Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
No, I mean what I said. Do not put words in my mouth. I have reached a judgment on whether you're genuinely interested in what I write, based on your demonstrated reaction to what I have written. I see no reason to alter that judgment.

Consider that you are obsessing over someone who has, several times, expressed that he has already made his mind up about your claims
Click to expand...

Speaking of my "claims", have you viewed this presentation yet?

Do you think I described his actions correctly?

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

Do not continue to post the same graphics over and over again. To do so violates Rule 6 of the Membership Agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cmikes said:
Actually, what's called a "fringe reset" here is commonly called a "Harris Award" on alt.assassination.jfk where Bob does some of his "best work". What's kind of surprising, however, is that he's even stepped up his resets. Generally, on a.a.jfk, he won't post for a day or two after he's proven wrong before reposting his exact same theory again as if it's brand new information. Here, he won't even let it go a couple of hours for some reason.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should create a new term for the style of argument Robert's been demonstrating here. I seems to me to be more of a fringe loop than reset, as with so few breaks, there's been very little time for a true reset.
 
Robert Harris said:
JayUtah said:
No, I mean what I said. Do not put words in my mouth. I have reached a judgment on whether you're genuinely interested in what I write, based on your demonstrated reaction to what I have written. I see no reason to alter that judgment.

Consider that you are obsessing over someone who has, several times, expressed that he has already made his mind up about your claims
Click to expand...

Speaking of my "claims", have you viewed this presentation yet?
Click to expand...

Psst, Bob! Haven't you heard?
"No" means No.

Robert Harris said:
Do you think I described his actions correctly?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
You constantly mistake me for someone who is playing your game.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're his favorite kind of partner in his pas de deux... the totally unwilling.
He will simply claim you are evading his questions.
That's even easier than ignoring the answers others take the time to write, and continuing to pretend that he didn't see them.
 
Thankfully this forum requires that you wait 60 seconds before trying the same gambit over again. So there is at least an upper limit.
 
Last edited:
Sandy McCroskey said:
I'm afraid you're his favorite kind of partner in his pas de deux... the totally unwilling.
He will simply claim you are evading his questions.
That's even easier than ignoring the answers others take the time to write, and continuing to pretend that he didn't see them.
Click to expand...

I was going to say something about that. HSienzant posted a number of rebuttals in his typical well-researched, well-argued mode. They were direct responses to things Harris had claimed. HSienzant naturally wanted Harris to pay attention to them. Harris asked that HSienzant re-direct attention to the outstanding rebuttals. HSienzant dutifully bumped a number of threads, which Harris then promptly ignored in favor of yet again trying to engage the person who has explicitly said he has already reached his conclusion.

That's part of the game.

"Oh, I'm so overwhelmed, so I'm only going to answer a few of the allegedly many posts." "Oh, did you respond to me? I must have missed it; please post it again." These are all tactics aimed at creating busy-work, tedium, and disillusionment for one's critics, so that they lose interest and wander off. They are subtle ways of conveying the message that he has no intention of answering any serious questions, so why bother.

It's not science; it's theater.
 
Last edited:
It's not science; it's theater.

From this point forward all posts by Robert will sound like Jon Lovitz Master Thespian in my head.
 
JayUtah said:
"Oh, I'm so overwhelmed, so I'm only going to answer a few of the allegedly many posts." "Oh, did you respond to me? I must have missed it; please post it again." These are all tactics aimed at creating busy-work, tedium, and disillusionment for one's critics, so that they lose interest and wander off.
Click to expand...

And the the conspiracy theorist can go back to their echo chamber and claim that the strength of their arguments drove their critics away because they couldn't address it, and no one there is going to bother checking the claim, because they never do.
 
HSienzant said:
Please cite where they said that "Ruby... [was] 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" as you claimed here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10764159#post10764159

That was your claim, which you're trying to defend by calling it the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts' conclusions.

It should be easy to quote them saying that - if that was their conclusion.

It wasn't. It was your conclusion.

Your propensity to make unproven assertions persists.

Hank
Robert Harris said:
Who is this "they" that you claim I need to cite? You need to learn to differentiate between my statements and statements by others, which I cite.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Seriously, Robert? That's the best you can do?

If you cannot follow the argument put forward above and need to ask who "they" are, why should anyone put any faith in your assertions or conclusions?

I understand the difference between your claims and the claims of experts, which is why I ask you to cite for your claims. You never do.

I think you understand exactly who the "they" are above - it's the panel you claimed you were reading the conclusions of to attempt to justify your unjustified conclusion.



Robert Harris said:
I responded to your request, You know Ruby expected his polygraph failure to give the WC a clue -- how?

by demonstrating that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he answered questions related to knowing Oswald and being involved in the conspiracy. Obviously, he knew or at least, expected that his answers would fail.*

This is not complicated at all.
Click to expand...

It needn't be. You're apparently doing your best to pretend you can't follow the argument made thus far (asking who 'they' are).

Please cite where they said that "Ruby... [was] 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" as you claimed here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post10764159

You claimed that came directly from the HSCA panel: "It wasn't "minds" I was reading. It was the conclusions from the HSCA panel of polygraph experts."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10765128#post10765128


So I ask where "they" said that, and suddenly you're struck oblivious, or something, now asking who "they" are. "They" are the experts you claimed reached this conclusion: "Ruby... [was] 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"...

We both know they never did reach that conclusion. We both know that conclusion is entirely yours, woven from whole cloth, with no support in the experts conclusions whatsover. You're just citing the HSCA conclusions so you can argue the veneer of expertise stems from the HSCA panel, not yourself. But the claims you made are all yours, not the HSCA experts, and you don't get to pretend otherwise.

You really need to do a better job of documenting your claims, and cease claiming your conclusions actually came from some experts. Your claims are not homeopathic, and don't get stronger the more they are diluted or removed from the original source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Dilutions




Robert Harris said:
Read the article. (#3530) I highlighted some of the most important parts.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with it. Have been since I purchased a copy of the HSCA volumes of evidence in 1980 or thereabouts.

I see no support for your claims about what they concluded.

Please cite where they said that "Ruby... [was] 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" as you claimed here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post10764159

You claimed that came directly from the HSCA panel: "It wasn't "minds" I was reading. It was the conclusions from the HSCA panel of polygraph experts."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10765128#post10765128



Hank
____________

* Repeating the unproven assertion doesn't make it more true. How do you know Ruby expected to fail?
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
BUMP AT BOB'S REQUEST
Click to expand...
HSienzant said:
Straw argument. I know of no such claim by the Warren Commission. The HSCA was wedded to the dictabelt analysis, which colored their conclusions about what shots were fired wh

You've presented no evidence for a shot at Zapruder frame 285. This is your pet theory. Not the HSCA's. Not the Warren Commission's. Not any "lone nutter's" theory, either. Yours. Right? You're presuming what you must prove. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY. It's called "Begging the Question", which is where you imbed in your argument the very point you're going to need to prove.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Please, click on the link and familiarize yourself with the fallacy you committed. And try to avoid doing it again.

Hank
Click to expand...

And after asking me to re-post the outstanding issues he never responded to, I do so for just a couple of examples and find Robert is apparently ignoring them, like he apparently ignored the original posts.

Not exactly surprising.

Hank
 
abaddon said:
Sure. But why are the nonsense claims entirely self unaware? I can't feature that.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading the above correctly, I think it stems from the fact that there's actually no evidence that supports claims of conspiracy. So when pressed to present the evidence for the claim they made, conspiracy theorists can't and instead they resort to quibbling over your words or being unable to follow the conversation thus far, and need to ask for clarification for some word or concept (Robert suddenly didn't know who "they" were a few posts back, when I asked Robert to "quote them" to support his claim that his conclusions came directly from the HSCA polygraph experts in the post below):

HSienzant said:
Please cite where they said that "Ruby... [was] 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" as you claimed here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10764159#post10764159

That was your claim, which you're trying to defend by calling it the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts' conclusions.

It should be easy to quote them saying that - if that was their conclusion.

It wasn't. It was your conclusion.

Your propensity to make unproven assertions persists.

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Is the theater designed to prop up his own illusions? Or is it supposed to be for the benefit of "lurkers"? Surely he wouldn't direct other people here to see the spanking he's getting and how badly he's embarrassing himself.
 
HSienzant said:
If I'm reading the above correctly, I think it stems from the fact that there's actually no evidence that supports claims of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I think it could be said that there's evidence i.e. observations that fit with the conspiracy theory in broad ways. But there isn't enough to come to the conclusion that the theory in question is true. It's also the case that any event such as this one will have outliers; observations that seem to not fit with the consensus. It isn't a bug: it's a feature of complex events.

The problem isn't that you can't find evidence to support any crazy theory. It's instead that there isn't enough to confirm it and overturn the consensus, and in great part because said evidence is of very, very low quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom