Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[turingtest]

Dear lord...in Robert's "real world outside these little forums" (i.e., the YouTube world ), he got 20 whole likes out of a massive 3258 views of his "285 Reactions" video; still, that's a pretty impressive rate of, what, around 0.6%? Who can argue with such "real world" agreement?

 

[Robert Harris]

LOGICAL FALLACY known as a RED HERRING.

We were talking about the Tague shot, which you claim was near the end of the shooting, Robert.

You really shouldn't make statements like that when our conversation is still on the screen.

Hank: It doesn't appear you're taking into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound.

Bob: Of course I am. I'm pretty sure I told you that I presumed the early shots to have come from a subsonic weapon.

The sentence I responded to was your allegation that I do not take "into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound.". The fact that I concluded the early shots and especially, the inaudible one, were subsonic, does demonstrate that I take that into account.

This is one of those penalties you pay when you constantly try to make these issue about me.

Why are you suddenly switching to the early shots?

I responded to precisely what you said, and corrected another misguided accusation.

 

[Robert Harris]

Dear lord...in Robert's "real world outside these little forums" (i.e., the YouTube world ), he got 20 whole likes out of a massive 3258 views of his "285 Reactions" video; still, that's a pretty impressive rate of, what, around 0.6%? Who can argue with such "real world" agreement?

Look at post #3459.

It's one thing to be constantly misrepresenting me. It's quite another when you misrepresent the math.

When nearly 90% of the people who rate my 285 presentations agree, while 0% here, agree, there is a problem somewhere - either in this tiny subforum of hardcore LN advocates or in the rest of the word.

There is nothing more at odds with the principles of critical thinking, than a closed mind. I wonder how many of the people here who refused to view my articles and presentations, have declared that I have no valid evidence.


Which of my articles and presentations have you viewed, Turingfest?

 

[turingtest]

Look at post #3459.
It's one thing to be constantly misrepresenting me. It's quite another when you misrepresent the math.

When nearly 90% of the people who rate my 285 presentations agree, while 0% here, agree, there is a problem somewhere - either in this tiny subforum of hardcore LN advocates or in the rest of the word.

There is nothing more at odds with the principles of critical thinking, than a closed mind. I wonder how many of the people here who refused to view my articles and presentations, have declared that I have no valid evidence.

Where do you think I got the numbers from? "90% of who rated" is a pretty desperate spin, Bob; how many of those who viewed bothered to rate, and what percentage agreed? Essentially the same number for both, isn't it? What do you think the 3235 who couldn't even be troubled to rate thought? Evidently not much...And I'll repeat the point you apparently missed- YouTube is not "the rest of the world."

But if that's what it takes to make you feel better about yourself, go for it.

ETA- Here's a YouTube video positing an inside-jobbity-job CT about 9/11. Compare the numbers of views, rates, and relative like/dislikes to yours- how do you stack up? And what do you think that shows?

 

[BazBear]

There is nothing more at odds with the principles of critical thinking, than a closed mind.

One should indeed try to keep an open mind, but not so open that one's brain might fall out.

 

[JayUtah]

Dear lord...in Robert's "real world outside these little forums" (i.e., the YouTube world )...

I'm still chuckling about that. Harris' notion of "the real world" is YouTube?

This is why questions like "Why haven't you taken this to the FBI?" are pertinent. We presume that serious proponents have honestly subjected their claims to the best criticism available, not merely social-media echo chambers. We presume further that serious proponents whose claims have endured the crucible of real-world criticism, and have been revised as necessary (and not abandoned), recognize that their claims have significance beyond the social-media world and should be taken there.

If you have evidence that a crime was committed, is the best response to trumpet it on Facebook or YouTube? Or should you take your evidence to the appropriate authorities? The latter requires you actually to have a case. But if your motive is other than seeing justice done, and you don't really have a good case, then insinuations and allegations in unregulated channels seem more the rule.

We contrast serious investigation with proponents whose claims arise in, live their entire lives within, and never rise beyond the realm of informal, lay forums, special interest groups, and social media. We interpret in that context the proponents' claims of rigor and correctness. And we entertain with amusement the various excuses for not taking the claims further -- bias, conspiracy, etc. Like it or not, one measure of the objective credibility of a claim is its ability to get a footing in the real world.

These of course are not arguments in themselves, but more accurately an assessment of how strong the proponents really feel their arguments are. This helps us decide at what degree to engage them. If the evidence suggests a proponent is not really sold on his own arguments himself, there is little chance he'll respond to meaningful criticism. Hence when he asks you to respond in excruciating detail, it's more likely he's just trying to spin you around the hamster wheel for his own ends rather than elicit an identification of problems he's already well aware are there.

 

[Belz...]

God, the cheerleading around here is hilarious.

Is that like being a shill ?

And they always answer questions, even the most ridiculous, in fact.

I guess that says a lot about the quality of your requests.

Still waiting on your statistical data. You claimed to have proven low probability.

 

[Belz...]

That's untrue. There is a real world outside these little forums, full of hardcore advocates, in which people actually admit what they see.

Clicking the "like" button doesn't mean they agree with you, nor does "friend" on Facebook actually mean "friend" in real life.

 

[HSienzant]

YOU were talking about the final two shots, specifically what you call the second *audible* shot, at what you claim was approximately frame Z285.

.And of course, Tague himself, said it was the second shot that caused him to be nicked by a tiny piece of debris.

"Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards."

So the evidence is quite consistent that the "concussion" Greer felt from the second shot, was the shock wave of the bullet that went on to strike the pavement, where it shattered, causing a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague, and a larger chunk of lead (perhaps the entire bullet core) to strike the Main St. curbing, where it left a smear of lead.

I responded in that vein, talking specifically about the final two shots as well, and the issue with your reconstruction:

It doesn't appear you're taking into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound. That is, in the Warren Commission narrative, Tague could have been wounded by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) AND have heard that third shot thereafter. That's physics for you. So inconvenient to your theory. Your argument here applies to the convential narrative as well. In fact, according to you, Tague should have heard TWO shots after he was struck by a fragment of that Z285 shot .... the sound of the Z285 shot arriving afterward, and then the sound of the Z313 shot.

You then proceeded to talk about the first two shots, changing the subject entirely. Please try to follow the conversation.

Of course I am. I'm pretty sure I told you that I presumed the early shots to have come from a subsonic weapon.

So let's get back to your theory, and how Tague fits into it.

You really shouldn't make statements like that when our conversation is still on the screen.

Hank: It doesn't appear you're taking into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound.

Bob: Of course I am. I'm pretty sure I told you that I presumed the early shots to have come from a subsonic weapon.

The sentence I responded to was your allegation that I do not take "into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound.". The fact that I concluded the early shots and especially, the inaudible one, were subsonic, does demonstrate that I take that into account.

This is one of those penalties you pay when you constantly try to make these issue about me. *

I responded to precisely what you said, and corrected another misguided accusation.

Hilarious.

Now try responding to the actual point I made, that if Tague was hit by any portion of the Z285 bullet you conjecture, he should have heard two shots after he was struck.

I wrote: "In fact, according to you, Tague should have heard TWO shots after he was struck by a fragment of that Z285 shot .... the sound of the Z285 shot arriving afterward, and then the sound of the Z313 shot."

If Tague heard only one, he heard the Z313 shot. Because of the physics of the matter. You cannot argue that Tague's recollection is correct AND he was wounded by the Z285 shot, because you're then ignoring the inconvenient physics.

I fail to understand how you interjecting to discuss the first two shots is on topic whatsoever. Of course, if you'd rather avoid discussing your theory, we'll all understand why.

Hank

PS: * I said nothing about you. I have discussed your arguments throughout.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

There's nothing that beats "Likes" to indicate advanced levels of scholarly appraisal.

 

[BazBear]

There's nothing that beats "Likes" to indicate advanced levels of scholarly appraisal.

That's so true. Who needs one of them stanky Pulitzer Prizes anyway.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

But there are a couple of truckloads of evidence that men went to the moon. How much evidence do you have that proves Oswald acted alone?

No sir, it's your theory; you bear the burden of proving. And several of your amigos have already admitted that there is no such evidence.

"Admitted"?
No, Bob, some of us have been at pains to try to make you understand that, logically, the negative proposition that "no one helped Oswald" cannot be proven with any kind of evidence. Since you apparently disagree, I've asked you now a number of times what kind of evidence could exist to convince you of that.

There is, however, plenty of evidence that Oswald did the deed, and there's no evidence of anyone else's involvement.

You got me there. It's been tough selling my theory to people who refuse to view articles and presentations, and then report me to a LN/moderator who declares my annotated Zapruder segments to be "spam".

Some of us have looked, at least at some of it.
Reposting the same or substantially the same links violates rules of the forum that existed before you came on to the scene.

But I don't think everybody is like that. There are some who actually have the courage to consider evidence that points to a different conclusion. Of course, they aren't as loud as the hardcore types who refuse to look at the evidence and then claim that I don't have any

Nor have any members of your hidden army taken the trouble to register and speak out in support.
But people here have looked at your evidence and they say you don't have any proof.

You couldn't be more wrong. I have linked a comprehensive and detailed presentation which lays out my analysis from the start to finish. I have also posted a great deal of evidence in this forum, explaining quite clearly, that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, exactly as he said he did.

You have explained why you think that.

But thank you for confirming this little problem with people refusing to examine the evidence and then pretending it doesn't exist.

Yes, but that only confirms that I haven't been persuasive enough to get them to look at the evidence. I will try harder.

How many times do they have to look before they begin to see it your way?
Is there some subliminal brainwashing message in the videos that is supposed to sink in after the third or fourteenth viewing?

I don't think you believe that, and you will prove it by failing to even try to tell me specifically, how I have been refuted.

I see no reason to presume he is saying anything he doesn't believe.
Apparently he has been following the thread.

 

[Axxman300]

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 will say it again. Just because something is loud doesn't mean everyone will hear it, or hear it the same way.

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

Oh, so have you been to Dallas?

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

Sure he could have, and he did. The first shot was deflected by a traffic sign, the second shot was low, hitting the President in the neck and the third was a in the 10-ring. What this shows is a guy looking through a scope that isn't accurized and is making adjustments with each shot. Not hard to do with practice, which Oswald had, and JFK's head would have looked like a pumpkin through the scope.

It was an easy 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?

'Cuz that's likely all they heard, or recalled hearing.

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?

Like I said, the original shot was likely not as loud as the echo, and that is a real explanation. Sound develops with space.

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

Lots of people on Main St. and LBJ was a local favorite.

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

There is no evidence, just a theory based on how loud a rifle fired in a controlled environment should have made people react in a dissimilar environment.

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.

So in your view, people who have done work that proves Oswald was alone fake their evidence. Okay...

Computer programs prove what the programmer wants them to prove.

Not any more.

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.

There were only three shots.

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

In 51 years I have yet to see that happen.

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.

You do and you have decided what your version of evidence is. Your links all go back to a slanted page. There's nothing that can be confused with objective there. If that's what I want I can dig out my old Jim Mars books

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.

That's easy, there was one shooter in Dealey Plaza, Lee Oswald. What you and guys like you are doing isn't so much like witchcraft as it is speculative alchemy. You are just one more to add a non-sequitur to the Zapruder film.

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

They did. Nobody was hit with subsonic ammunition. All were struck by bullets fired from Oswald's weapon.

 

[HSienzant]

The 285 shot would not have been perceived to have arrived "afterward". I don't think you understand how this stuff works. The sounds associated with that shot would have seemed simultaneous, with no perceptible gaps.

No, that's not right. For the speed of the bullet or fragment in question, it's roughly three times the speed of sound (2100 fps vs 700 fps -- give or take).

It's close enough for the math to do it on the back of a napkin.

Tague was 520 feet from the Depository.

A bullet or fragment at 2100 fps would take about 1/4th of a second to reach him.
The sound at 700 fps would take about 3/4ths of a second to reach him.

That's about a half-second difference, and the sound would arrive LATER.

And that's what Tague said. He felt the sting of the fragment hitting his face, and then he heard the third shot. You quoted him saying that, but you didn't account for the difference in the speed of the bullet versus the speed of sound.

If you want to argue for the third of four shots being responsible for the Tague wounding, then you need to explain why Tague didn't hear two shots after he was struck (both the third and fourth shot, both of which should have arrived at his position after the fragment struck him). The physics is inconvenient to your proposed scenario. As I said nearly two weeks ago.

Hank

PS: You skimmed right over my response about Kellerman and his recollection of five seconds between the first shot and the "flurry". Why is that?

You know, this one here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10763356#post10763356

 

[HSienzant]

Just curious, Robert. Any particular reason you have the limo at the wrong angle to what it should be (a roughly 4 degree downward slope as the car approached the overpass).

Was that just inadvertent? Posting incorrect graphics isn't very persuasive.

And wouldn't using frame 312 (adjusted for the slope of the street) be far better to illustrate this than the blurry image you choose to use above?

And if you correct the image to the correct slope, does the fragment from JFK's head then go over the windshield at a smaller angle by about four degrees?

Or, does it not need to go over the windshield at all? Could a fragment of a shot from the Depository at Z313, given the location of Tague and the limousine, exit at a lower angle and miss the windshield on the left side of the car? I am reminded that a large piece of JFK's skull was found in the grass forward and to the left of the location of the limousine at the time of the head shot. If a piece of skull could travel that far without striking the windshield, why couldn't a fragment of a bullet travel to Tague, who was likewise forward and to the left of the limo at the time of the head shot?

You've got the horizontal angle incorrect by about four degrees. Can you provide the vertical angle here (e.g., looking down on the car with the limo overlaid on a map of Dealey Plaza - like an aerial shot)?

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert, do you feel that your evidence is of such quality that you would take it to the FBI?

Please don't dishonestly run away from answering again.

 

[HSienzant]

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

That's sort of like those snipers that we know exist because they left no evidence behind and were not seen by anyone -- exactly like snipers do.

Or like those pink unicorns who acted as spotters.

Something easy to conjecture but very hard to find or even prove the existence of.

Hank

 

[cmikes]

Robert, do you feel that your evidence is of such quality that you would take it to the FBI?

Please don't dishonestly run away from answering again.

I'm sure you'll get the same canned response all CTs give to that question. "Since the FBI was in on the crime, they'll never listen to me!"

In my opinion, that's one of the biggest flaws of CTs that assume government involvement in the assassination of JFK. The notion that "the government" is one vast collective hive mind that has maintained complete continuity over the last fifty years is ludicrous to anyone that thinks about it for even a second. Most of the people in the upper reaches of the FBI bureaucracy were teenagers at best when J. Edgar Hoover died and some of them were probably still in diapers and yet we're expected to believe that they would ignore "objective proof" (according to Robert, anyway) in order to protect his legacy.

Also, not to get political, but does anyone really believe that the last two Attorney Generals, let alone any of them that came before, would really go to the mat for Hoover? Really? Go out of their way to protect a man's legacy that included not only being complicit in the death of one of the most popular liberal leaders of all time, but also the legacy of a man that was famously cool to the idea of the Civil Rights movement as well as being outright hostile to its leaders?

I think any rational person in that position would be thrilled to have "objective proof" of Hoover's complicity in the JFK assassination and have the opportunity to shatter his legacy for all time.

So why aren't Robert and the other CTs with "objective proof" rushing to FBI headquarters right now?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But there are a couple of truckloads of evidence that men went to the moon. How much evidence do you have that proves Oswald acted alone?

That's a poor comparison. A better one would be to ask how much evidence do you have proving that the USA alone landed men on the moon?

A lack of evidence that the Soviets, the Chinese or Grand Fenwick landed men on the moon is not proof that the US acted alone.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm pretty sure I told you that I presumed the early shots to have come from a subsonic weapon.

Which obviously means the planners of the assassination had to accept that bullets from multiple weapons would likely be recovered, therefore no attempt to conceal the existence of multiple shooters would make a scrap of sense.

So it makes no sense to spirit away any second rifle in the book depository and it makes no sense to give some shooters inaccurate suppressed weapons while others fire high velocity rifles.

<edit to add> Unless of course your conspiracy theory expands to become "everyone was in on it" in which case your claim of parsimony looks even sillier than before.