Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Warren Commission never said that. They said there was no evidence Oswald had help of any nature. They also said they found no evidence of conspiracy.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1.html#conclusions

== QUOTE ==
9.The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.


YES! That's exactly what I said. Read your own citations.

They said they had found no evidence of conspiracy, which is not exactly shocking, considering that they relied almost entirely on Hoover's FBI for their evidence.
 
Hoover's opinion

As anyone who has read my article on CE399 knows, the FBI received two bullets from Parkland, neither of which came from Oswald's rifle.

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

Hoover of course, was aware of that and needed to let his old friend LBJ know that Oswald didn't act alone. But if he just blurted it out, he would have put LBJ in a predicament in which he would have had to either go public with that information or commit the impeachable crime of obstructing justice.

What he did, was tell Johnson in a more subtle way, so that he was not put at risk. This recorded phone conversation occurred one week after the assassination.

LBJ: How did it happen they hit Connally?

JEH: Connally turned to the President, when the first shot was fired
and I think that in turning.. it was where he got hit.

LBJ: If he hadn't turned he probably wouldn't have gotten hit?

JEH: I think that is very likely.

LBJ: Would the President've gotten hit by the second one?

JEH: No, the President wasn't hit with the second one.

LBJ: I say, if Connally hadn't been in his way?

JEH: Oh, yes, yes. The President would no doubt have been hit!


Of course, by this time, everyone on the planet, and certainly Hoover, knew that Connally was seated in front of JFK. The only way Connally could have been in the way of a bullet for Kennedy, was if a shot was fired from the front, or JBC was sitting on the trunk:-)

And LBJ obviously got the message. Having been in the motorcade himself, he certainly knew that JFK was sitting in the higher, rear seat, as he always did in motorcades. So why don't we hear him question Hoover's theory?
 
The Conspiracy Theorist's game is incredibly boring, for me.

It may be tedious, but it's useful in a context such as ISF as an example both of the illogical lines of reasoning we sometimes can discuss only as abstract patterns and toy examples, and of the rhetorical methods proponents sometimes use to manipulate the mechanism of intellectual inquiry toward other ends.

This is partially why I invite new proponents to read the thread. I feel it's valuable for the discussion as a whole to see what territory has been previously covered. But I feel it's more important for new proponents to see what kinds of approaches historically have not worked. I trust them to recognize those approaches and not waste everyone's time by redeploying them, if they want to be taken seriously.

Many laughs are to be had by reading their nonsense.
But it's pointless to play along.

It's pointless to keep playing after the game is revealed. But a certain amount of play has to ensue before you can conclude it truly is a game. Before you can induce the proposition that the proponent is intractable, you have to apply enough traction to allow the reasonable observer to see this for himself, and draw the same conclusion for himself. That's the essential nature of consensus-based induction. This is why we often require juries to reach a verdict by unanimous vote.

ETA: respect to people who have the patience to play along but it's a futile endeavour.

Every person has to arrive at that conclusion according to his own criteria, and in his own time. Those of us who entered the game early have naturally tired of it. Some let the game run long; others let it run only a few rounds before calling it quits.

And there is rarely only one thing wrong with an unconvincing argument. In the legal world, it's common to write motions and briefs such that all the possible lines of reasoning are covered. You want to give the judge the maximum latitude for finding in your favor. It doesn't matter in those lengthy documents if two-thirds of it is rendered moot by the judge's decision to sustain one fundamental objection.

But in a more fluid form of debate, a critic may pick one problem with the argument and argue it solely. That leaves room for other critics to come in later, even after the first has tired of several unproductive rounds on his point, and pick up the other points of failure.
 
I find this rather amazing. I have watched quite a few debates involving Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitch, Lawrence Krauss and other pretty sharp people.

And they always answer questions, even the most ridiculous, in fact. I have NEVER heard any of them refuse to answer a question with the excuse that it is a "game", even when it really was:-)

So why is it that the most brilliant and honest skeptics in existence, have no problem answering questions, while you do?

Maybe you need to watch a little more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAaDKZ-SuE

partial transcript
---------------------------------------------------
[A Truther]
Being that anyone with moral and intellectual fortitude, who looks at the evidence of that day sees that no Al-Qaeda Jihadi had the means to schedule the war games that actually stood down our…

[Christopher Hitchens]
Hold it right there. No, no, no, that’s not right.

