Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Axxman300]

Fortunately, that is not true. The HSCA conducted extensive tests on the same model rifle that Oswald allegedly used and the same ammunition.

They discovered that you would have been exposed to a shock wave which generated a 130+ decibel sound level, followed by a muzzle blast that was almost as loud.

You do understand that they would have happened so fast as to be indistinguishable at the ranges the shots were fired from. Your "shock wave" from the bullet would have sounded like a bee and a snap, not a bang. Your data does not show how the sound wave would develop within the confines of Dealey Plaza as fired from the 6th floor. You have not indicated where the baffles and reflections would be.

I know sound. I worked as a studio guitarist, which means I also know loud. I also grew up near Fort Ord, CA, and I am familiar with gun fire. .762 is louder at 300 yards because the sound waves are fully developed. This is why the people near the under pass hit the dirt and the people near the TSBD thought they heard a fire cracker. The louder "second shot" was likely a report off of the railroad bridge face, which confused folks who thought there was a shot fired close afterword.

I have also been to Dealey Plaza, which is why it is easy for me to dismiss most sound evidence.

That is also untrue. Thanks to people like Hunt and Landis, we know exactly how people will react when startled by extremely loud sounds. Roy Kellerman is a classic example.

I doubt that.

What do you think is the most plausible explanation for why 5 people reacted as they did, in the same 1/6th of a second of one another and Abraham Zapruder?

Oswald was shooting.

And what is your explanation for why most witnesses only heard one of the supposedly 130 decibel, high powered, early shots?

Like I said above, I think they were only hearing the echo of the second shot. The next thing you are not factoring in is the brain between those ears. The leader of the free world is driving past you and you and the other THOUSANDS of people are CHEERING AND SHOUTING at him. So your concentration is on the car, and everything else is tuned out, and likely drowned out.

How loud were the police motorcycles? Did they have their sirens on?

Answer those questions and then you will have the right to demean my analysis.

I demean it because I've seen hundreds of guys like you come and go. You think you've found an angle and you're working tangential facts into what you hope is a workable theory, and it won't hold up.

Here's where you're failing: The evidence against Oswald as the shooter is overwhelming. Not accepting this fact is a personal choice based on Woo and not intellectual honesty. Technology has only reinforced the case against Oswald. Lasers show where the shots came from, this has been tested more than once. Computer simulations have allowed test shots to come from multiple locations and each time it comes back to the 6th floor.

Oswald shooting from the 6th floor is the most solid part of the case.

A smart JFK-CTist would focus on the idea that someone else knew what LHO was going to do. You know, link him to some MONGOOSE Cuban counter revolutionaries. It's smart because it's a huge gray area that has little documentation allowing a CT advocate to run wild unchecked by skeptics for a long time. And who knows? You might dig someone up. I doubt it, but if there was an actual conspiracy to kill JFK it would be found there.

As of now you're wasting your time with shock waves and non-existent silent rifles.

 

[Robert Harris]

Please present the evidence that Ellsworth said he saw the rifle.

I never said he saw the rifle. Please stop misrepresenting me.

The above quote does not establish that -

Of course it doesn't. I had expected that you would just read the cite

it mentions only a conversation Ellsworth had with some other unnamed individual(s). You could be citing nothing more than a recollection of a conversation that Ellsworth had -- if that's the case, Ellsworth is simply repeating hearsay, not his own personal recollection.

Yes, I'm glad you figured that out

You "don't consider this absolute proof" but you accept his recollection of a conversation he had over the documented evidence like photographs of the rifle in place taken by the Dallas Crime lab, and film of the search of the Depository taken by Thomas Alyea.

I asked you to present proof that those were photos and films were of the rifle found on the 6th floor. Are you prepared to do that?

Both of which were examined extensively by the HSCA and used to validate the weapon recovered on the sixth floor as Oswald's.

Begging the question. You have not proved that Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I asked you to present proof that those were photos and films were of the rifle found on the 6th floor. Are you prepared to do that?


