Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

It shouldn't have been this simple. It should have been some sensational, complicated conspiracy, involving a cast of hundreds. But it was just about one very pissed off mobster and a handful of thugs.

Who had apparently one sniper using a weapon that made no sound, hit nothing

It get so tired, constantly correcting misrepresentations. The 223 shot, which was obviously suppressed, hit JFK and probably Connally.

and left no traces

No, it left one whole bullet, that was recovered at Parkland and delivered to the the DPD by officer Bobby Nolan.

Perhaps it would be helpful to get a clue about what you are attacking

and another to be the patsy to get blamed so the Cubans could take the fall, the US would go to war and the Mob gets their casinos back? All dependent on people to do what they were supposed to and never ever talk after being arrested?

Marcello obviously, thought the same thing. Giancana, Roselli, Nicolleti and Ferrie, all died within days, before or after, talking about the mobs role in the JFK case - Nicoletti, within 24 hours after HSCA investigators started calling around to find him.

Parsimony does not support your theory.

I think Mr. Occam would be delighted with it.

The physical evidence does not support your theory.

Of course it does. READ!

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

And when people involved were arrested and interogated by police, no one ever went - "I have some information about the Kennedy assassination that you'd like to know, and in return for taking the death penalty off the table/dropping some of the charges/etc. I'll tell you all about it."

Wrong again. Ruby did exactly that, practically begging the WC to take him to a safe place where he could talk, and finally having to settle for a polygraph, which he expected to fail, giving the WC a clue.

But the nice folks from the FBI weren't going to let Jack tell any lies that day, even if they had to twist the sensitivity knob on the polygraph so far to the left that it broke

http://jfkhistory.com/Polygraph/polygraph.html

 

[Robert Harris]

And still you confuse me with someone who intends to play your game.

I will take that to be a no.

How did you determine that I failed to make my case, if you didn't examine my articles and presentations?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you guys have a contest going to see who can invent the most ridiculous argument?

Why would they hide at least one of the shooters, and leave one lone activist as the patsy if: " They wanted the world to think this was a communist conspiracy, and it almost worked."

So... After all those posts about how little evidence there was for a second sniper, because they were so danged good at covering their tracks, you now claim that they wanted people to think there was a communist conspiracy?

Despite all the effort to leave one man as the patsy? To disguise the conspiracy and leave one chap to take the fall?


That is like Joey having a stack of condoms to hand so he can repopulate the Earth.

Here's an idea. If they wanted us to believe there was a conspiracy, why not leave a Russian rifle and a copy of the Red Flag in the second building? You know... Why not leave signs of a conspiracy?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I will take that to be a no.

How did you determine that I failed to make my case, if you didn't examine my articles and presentations?

Why do you keep asking the hilighted question? He hasn't commented on if your case was convincing or not, and has clearly stated no interest in engaging with you.

He has however commented on the pattern of you posts that was predicted, that you have kept.

Is there any reason you can not distinguish between these two? Is there any reason anybody should be obliged to engage with you against their interest?

If not, perhaps you could try asking Jay about what he has commented on. He might actually be willing to talk about the thing he is...you know...talking about...

 

[Robert Harris]

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

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

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

No, I responded to your allegation. If you meant that I was only deficient in considering the later shots, you should have said so.

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

Now try responding to the actual point I made,

I responded to exactly what you said. If you were only referring to the later shots, you should have made that clear.

that if Tague was hit by any portion of the Z285 bullet you conjecture, he should have heard two shots after he was struck.

No, he was stung as a result of the 285 shot. Any sound associated with that shot would have been perceived as simultaneous. You need to lose this notion that single shots sound like multiple shots. That isn't how it works.

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."

He didn't perceive two shots then. He heard one shot strike the pavement.

If Tague heard only one, he heard the Z313 shot. Because of the physics of the matter.

Sigh...

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.

Why do you constantly argue that the witnesses heard things they never said they heard, and didn't hear things that they said they did??

Don't you think they might have been in a little better position to make that call, than you?

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.

You seem to think that a bullet hitting the pavement sounds like two gunshots - it doesn't, just like a bullet striking a hard object doesn't sound like two gunshots. That's why none of these witnesses agree with you

Tague heard a first shot, which was at 150-160, a second shot at 285 and a third shot at 313. This isn't complicated at all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Here's an idea. If they wanted us to believe there was a conspiracy, why not leave a Russian rifle and a copy of the Red Flag in the second building? You know... Why not leave signs of a conspiracy?