[A Truther]
Being that any Al-Qaeda…

[Christopher Hitchens]
Wasting your time.

[A Truther]
Being that any member of Al-Qaeda had no motive to anthrax the leading opponents of the Patriot Act.

[Christopher Hitchens]
Wasting your time. I’m not going to answer you.
[A Truther]
Why won’t you answer?

[Christopher Hitchens]
You can speak.

[A Truther] Source: LYBIO.net
So here is the question…

[Christopher Hitchens]
You can speak.

[A Truther]
Being that you are an intellectual and now that you are…

[Christopher Hitchens]
You can speak, I’m not bothering with you.

[A Truther]
Why?

[Christopher Hitchens]
I have no time to waste on people like you.

[A Truther]
Do you really believe 19 guys with…

[Christopher Hitchens]
Stop it.

[A Truther]
…Osama bin Laden…

[Christopher Hitchens] Source: LYBIO.net
I can’t make you stop, I can’t make you stop, but when you stop, it’s allover. Ok.

[A Truther]
Are you going to answer me?

[Christopher Hitchens]
No sir, I’m not.

[A Truther]
Do you believe it? Do you believe…?

[Christopher Hitchens]
No sir, I’m not. No. Nor am I going to buy – I’m not going to buy a pencil from your cup either.[A Truther]
You don’t even answer my question.

[Christopher Hitchens]
No, I’m not. That’s correct. I’m not.

Way in the backside, this gentlemen, way in the back, thank you.
 
Because two rifles would prove conspiracy.

And bullets from two rifles would prove conspiracy too.

As soon as your plot allows more than one gun to be used, you have to accept the likelihood that bullets from more than one gun may be recovered by people who are not your fellow conspirators.

So planning to use multiple shooters yet relying on concealing that fact would be a really, really dumb plan.

So it makes no sense to plot to conceal a second rifle.
 
I find this rather amazing. I have watched quite a few debates involving Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitch, Lawrence Krauss and other pretty sharp people.

And they always answer questions, even the most ridiculous, in fact. I have NEVER heard any of them refuse to answer a question with the excuse that it is a "game", even when it really was:-)

So why is it that the most brilliant and honest skeptics in existence, have no problem answering questions, while you do?
YouTube is an interesting adjunct to debate and research but the written word is preferable to present real ideas. Dawkins and the others are only invited to debates because they have done real research and written theses and books which were peer reviewed.
 
Maybe you need to watch a little more?

That's a poor analogy, since Hitch was not in a debate forum with that guy, for the express purpose of debating him.

Is it your belief that it's a good tactic for Jay to refuse to answer any and all questions related to the issues we are discussing?

Do you think it's a good tactic for him to refuse to even state his own position on the assassination?

I have had many excellent debates with some of the sharpest LN advocates, who have written books on the assassination. They frequently clam up when confronted with tough questions, but in 20 years, I have never encountered anyone who used Jay's excuse.

Perhaps, you would like to take a shot?
 
No I don't and you guys wouldn't agree with me if I had a note from God:-)
Of course not. There is no such thing as god. It's a myth, much like your ideas.

And I don't make arguments based on "need". I base them on the evidence. If Ellsworth and the officers who talked to him about Oswald's rifle were truthful, then it is a fact that there were two murder weapons.
Except you ignore any and all counter-evidence presented.

Some issues cannot be resolved, in fact, many issues associated with this case cannot be resolved with certainty. Only blind advocates claim otherwise.
You claim this, yet you claim that you can be certain. Please reconcile these contrary claims.

I have demonstrated with certainty, that Oswald did not fire any of the early shots. And I have demonstrated a probability that shots were fired at 285 and 313, that is so high that it is beyond reasonable dispute.
Wait, is certainty possible or not? you have claimed both. Which is it?

Other issues, like the sniper locations, are also, not absolute certainties. The question of whether Ellsworth told the truth, also falls into that category. I see no probable reason to think that he didn't. You obviously do.
What sniper locations? You have provided evidence for none besides the TSBD.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record,
No risk involved, one of the few certainties you have presented.