Begging the question. You have not proved that Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor.

No, Hank didn't "beg the question," as nothing in his phrasing presumed that the weapon recovered on the sixth floor was Oswald's. He said that "the photographs of the rifle in place taken by the Dallas Crime lab, and film of the search of the Depository taken by Thomas Alyea" were "examined extensively by the HSCA and used to validate the weapon recovered on the sixth floor as Oswald's." He's telling you this is the evidence that led to the HSCA's conclusion, which you can stack up against one lone witness's long-after-the-fact memory, and see if you still want to stick with that story.

You should explain your grounds for doubting "that those...photos and films were of the rifle found on the 6th floor." I don't think you can present anything suspect about the various bits of evidence themselves or their chain of custody, and you should realize that an argument that relies solely on your insistence that there must have been another shooter in the vicinity won't cut it. But what I'd really like to see is how you think the bizarre notion that the photos and film were somehow faked can be reconciled with your statement that you are "not saying that ANY of the cops or FBI people were 'in on it' or had sinister motives."

 

[Robert Harris]

Fortunately, that is not true. The HSCA conducted extensive tests on the same model rifle that Oswald allegedly used and the same ammunition.

You do understand that they would have happened so fast as to be indistinguishable at the ranges the shots were fired from.

Of course.

Your "shock wave" from the bullet would have sounded like a bee and a snap, not a bang.

Can you prove that assertion?

This is how a real expert, Dr. Barger described shock waves from a high powered rifle,

By the way, for clarification of those listening who may be wondering what a shock wave is, that is the well-known crack sound that you hear when a rifle is fired that precedes the muzzle blast. It is normally almost simultaneous with the bang or muzzle blast, itself. It is similar to the sort of thing you hear when someone cracks a whip

and this,

..the shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same microphone which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle... The shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels. The muzzle blast at 30 feet is more intense. It has an intensity of 137 decibels

If you have any remaining doubts, watch Kellerman begin to duck, following 313. His head starts to drop at 315, even before the muzzle blast had arrived.

Your data does not show how the sound wave would develop within the confines of Dealey Plaza as fired from the 6th floor. You have not indicated where the baffles and reflections would be.

Why should I? The measurements were made IN Dealey Plaza. And any additional sounds would only have increased the sound level.

I know sound. I worked as a studio guitarist, which means I also know loud. I also grew up near Fort Ord, CA, and I am familiar with gun fire. .762 is louder at 300 yards because the sound waves are fully developed. This is why the people near the under pass hit the dirt and the people near the TSBD thought they heard a fire cracker. The louder "second shot" was likely a report off of the railroad bridge face, which confused folks who thought there was a shot fired close afterword.

I won't ask if you are more qualified that Dr. Barger, but I will ask if you have tested a Mannlicher Carcano rifle in Dealey Plaza. The HSCA tests provide us with objective measurements, which thoroughly trump anyone's subjective opinions.

I have also been to Dealey Plaza, which is why it is easy for me to dismiss most sound evidence.

That might have been impressive if you had ever fired a rifle there

That is also untrue. Thanks to people like Hunt and Landis, we know exactly how people will react when startled by extremely loud sounds. Roy Kellerman is a classic example.

I doubt that.

Well, you tell me. WATCH THIS. Watch it several times and tell me with a straight face that this man wasn't startle.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

What do you think is the most plausible explanation for why 5 people reacted as they did, in the same 1/6th of a second of one another and Abraham Zapruder?

Oswald was shooting.

If he fired that shot, he couldn't have fired the one at 313. This article explains in detail,

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

Like I said above, I think they were only hearing the echo of the second shot.

If echoes were an issue, then why did the WC conclude that "most" witnesses only heard a single shot, prior to the very end?

And how could those people have been startled by the echo from a shot that startled no one? Do you see reactions like this, following any shots prior to 285?

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif

I hope you answer this question, since none of your colleagues have.