It does rather put me in mind of the argument that if The Powers That Be had wanted 9/11 to provoke an attack on Iraq they'd have planted at least something, however minor, to make it look like Iraq was involved.

 

[JayUtah]

I will take that to be a no.

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And the fact that most of the people who rate my 285 presentations, give me thumbs up, proves that folks with no axes to grind see exactly what I and everyone else sees, whether they admit it or not.

Which makes it all the more puzzling why you don't take your objective, verifiable evidence to the FBI. And that you run away from even answering the questions about it.

Do you feel that your evidence rises to the level that it would persuade the FBI? Or do you understand deep down that you're calling your interpretations and inferences "evidence".

I can tell you that that's what everyone else sees and you have no defense against it.

 

[ComfySlippers]

This animation makes that very clear (will not run properly until it loads and runs a second time).

1987 called and wants its piece of string back.

 

[HSienzant]

Do you guys have a contest going to see who can invent the most ridiculous argument?

I know who my vote is going to.

Hank

 

[Poison Oak]

If I'm following this right, evidence of a conspiracy hinges on when Mrs. Connally looked at her husband and what Kellerman did within 1/6ths of a second after JFK and Governor Connelly were shot?

 

[Belz...]

If I'm following this right, evidence of a conspiracy hinges on when Mrs. Connally looked at her husband and what Kellerman did within 1/6ths of a second after JFK and Governor Connelly were shot?

I think everything hinges on Bob's interpretation of a single pixel.

 

[HSienzant]

I think everything hinges on Bob's interpretation of a single pixel.

Does it happen to be pink?

Hank

 

[abaddon]

I think everything hinges on Bob's interpretation of a single pixel.

Which single pixel he will host on his site and link to as often as possible in the hopes of driving google hits and traffic there. Upload it here as an attachment? Heaven forfend.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Does it happen to be pink?



Hank

In the super duper stabilised and enhanced version it's pink. Or green. Hard to tell. In the right light it has a blue tint.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Which single pixel he will host on his site and link to as often as possible in the hopes of driving google hits and traffic there. Upload it here as an attachment? Heaven forfend.

A single pixel would take an eternity to download in Bobsville.
He's doing us a favour.

 

[HSienzant]

No, I responded to your allegation. If you meant that I was only deficient in considering the later shots, you should have said so.

I meant what I said, that your responding about the earlier shots when the preceding conversation was about your arguments for the last two shots, is a logical fallacy known as a red herring. And your continual avoidance of the points I make (via straw man arguments) means you don't have a rebuttal argument.

I responded to exactly what you said. If you were only referring to the later shots, you should have made that clear.

I'm pretty sure everyone but you understands my arguments.

No, he was stung as a result of the 285 shot. Any sound associated with that shot would have been perceived as simultaneous. You need to lose this notion that single shots sound like multiple shots. That isn't how it works.

Another straw man argument. Try to rebut my points, not stuff you make up. No, the sound of the rifle shot travels slower than the rifle bullet. That's the same effect you see when you see lightning and then hear thunder later. Light travels faster than sound, so it arrives at your location sooner. Rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound also, so they also arrive sooner than sound. Tague was far enough way that the sound of the rifle shot would have arrived approximately a half-second after he felt any sting from a fragment.

He didn't perceive two shots then. He heard one shot strike the pavement.

Straw man argument. Try to rebut my actual argument, not stuff you make up on the fly.

Sigh...

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.

Why do you constantly argue that the witnesses heard things they never said they heard, and didn't hear things that they said they did??

Don't you think they might have been in a little better position to make that call, than you?

You are simply issuing more straw man arguments to apparently muddy the waters. Tague said he heard three shots, and felt the sting *before* the third and final one. But after the second one.

If your theory is correct, and his wound was caused by the second audible shot (at Z285) then he should have heard the second audible shot after the sting and then the third audible shot after the sting as well. Because the rifle bullets travel roughly three times faster than the sound of rifle fire.

Why didn't he hear your conjectured third and fourth shot (your second and third audible shots) after being stung? He only heard his third (and final) shot after being stung. The physics of the world says he should have heard the shot that struck him *after* he was struck - because bullets travel faster than sound. Since he only heard the third (and final) shot after being stuck, he was struck by the third (and final) shot he heard. Not the second shot, not the inaudible one you conjecture, not the one you conjecture before that. Not the imaginary fifth bullet from the front you conjecture. Only the final one.

You seem to think that a bullet hitting the pavement sounds like two gunshots - it doesn't, just like a bullet striking a hard object doesn't sound like two gunshots. That's why none of these witnesses agree with you

Another straw man argument. I said nothing about a bullet hitting the pavement causing the sound that Tague heard. You conjecture audible shots at Z285 and Z313. You conjecture Tague was hit by a portion of the Z285 shot. But that means he should have heard the sounds of the shots of Z285 and Z313 being fired after he was stung. But he said he only heard one shot afterward. Which means, if he is accurate, he was struck by the last shot, not the preceding one that you conjecture occurred at Z313. Of course, we're not even getting into your argument for yet another shot after Z313, which means Tague should have heard the Z285, the Z313, and the Z337-ish shot *after* being struck. If your theories are to conform to the real world as we know it.

I'm sure everyone here is following this and understands my point. Except maybe you. Let's see if you confront the issue this time or just muddy the waters some more.

Tague heard a first shot, which was at 150-160, a second shot at 285 and a third shot at 313. This isn't complicated at all.

That assertion establishes nothing. If he only heard one shot after being hit, he was hit but the Z313 shot, not Z285, because bullets travel faster than sound. If you contend he was hit by the Z285 shot, he should have heard the sound of the Z285 shot being fired a half-second after being struck, and then the sound of the Z313 shots being fired a second and a half after that. He should have heard both Z285 and Z313 after being stung. He didn't. You can avoid the issues with your theory, or you can confront them and try to explain the issues.

So far you're avoiding the issues.

Like with Kellerman's five seconds between the first shot and the flurry -- which fits almost precisely with shots at Z223 and Z313 (4.9 seconds). It doesn't fit with your claims of audible shots at Z150-Z160 and Z285 and Z313. So you just ignore it.

Hank

 

[turingtest]

Why would they hide at least one of the shooters, and leave one lone activist as the patsy if: " They wanted the world to think this was a communist conspiracy, and it almost worked."

So... After all those posts about how little evidence there was for a second sniper, because they were so danged good at covering their tracks, you now claim that they wanted people to think there was a communist conspiracy?

Despite all the effort to leave one man as the patsy? To disguise the conspiracy and leave one chap to take the fall?


That is like Joey having a stack of condoms to hand so he can repopulate the Earth.

Here's an idea. If they wanted us to believe there was a conspiracy, why not leave a Russian rifle and a copy of the Red Flag in the second building? You know... Why not leave signs of a conspiracy?

Another little detail, the sort of thing that always creeps in when you try to reverse-engineer events so you can see a conspiracy at work- according to Robert, Marcello had (let's see) Giancana, Roselli, Nicolleti and Ferrie rubbed out for fear of what they'd say about his role in the assassination- which (also according to Robert) he then freely blabbed about to some guy in his cell.

Why does Robert believe in and argue for such logical idiocies? Because that's what you have to do to maintain the fiction you've engineered as "truth."

 

[HSienzant]

In the super duper stabilised and enhanced version it's pink. Or green. Hard to tell. In the right light it has a blue tint.

If it's pink, it's further evidence of the pink unicorn spotters in the Dal-Tex building that we know were there because pink unicorns don't leave evidence behind and try to avoid being seen.

Or their snipers, which work alongside their unseen, unevidenced teammates.

It's not clear yet, but it's definitely evidence of one of those.

Hank

 

[turingtest]

If I'm following this right, evidence of a conspiracy hinges on when Mrs. Connally looked at her husband and what Kellerman did within 1/6ths of a second after JFK and Governor Connelly were shot?

That's one conspiracy- Robert is actually arguing for two, the malign Marcello-Mafia one that took out JFK, and the following ad hoc "benign" cover-up undertaken by the government to avert the WW3 that would have resulted from people thinking the Commies/Cuba had something to do with the first. Because, of course, the sensible thing to have done there would have been to divert attention away from the "true perps"- the Mafia- and put it all on a guy with known Commie/Castro connections.