Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

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

I did no such thing. I simply asked you a question,

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?

Where exactly do you see a statement that I put into your mouth

 

[JayUtah]

I did no such thing. I simply asked you a question,

A loaded question.

Where exactly do you see a statement that I put into your mouth

Right there, where the question was loaded. "Troubling." "Cannot." "Safe your life." These are all your words that you're trying to foist upon me and then ask me how I feel about it.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

Strange reasons?? Since when did you decide that the WC's conclusions were "strange"

If you can't support the most basic 'facts', why should I be bothered to look too hard at the rest?

You can't. The only problem is that you've provided no reason to believe that I have failed to support the basics or any other part of my analysis. Perhaps you would like to try though. Why don't you post a rebuttal to this article?

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Think about it, you could earn some benefit of the doubt by showing how you reached a wrong conclusion

Why can't you be specific about this "wrong conclusion"?

It's hard to debate phantom accusations, my friend.

or you could leave people assuming you pull this stuff out of the ether.

Please be specific about what exactly, you think I have pulled out of the ether. Please include a verbatim copy of the statement.

If the latter, then every time you try to shift the burden of proof,

Please be specific about when I have tried to "shift the burden of proof". I have been accused of that even when I made no request at all for proof. And when I did ask for proof of various assertions, I had every right to do that.

He who asserts bears the burden of proving his assertion.

It really is that simple and it doesn't require a 1000 word disertation.

More often than not, when a CT advocate tells others to go check the facts, read a book, watch a video,

How dare these rascals ask you to consider the evidence!!

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.

Not unless everybody really does know, and the demand is to produce information which is easily accessible.

You might also want to consider that understanding the limitations of what the WC was able to deduce

They didn't have to "deduce" anything that we are discussing now. They were the ones who interviewed the witnesses and they had access to the affidavits of the people who they didn't call. There was no guesswork required.

The witnesses who commented on the spacing of the shots were nearly unanimous in their conclusion. At one point, Dulles said the ratio was something like 5 to 1.

And every nonvictim in the limo, reported shots that were consistent with the other witnesses, as well as the scientists who identified a loud and startling noise at frame 285.

But I am open minded. Do you accept the Posner/Bugliosi model of the shot spacing? If so, let's weigh my evidence against yours.

Do you think it will be a close call

 

[Robert Harris]

A loaded question.

Do you think shots were fired prior to 285?

If so, approximately when do you think they were fired?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you think...

You've confused me with someone who is playing your game.

 

[Robert Harris]

You've confused me with someone who is playing your game.

Why do you think that discussing the issues relevant to the conspiracy question is "playing a game"?

My questions are simple and straightforward, with no pressure of any kind that you agree with me.

Ask me anything about the assassination, and I will respond to the best of my ability, accurately and in detail.

Surely, you can do the same.

 

[JayUtah]

Why do you think that discussing the issues relevant to the conspiracy question is "playing a game"?

Loaded question. What you're doing is playing a game. And I will not play.

Ask me anything about the assassination, and I will respond to the best of my ability, accurately and in detail.

As I told you earlier this week, I have already drawn my conclusion regarding your claims, the methods by which you formulated them, and the manner in which you defend them. See my previous posts in this thread for more information.

 

[HSienzant]

Other than their conclusion, what exactly have I disputed?

What conclusions (plural) of the Warren Commission (WC) haven't you disputed?

The Warren Commission concluded the evidence indicated there were three shots fired during the assassination. You argue for five or more.

The WC concluded the evidence indicated all the shots came from the Depository. You argue for at least three different shooting locations, and maybe four (the sniper's nest, the Dal-Tex building, a shooter in front of the President, and, I think you said, the western end of the Depository).

The WC concluded the evidence indicated CE399 was legitimate evidence, and it, and the two large fragments found in the limo implicated Oswald's weapon in the assassination. You argue that CE399 was swapped later for the real bullet, and that the two large fragments found in the limo are also questionable.

And one more: The WC concluded there was no credible evidence of conspiracy. You argue there is.

Among other conclusions (plural) of the Warren Commission you've disputed.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

The WC does not deny it's own theory. You have supplied no evidence for a cluster of shots, or for any timing a single shooter could not achieve. The WC does not contradict itself, only the silly interpretation you are trying to mangle from witnesses and wishful thinking.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Strange reasons?? Since when did you decide that the WC's conclusions were "strange"

They weren't. YOUR claims of what is a fact, and what you think you can prove are strange.

Trying to average witness testimony is strange. Looking at films and declaring you know what people have heard and are reacting to is strange. Your constant reliance on trying to skew what others tell you is strange.

You make strange claims of what are fact and proven.I'm sorry, but you don't get to pretend I was talking about the WC when I made it quite clear I was your interpretation, and your ethereal 'analysis' with which I have issues.

Quite frankly I'm out. I have tried to engage you, to get you to answer direct queries about your claims, to convince me you at least have areas on for making your claims, and yet you constantly seek to baffle yourself.

If you still need to ask what odd conclusions you have reached, or when you have shifted the burden of proof, after several pages of these and other fallacies being pointed out, repeatedly, and if you are unwilling to supply the most basic details of your "proof" and "evidence", after direct requests, then there is no point wasting further posts.

You can't back up your "facts" even when told how.

 

[Robert Harris]

They weren't. YOUR claims of what is a fact, and what you think you can prove are strange.

Why are you always posting ambiguous accusations?

You've been specific in past, but after my rebuttals, you seem to have decided to go vague.

Trying to average witness testimony is strange.

I made a general estimate, based on reading every one of the witness statements. If you dispute my conclusion then the floor is yours.

Looking at films and declaring you know what people have heard and are reacting to is strange.

I based my conclusions on the combination of what those people said and what they did. For example, Kellerman said a flurry of at least two shots came into the car at the same point in time that we see him carrying out textbook startle reactions as confirmed by Hunt and Landis.

What really is "strange", is to deny that he was reacting to exactly what he said he heard then.

 

[Robert Harris]

The WC does not deny it's own theory.

Excellent catch!

You have supplied no evidence for a cluster of shots, or for any timing a single shooter could not achieve.

I proved that shots were fired at 285-288 which were too close to 313, for Oswald to have fired both.

If you disagree then we need to debate that issue specifically.

Have you read the article I linked for you?

Are you ready to post a rebuttal?

 

[RoboTimbo]

[COLOR="Blue"]Other than their conclusion, what exactly have I disputed?[/COLOR]

Ah good, you agree with everything the Warren Commission said, except for their conclusion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I proved that shots were fired at 285-288 which were too close to 313, for Oswald to have fired both.

Are you ready to post a rebuttal?

You've been embarrassingly unable to deal with the rebuttals you've already gotten, remember? Have you forgotten that your inferences aren't evidence?

How are you going to overcome the fatal flaws already pointed out?

The ball is in your court.

 

[Robert Harris]

Loaded question. What you're doing is playing a game. And I will not play.

Nonsense! My questions were not loaded.

Socratic questioning is SOP procedure for every forum in the civilized world. Unfortunately, so is evasion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Socratic questioning is SOP procedure for every forum in the civilized world.

Good, what is your complete and coherent alternate hypothesis for JFK's assassinaton?

Unfortunately, so is evasion.

I'm sure you will stop evaing that question.

 

[Robert Harris]

What conclusions (plural) of the Warren Commission (WC) haven't you disputed?

That certainly is an impressive response

The Warren Commission concluded the evidence indicated there were three shots fired during the assassination.

And there were. The Warren Commission said that most witnesses heard three shots. I couldn't agree more.

You argue for five or more.

Actually, four with certainty.

The WC concluded the evidence indicated all the shots came from the Depository.

You may be right about that, but please post something verbatim so that we can see exactly how they phrased it.

You argue for at least three different shooting locations, and maybe four (the sniper's nest, the Dal-Tex building, a shooter in front of the President, and, I think you said, the western end of the Depository).

I only argue for one with certainty.

The WC concluded the evidence indicated CE399 was legitimate evidence,

Yes, but they were unaware that the FBI was fabricating evidence. We shouldn't hold that against them.

and it, and the two large fragments found in the limo implicated Oswald's weapon in the assassination. You argue that CE399 was swapped later for the real bullet, and that the two large fragments found in the limo are also questionable.

Of course, anything that passed through the FBI labs then must be considered with a grain of salt.

BTW, have you checked this extreme blowup of the four sides of CE399? Do you see the initials of Johnsen and Todd?

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

And one more: The WC concluded there was no credible evidence of conspiracy. You argue there is.

They said they didn't know of any evidence of conspiracy.

But you're probably right that there are a couple of other things I disagreed on. But perhaps the number of conclusions I questioned is not as important as whether I was right.

Dontcha think?

 

[Robert Harris]

You've confused me with someone who is playing your game.

I presumed you to be an honest man with strong opinions on the case, who was not afraid to defend them.

 

[JayUtah]

I presumed you to be an honest man with strong opinions on the case, who was not afraid to defend them.

I repeat, it seems you've mistaken me for someone who is playing your game.

 

[Garrison]

I presumed you to be an honest man with strong opinions on the case, who was not afraid to defend them.

Across hundreds of pages and three threads you keep failing to understand the simple reality of how this works. 'Oswald acted alone' is the established null hypothesis supported by substantial evidence. The burden is on you to provide a superior theory that can displace it, not on anyone else to defend it.