I am here to present relevant facts and evidence, associated with the assassination.
Please feel free to commence to start. In your own time.

Will it help if I tell you another 12 times, that I cannot prove it is true?
Nope. That is called spam and is a violation of the MA you signed your name to.

Coming from a federal agent, it is obviously likely, however.
Because federal agents are godlike, as any fule kno. Eleventy.

I'm pretty sure I never said that. Cite me verbatim please. I have lost track of how many times you have misrepresented my statements.
I have no idea why your "cite me verbatim" argument seems to you to be a "killer argument". It isn't. All it is, is evidence that everyone lacks the motivation to seek out those posts both here and elsewhere. Because it is pointless. You would simply ignore such citations.

I said no such thing. It gets tiresome having to continually correct your misrepresentations.
Pot, meet kettle.
 
YES! That's exactly what I said. Read your own citations.

They said they had found no evidence of conspiracy, which is not exactly shocking, considering that they relied almost entirely on Hoover's FBI for their evidence.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, Robert.
 
YouTube is an interesting adjunct to debate and research but the written word is preferable to present real ideas.

Not in this case. The most critical issues are based on the reactions of the people who were closest to Kennedy. It's not good enough to just tell you what they did. It is infinitely better to show you.

But for anyone who insists on articles, I have provided them too. Perhaps you can do what no one else will even attempt to do - post a refutation.

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

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

Dawkins and the others are only invited to debates because they have done real research and written theses and books which were peer reviewed.

Begging the question. You are trying to demean analysis which you obviously, have never examined. That is not how critical thinkers do things.
 
That's a poor analogy, since Hitch was not in a debate forum with that guy, for the express purpose of debating him.

Is it your belief that it's a good tactic for Jay to refuse to answer any and all questions related to the issues we are discussing?

Do you think it's a good tactic for him to refuse to even state his own position on the assassination?

I have had many excellent debates with some of the sharpest LN advocates, who have written books on the assassination. They frequently clam up when confronted with tough questions, but in 20 years, I have never encountered anyone who used Jay's excuse.

Perhaps, you would like to take a shot?
Seems like some goalposts are moving there.

But I think the others have done a great job of taking apart your "evidence". Based on what you've presented here I see nothing of substance, just conjecture. And I think it's true you've largely followed the same format of previous CTists, just as Jay predicted.

You've presented no argument I can see that needs rebutting more than has already happened.

As Hitch said, I'm not going to buy a pencil from your cup.
 
Last edited:
Robert Harris said:
Dawkins and the others are only invited to debates because they have done real research and written theses and books which were peer reviewed.

Begging the question. You are trying to demean analysis which you obviously, have never examined. That is not how critical thinkers do things.

"Begging the question"...?!
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I delighted in that the first time I saw it. Some theories are just too stupid to be dignified with a lengthy rebuttal.

Are you referring to theories which are supported by the large majority of witnesses, and are supported by the most brilliant scientists to ever examine the Zapruder film?

Or perhaps you meant that it is "too stupid" to assume that these people reacted to exactly what they described hearing at the time?

ducking3.gif
 
Are you referring to theories which are supported by the large majority of witnesses, and are supported by the most brilliant scientists to ever examine the Zapruder film?

Or perhaps you meant that it is "too stupid" to assume that these people reacted to exactly what they described hearing at the time?

[qimg]http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif[/qimg]

Bob, get a grip! I've seen the Zapruder film! I've read your cockamamie arguments a zillion times!
And I have taken the time to give detailed rebuttals to your theories.
The "too stupid" remark referred explicitly to Truther ideas about controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. But if you want to draw an analogy...
 
Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front seat of the presidential limousine is by any standard, a five star witnesses - first, because he was a Secret Service agent whose job was, to keep and eye and an ear out for trouble.

Also, he was totally consistent with most of the other witnesses, who heard exactly the same spacing between the shots that he did.

Even more importantly, he was visible in the Zapruder film, so we can easily match up his testimony, with his actions. To put it another way, Kellerman did more than just tell us when shots were fired, he SHOWED us.

Kellerman stated that the time between the first noise/shot he heard and the second, was about 5 seconds.