The next thing you are not factoring in is the brain between those ears. The leader of the free world is driving past you and you and the other THOUSANDS of people are CHEERING AND SHOUTING at him. So your concentration is on the car, and everything else is tuned out, and likely drowned out.

By frame 285, the crowds had thinned to almost nothing. You might have had a case if the motorcade was still on Main St.

How loud were the police motorcycles? Did they have their sirens on?

Doing a search of the WC testimonies, I found no one, including the people who operated the sirens, who claimed they came on, prior to the end of the attack.

And every nonvictim in the iimo was quite clear about what they were hearing at the end of the attack, and you know what that is. The limo passengers echoed the same thing the other witnesses said.

I demean it because I've seen hundreds of guys like you come and go.

No you haven't. You have never heard anyone present analysis that is even remotely similar to what I have shown you, unless you have read the paper by Dr Michael Stroscio, a physicist with a Phd from Yale, who has chaired Presidential science commission. He was the one, BTW, who discovered the shot at 285. I only take credit for finding massive evidence which corroborates him. I cite him in the article I linked for you.

You think you've found an angle and you're working tangential facts into what you hope is a workable theory, and it won't hold up.

I find it disappointing that you would focus on me, rather than the evidence.

Here's where you're failing: The evidence against Oswald as the shooter is overwhelming.

Yes, I have specifically stated that he was probably guilty. I've said that at least a dozen times in this forum and in the article I linked for you.

Not accepting this fact is a personal choice based on Woo and not intellectual honesty.

Sigh..

Technology has only reinforced the case against Oswald. Lasers show where the shots came from,

Not really. The problem is, that JFK and Connally were out of Zapruder's view, behind the Stemmons sign when the 223 shot was fired, so LN advocates have given themselves free reign to position their mannequins in these lasers tests however is necessary to get the wounds to match up. I will elaborate on that at a later time, but let's first resolve the current issues.

this has been tested more than once. Computer simulations have allowed test shots to come from multiple locations and each time it comes back to the 6th floor.

Computer programs prove what the programmer wants them to prove. We have to look at each of their arguments specifically. Most of the LN documentaries over the last 20 years have been as bad as the worst of the ones that promoted conspiracy. Here is one example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgec6oCdIvE

Oswald shooting from the 6th floor is the most solid part of the case.

Your subjective opinion is noted, but I think the most solid part of the case is the fact that none of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone and only one of them was even audible to most witnesses - that and the simultaneous startle reactions following 285, in conjunction with Dr Alvarez's discovery that Zapruder reacted to a loud noise at frame 290-291, in perfect unison with the limo passengers who reacted at 290-292.

A smart JFK-CTist would focus on the idea that someone else knew what LHO was going to do.

I think a smart JFK-CTist would go with the verifiable facts and empirical evidence.

You know, link him to some MONGOOSE Cuban counter revolutionaries.

Unfortunately, I don't get to decide on what the evidence is. Why don't you just look at the data I have linked for you.

Refute my arguments with SPECIFICITY. And get a perspective on this. People around here seem to equate this with witchcraft and supernatural deities. But all we are fighting about is whether one thug or several carried out this crime.

And as you look at this evidence, ask yourself if the early shots and the later ones all came from the same rifle.

If you can do that objectively, you'll come to the right conclusion.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, Hank didn't "beg the question," as nothing in his phrasing presumed that the weapon recovered on the sixth floor was Oswald's.

And now you are repeating his fallacy. Prove that Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor.

He said that "the photographs of the rifle in place taken by the Dallas Crime lab, and film of the search of the Depository taken by Thomas Alyea" were "examined extensively by the HSCA and used to validate the weapon recovered on the sixth floor as Oswald's."

But he never proved that rifle was found on the sixth floor, did he?

I have no doubt that they found Oswald's rifle and neither did Ellsworth. The question is, which floor it was found on. And normally, I would be happy to take the officers' word for it, if it weren't for the FBI's stated commitment, that they had to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone.

We already know that they switched out the actual SBT bullet in order to hide the fact that it was not from Oswald's rifle. Beyond that, we have to assume that they would go to any lengths to quash evidence of conspiracy.

If two murder weapons were found in the depository, they HAD to make one of them go away.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Prove that Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor.

What further evidence would you require, besides what has been presented?
What is suspect about that evidence itself?

But he never proved that rifle was found on the sixth floor, did he?

Enlighten me. What are the flaws in the evidence presented, above, for the rifle's having been found on the sixth floor?

I have no doubt that they found Oswald's rifle and neither did Ellsworth. The question is, which floor it was found on. And normally, I would be happy to take the officers' word for it, if it weren't for the FBI's stated commitment, that they had to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone.

For the umpteenth time, Bob: you are taking this statement out of context. It stresses that the public must be presented with "all the facts."

The memo is not speaking of a cover-up, because the FBI was sure they had their man.
OK, so you think they got it wrong.
You really should tell them at your earliest convenience.

We already know that they switched out the actual SBT bullet in order to hide the fact that it was not from Oswald's rifle.

Now, that is begging the question.
We know nothing of the kind. This is merely something you believe.

I've seen, several times, your attempt to prove this, but after running up against a number of your stupefying leaps in logic, I tend to give up on it, so I've probably never made it through the whole demonstration.

Beyond that, we have to assume that they would go to any lengths to quash evidence of conspiracy.

I don't have to assume anything like that.

I note that you didn't respond to the question that I happen to find most interesting, so I will repeat it:

How do you think the bizarre notion that the photos and film were somehow faked can be reconciled with your statement that you are "not saying that ANY of the cops or FBI people were 'in on it' or had sinister motives"?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Begging the question.

You don't know what "begging the question" means, do you?

You have not proved that Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor.

That it was found on the 6th floor is the null hypothesis. Sorry, that's just the way it works. At least you've stopped claiming that your "something else happened" hypothesis is the null.

Do you feel that you have enough objective and verifiable evidene to present to the FBI to prove... whatever positive case you're trying to prove?

 

[ComfySlippers]

Jay, I am indeed, seeking your expert opinion.

Your assertion that I am not, is begging the question, since you have no way of knowing my motives.

Is it possible Jay, that the reason you evade questions is that you know you will be challenged to support your answers?

Jay, others and myself all recognised your game very early on.
I mentioned many pages ago how funny it was that your game tactics never change even after twenty years.

Accepting opinions that differ from your nonsense isn't allowed in your game.
So Jay is correct to mention that you are not actually seeking his opinion, but are attempting to prolong the game.

ETA: Look at the final sentence. "You won't play my game because you're scared". One of the older and more childish tactics.

 

[HSienzant]

Prove that Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor.

All that has been established for 52 years. You don't know where to find the evidence?

Start here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. DAY. I met Captain Fritz. He wanted photographs of the rifle before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if Captain Fritz told you that the rifle had not been moved?
Mr. DAY. He told me he wanted photographs before it was moved, if I remember correctly. He definitely told me it had not been moved, and the reason for the photographs he wanted it photographed before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what the reporter has marked or what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 718, and ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is a photograph made by me of the rifle where it was found in the northwest portion of the sixth floor, 411 Elm Street, Dallas.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 719 and ask you to state if you know what that is.
Mr. DAY. It is a picture of the portion of the northwest floor where the rifle was found.
== UNQUOTE ==

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce718.jpg

That photo, among many others, was studied by the HSCA and determined to be the weapon owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, bearing serial number C2766.

We already know that they switched out the actual SBT bullet in order to hide the fact that it was not from Oswald's rifle. Beyond that, we have to assume that they would go to any lengths to quash evidence of conspiracy.

Why do we know that and how do we know that? You never went back and read this entire thread, did you? We discussed this evidence extensively with another poster and found it wanting.

If two murder weapons were found in the depository, they HAD to make one of them go away.

On the afternoon of the assassination? Within an hour or two of the assassination? Why?

And if two weapons were found in the depository, where are the witnesses for TWO? You have a ton of contemporaneous witnesses to one weapon on the sixth floor, and then you have hearsay (a rumor) of another weapon coming forward three decades after the fact of a weapon found on a lower floor. But no witnesses for two weapons. Sorry, you need to establish there are two weapons with something more than rumor and hearsay.

Hank

PS: It might be simpler and quicker if you tell us what conclusions of the Warren Commission you actually agree with. When you arrived here, you claimed you agreed with most. We're finding that claim of yours, like many others, appears to be erroneous when closely inspected.

 

[HSienzant]

I never said he [Ellsworth] saw the rifle.

Thank you. You just lost this argument.

A rumor or hearsay has no value as evidence.

You are citing a *recollection of hearsay* three decades after the fact for this rifle on a lower floor.

All the contemporaneous evidence (like the witnesses memos and the testimony) put the found rifle on the sixth floor, and none of those witnesses ever said they saw two rifles.

Even Weitzman's memo (the one you cited) puts the rifle on the sixth floor.

Nor have you ever presented any evidence of a second rifle found anywhere in the Depository. No witness mentioned seeing TWO weapons in the building. All mentioned one. All the legitimate evidence points to one rifle on the sixth floor.

Now, what make and model was it?

It was determined by the contemporaneous films and photos to be Oswald's. If you want to overthrow that evidence, you need some evidence.

You don't overthrow that evidence because some guy is claiming to be repeating hearsay he heard decades later.

Nor do you overthrow by merely claiming that J.C.Day is lying.

So what do you have?

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Thank you. You just lost this argument.

A rumor or hearsay has no value as evidence.

Nonsense. You don't get to decide what is significant and what is not. If what he said was true, then it is extremely important and worth considering.

This is not a courtroom. And we don't apply the kind of standards that apply when a defendant's life or liberty is at stake.

I can't prove that this guy told the truth and you can't prove he that lied, or suffered some kind of delusion. All we know for sure is that his story, if true, answers a lot of questions. It is consistent with the original description of the Mauser, while at the same time explaining how the DPD acquired the MC that really did belong to Oswald.

 

[Belz...]

You don't get to decide what is significant and what is not.

Neither do you. So who does ?

This is not a courtroom. And we don't apply the kind of standards that apply when a defendant's life or liberty is at stake.

You're implying that people commited a grievous crime. I would think that the standards should be pretty high.

 

[Robert Harris]

All that has been established for 52 years. You don't know where to find the evidence?

Start here: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. DAY. I met Captain Fritz. He wanted photographs of the rifle before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if Captain Fritz told you that the rifle had not been moved?
Mr. DAY. He told me he wanted photographs before it was moved, if I remember correctly. He definitely told me it had not been moved, and the reason for the photographs he wanted it photographed before it was moved.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what the reporter has marked or what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 718, and ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is a photograph made by me of the rifle where it was found in the northwest portion of the sixth floor, 411 Elm Street, Dallas.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 719 and ask you to state if you know what that is.
Mr. DAY. It is a picture of the portion of the northwest floor where the rifle was found.
== UNQUOTE ==

You haven't proven that this testimony was accurate. We know for a fact, that the FBI's stated agenda was to quash conspiracy theories. So if there was a second murder weapon, it had to go.

And the ww3 threat was a powerful way to persuade, even the most honest witness, to support their coverup.

That photo, among many others, was studied by the HSCA and determined to be the weapon owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, bearing serial number C2766.

All that photo proves is that Oswald's rifle was found in the depository. It doesn't prove where it was found.

Why do we know that and how do we know that? You never went back and read this entire thread, did you? We discussed this evidence extensively with another poster and found it wanting.

None of that matters. The fact is, that you cannot with certainty, prove that Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor. Uncorroborated witness statements don't prove your case, because there was an obvious motivation to make it appear that there was only one rifle.

If two murder weapons were found in the depository, they HAD to make one of them go away.

On the afternoon of the assassination? Within an hour or two of the assassination?

More likely, on the 23rd.

Why?

Because two rifles would prove conspiracy.

And if two weapons were found in the depository, where are the witnesses for TWO?

They probably died from old age

You have a ton of contemporaneous witnesses to one weapon on the sixth floor,

And they all were susceptible to the FBI's commitment to insure that no evidence would be made public, that proved conspiracy.

The FBI's stated policy, taints the testimonies of any witnesses they came in contact with. So, we must always take testimonies from such witnesses, with a grain of salt.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nonsense. You don't get to decide what is significant and what is not.

Assuming a CT wants to convince anybody of a theory, then yes, the listeners do get to decide what convinces them, and to tell the CT of the standard of evidence they expect.

If what he said was true, then it is extremely important and worth considering.

And yet nobody has a reason to assume it is. Consequences come after validation, not before. If it were true that Kryton, Dave, Rimmer and the Cat appeared in the TSBD with another rifle, then that too would be incredibly important. It would have far reaching consequences. And yet that offers no reason to consider it true.

This is not a courtroom. And we don't apply the kind of standards that apply when a defendant's life or liberty is at stake.

Standards being requested were not based on trial law.

Again. The person being convinced is the one who decides what standard of evidence is going to convince them. As it happens Hank was asking for purely historical standards, based on critical thinking.

If Robert wanted to convince anybody, he would have asked what standard of evidence would be worth considering, rather than try to dictate that standards should be lowered until the theory is accepted.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You haven't proven that this testimony was accurate.

Ahem:

Nonsense. You don't get to decide what is significant and what is not. If what he said was true, then it is extremely important and worth considering.

This is not a courtroom. And we don't apply the kind of standards that apply when a defendant's life or liberty is at stake.

So. Something that fits with a theory is convincing because it is interesting. But testimony against has to be proven.

Two posts, so close together, yet with such differing standards...

 

[BStrong]

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

Thank you very much - All this talk of NOLA and Marcello got me so nostalgic that I went on a New Orleans cooking binge from Friday night on and was unable to devote time to the interwebz.

I'll post later this evening, but wanted to thank you for your post Tomtom, that is one of the finest written explanations of logical thought wrt CT's I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

 

[Belz...]

Because two rifles would prove conspiracy.

Would it ? Just finding another rifle ? It also needs to have been fired during the event.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Would it ? Just finding another rifle ? It also needs to have been fired during the event.

...and pointed at the same target. You can't include the rifle of Old Man Withers at the Haunted Lighthouse.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

We know for a fact, that the FBI's stated agenda was to quash conspiracy theories.

The FBI was sure there was no conspiracy.
You haven't seemed to acknowledge that your supposed evidence for a cover-up is nothing of the kind.
You haven't even tried to come up with one of your preposterous rebuttals, like there were maybe scarequotes in the memo around the word "facts," in invisible ink that only conspiracists can read.

And I'll ask this again, since you haven't answered before: Do you believe the government did not want to know whether there was a conspiracy behind the murder of the president, and did not perform a serious investigation?

 

[HSienzant]

Two posts, so close together, yet with such differing standards...

Excellent point. That conspiracy theorists in general behave this way was pointed out by Jay Utah back in his initial post(s) to Robert Harris.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10737645#post10737645

Quoting Jay: "Do not attempt a disingenuous argument where you dismiss Oswald based on one standard of evidence and then are unwilling to present an alternative theory and defend it to the same standard."

Robert said he was different than all the rest.

It appears not.

Robert is dismissing all the evidence against Oswald because it can't pass his bar of evidence against Oswald -- which is apparently painted on the sky. Robert accepts the hearsay 30-year recollection of a rifle found on a different floor because it leaps over the bar for conspiracy evidence -- which is apparently painted on the Marianas Trench.

Very different rules when the evidence points to Oswald and away from Oswald.