Are you suggesting the WC was full of crap?

No. As I have already stated, you seem to assert things as fact for very strange reasons.

If you can't support the most basic 'facts', why should I be bothered to look too hard at the rest? Think about it, you could earn some benefit of the doubt by showing how you reached a wrong conclusion, or you could leave people assuming you pull this stuff out of the ether. If the latter, then every time you try to shift the burden of proof, people are going to assume you just don't want to admit you had nothing but bluster.

More often than not, when a CT advocate tells others to go check the facts, read a book, watch a video, or use the old "everybody who knows the literature should know THIS" gambit, they are trying to worm out of having to support their claims with evidence.

You might also want to consider that understanding the limitations of what the WC was able to deduce and how is part of what makes it convincing. It is not a binary situation of perfect solution or full of lies, it is a scale of probability. Understanding that the WC is the best interpretation of the evidence requires an understanding of why that evidence can not be perfect, nor would it be expected to be perfect.

In short: If you want to base your argument upon evidence, you might want to be able to show you can understand the evidence you are analysing, and that your methodology works.

Your methodology seems non existent. I already understand the evidence. I understand why your claims are the wrong approach. I want to see if you do.

 

[JayUtah]

And don't you find it troubling that you cannot to save your life, explain why Oswald fired high powered rifle shots that no one heard, or were not loud enough to startle anyone?

Do not put statements into my mouth that I never said.

 

[BazBear]

Why? Are you suggesting the WC was full of crap?

"..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.."



I ain't got no problems with my grammar.

It would seem the Warren Commission report is great when whatever you've cherry picked and/or misrepresented by your own inferences supports your arguments; but the parts that don't support your arguments are simply ignored, or hand waved away when they don't favor your hypothesis. Of course the conclusions the WC reached, with the same evidence you choose to use a tiny fraction of (if you feel supports your nonsense) are that Oswald did all the shooting. He had the means, he had the opportunity, and the motivation to do it, and all the credible evidence points - straight - at - him.

It's not our fault some people decide to chase BS down the rabbit hole for a couple of decades, and it's not our fault that some people can't recognize BS from fact, even after it's been repeatedly pointed out to them exactly why it's BS.

 

[Robert Harris]

Why? Are you suggesting the WC was full of crap?

"..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.."

It would seem the Warren Commission report is great when whatever you've cherry picked and/or misrepresented by your own inferences supports your arguments; but the parts that don't support your arguments are simply ignored, or hand waved away when they don't favor your hypothesis.

You're attacking a straw man. Other than their conclusion, what exactly have I disputed?

And even if I had disputed other specific issues, that would be irrelevant if my disagreement was solidly backed by the evidence.

Also, the WC's conclusions are essentially, against interest, since they contradict their own theory which denied closely bunched shots at the end and a solitary early shot.

Perhaps even more importantly, the witnesses perceptions are consistent with the nonvictims in the limousine and the scientists who evaluated the Zapruder film.