"Mr. SPECTER. Was there any timespan which you could discern between the first and second shots and what you have described as the flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that. "

He described the final shots like this, "a flurry of shells come into the car" and "..it was like a double bang--bang, bang."

Even more convincing than his testimony, are his visible actions in the Zapruder film. During the attack, he ducked only twice - within a tiny fraction of a second following the shot at 285 and again, almost immediately following the headshot at 313. This animation makes that very clear (will not run properly until it loads and runs a second time).

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

And his reactions were simultaneous with reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally who dropped their heads at the same instant he did.

http://jfkhistory.com/angles285.jpg

The three of them reacted simultaneously with Bill greer, who began to spin around so rapidly that some people thought his turn was humanly impossible. It was while he was spinning that in his panic, he accidentally lifted his foot from the gas, slowing the limousine.

More corroboration comes from Dr. Luis Alvarez, who concluded that both Greer and Abraham Zapruder reacted to a loud and startling noise at precisely, frame 285. He said that Zapruder reacted at frames 290-291. The limo passengers and Greer, began to react at 290-292.

Watch that first animation again. Like Kellerman who ducked twice, Greer spun around from rear to front in perfect unison with Kellerman and the two ladies, as they dropped their heads.

In addition to ducking, Kellerman also exhibited other reactions which are textbook examples of startle responses to a loud noise. As he dropped his head, he raised his hand to shield his left ear, and hunched his shoulders upward and forward - exactly as described by Landis and Hunt, in their universally accepted textbooks.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

As we go through the other visible, surviving witnesses in the limo, we will find almost perfect consistency among them. Each, heard only one early shot and were oblivious to the shot at frame 223, even Governor Connally who was hit by it. And with only the exception of Gov. Connally, who was about to pass out then, each described two shots which were fired at the end of the attack, or well after frame 223.

That doesn't mean there was no shot at 223; there obviously was. But it was not heard by the large majority of witnesses, as the Warren Commission confirmed, or by anyone in the limousine. Oswald's rifle was proven to generate an ear shattering, 130 decibels at ground level. The idea that one of his shots went unnoticed is beyond ludicrous.

At the very least, that shot was not fired by Oswald.

One last point to cover a loose end - one might wonder how we can be sure that the solitary early shot that was audible, was not the one at 223, rather than the one just prior to that, probably circa 150-160.

Mrs. Kennedy, SA George Hickey and SA Paul Landis, all stated that they turned to their right, in reaction the only early shot that they heard. In the Zapruder film, we can see each of them turning exactly as they described, well before frame 223. Ergo, the earlier shot was audible to them, but not the one at 223. Governor Connally reported exactly the same thing. He heard the earlier shot, but not the one at 223.

One might argue that someone heard the opposite, that 223 was audible to them, and 150-160 was not, but that seems highly improbable and even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact that none of the early shots came from a high powered rifle.
 
Seems like some goalposts are moving there.

But I think the others have done a great job of taking apart your "evidence".

Jim, there seems to be an epidemic around here, of vague and ambiguous accusations.

Why can't you be specific about exactly what evidence you think has been dismantled? Ambiguous accusations are pretty worthless, since we have nothing to discuss or debate if you don't tell me specifically, where you think I went wrong.

Did you examine post #3437?

What do you think is the most likely explanation for those movements?

You are aware I presume, that every nonvictim in the limo reported closely bunched shots at the end, or after events that were well after 223.

And do you realize, that according to the Warren Commission, "most" of the witnesses agreed with the passengers, reporting "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack?

And did you know that Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio analyzed the film and concluded that Abraham Zapruder reacted at frame 290-291, while the passengers reactions all began in the sixth of a second at 290-292?

Those are verifiable facts, Jim. Feel free to challenge me to prove what I just said.

Based on what you've presented here I see nothing of substance,

Have you viewed my articles and presentations?

If not, then how did you determine that they lack substance?

That's exactly the response I get from evangelists who declare that there is no valid evidence for evolution, but then refuse to examine the evidence I link - EXACTLY THE SAME RESPONSE.

Evaluate the evidence as objectively as you can. Earn the right to demean my analysis, instead of doing what everyone else around here does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom