Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Belz...]

I have stated my case

Yes and we have found it extremely weak.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

You 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.

Why are you demanding that I cite the polygraph panel, saying something that only I said?

Isn't it enough, that you post endless messages which address no evidence and only demean and insult Robert Harris, in the third person? Is it also necessary that when you finally address the evidence, you continually misrepresent me?

I have made my case and cited the polygraph panel in great detail. I will leave it to the readers, to determine for themselves, if I have misrepresented them. This is the article. It includes the entire polygraph panel's report at the end.

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

 

[JayUtah]

Yes and we have found it extremely weak.

And stated the reasons why we find it to be weak. In response, Harris simply presents the same case over again, in the same exact wording, with no apparent attention paid to any of the objections or refutations made. Seeing Harris' case presented and discussed elsewhere, it seems prudent to conclude we should not expect him to deviate from that unproductive approach.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In the larger sense, this is how I observe him to treat nearly all the experts he cites: as a "veneer of expertise" over what is quite obviously Harris' own opinions and judgments.

I have made my case and cited the polygraph panel in great detail.

LOL. The fringe are so quick to illustrate the points made about them.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why are you demanding that I cite the polygraph panel, saying something that only I said?

So this comment was only something you said:

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.

So when can we expect your apology and retraction for your continued attempt to attribute it to the HSCA panel here:

It wasn't "minds" I was reading. It was the conclusions from the HSCA panel of polygraph experts. You should consider doing the same.

And more to the point, when can we expect an honest answer to the original question, of which evidence (or mind reading powers) allowed you devine and state as fact the motivations and thought process of both the HSCA panel and indeed Mr Ruby?

I'm guessing none, because 'something only you said' pretty much sums up your entire 'theory'.

 

[HSienzant]

Anyhow, who can say Craig's narration really matches the rifle in video?

seen again in the first minute of this video
https://www.youtube . com /watch?v=mDAiC8Bb75M
by youtuber awfultin

I only looked at the first minute or so of the above video.

The video doesn't match Craig's narration.

The video shows J.C.Day picking up the rifle and holding it by the strap, and then examining it with a magnifying glass with Captain Fritz nearby. It doesn't show Weitzman or Craig near the weapon at all during that time.

Craig says he and Weitzman weren't more than "six to eight inches from the rifle", but none of that is confirmed by video.

Craig's claims in the video portion I listened to also differs from the testimony of the men involved on minor aspects.

Craig says (in the video made eight or nine years after the event, I believe), that Fritz picks up the rifle and handed it to Day.

Day said he picked it up.

Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz was present. After we got the photographs I asked him if he was ready for me to pick it up, and he said, yes. I picked the gun up by the wooden stock. I noted that the stock was too rough apparently to take fingerprints, so I picked it up, and Captain Fritz opened the bolt as I held the gun. A live round fell to the floor.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm

Fritz doesn't say who picked it up, but confirmed he worked the bolt.

Mr. FRITZ. A few minutes later some officer called me and said they had found the rifle over near the back stairway and I told them same thing, not to move it, not to touch it, not to move any of the boxes until we could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day could get over there he made pictures of that.
Mr. BALL. After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened then?
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.

And this more complete Alyea film shows Day picking up the rifle (2:54).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsnIeaAWFfo

As an aside, Robert Harris suggested the Alyea film was a recreation, but portions of the Alyea film were broadcast on WFAA television on 11/22/63 and that broadcast video still exists (see at 3:18 in the above link)

What videos show a second rifle, and how do you know it's showing a rifle, as opposed to a police shotgun, for instance?

Craig's claim of a second rifle in the LA PRESS story of 1968 stems from a film made by a spectator, which showed a cop on the roof of the Depository with a shotgun which conspiracy theorists claimed was a rifle. Craig apparently incorporated that into his 1968 version of events (and note he denies seeing a different rifle in 1968. A few years later, his version of events has changed again). If you search for Charles Mentesana film JFK, you'll find plenty of information about this.

And here's his 1964 version of events.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craig.htm

And his 1969 testimony in the Shaw trial.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm

Nothing in either about a second rifle.

Robert Harris and I agree. Craig has credibility issues.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

LOL. The fringe are so quick to illustrate the points made about them.

[Zaphodbeeblebrox]

Face 1:"I have made my case and cited the HSCA Polygraph panel in great detail."
Face 2: "Why are you demanding that I cite the polygraph panel, saying something that only I said?"
[/Zaphodbeeblebrox]

 

[Belz...]

Why are you demanding that I cite the polygraph panel, saying something that only I said?

Is it unusual that you provide a reasoning to go from observation to conclusion ?

Isn't it enough, that you post endless messages which address no evidence and only demean and insult Robert Harris, in the third person?

Poor Robert Harris, placing his interpretations at the center of the debate but disliking his name being uttered.

 

[HSienzant]

Why are you demanding that I cite the polygraph panel, saying something that only I said?

Isn't it enough, that you post endless messages which address no evidence and only demean and insult Robert Harris, in the third person? Is it also necessary that when you finally address the evidence, you continually misrepresent me?

I have made my case and cited the polygraph panel in great detail. I will leave it to the readers, to determine for themselves, if I have misrepresented them. This is the article. It includes the entire polygraph panel's report at the end.

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

Here's what I said.

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.

I see you are now apparently agreeing with that statement, that these are your claims only and don't come from the polygraph panel's conclusions, despite your earlier protests that your claims came directly from the HSCA polygraph panel's conclusions.

I attacked you not a whit. I misrepresented you not a whit.
I did point out a whole lot of the issues with your interpretations of the evidence.
Which you are apparently now taking the approach of saying you won't defend any further.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It is a waste of time to continue expressing your personal, subjective opinion about the value of this man's statements. I have stated my case, knowing that you would attack him, just as you attack any witness who disagrees with you.

Hilarious. I cited the testimony, the contemporaneous memoranda for the record, and contrasted that with Ellsworth's recollections and showed how they differed. I am not attacking him at all. I am attacking your claims about his recollection of a three-decade-later recollection of apparent hearsay being important. I took your latest arguments and showed how they were bereft of evidence, and how you were simply throwing around innuendo, and how your arguments conflicted with the evidence. You rebut none of it. Instead, you simply call all this evidence my "personal, subjective opinion". It's not.

And I more than amply demonstrated there's absolutely no good reason to believe Ellsworth's three-decade after the fact recollection. But you want to believe it still. Go right ahead, but your arguments for Ellsworth's recollection have been shown to be totally unconvincing.

And correct me if this is wrong, you're saying you're done trying to defend your claims about the importance of Ellsworth's testimony, right? If so, we knew you would end up there. Because there is nothing about a thirty-year-later hearsay recollection that is defensible. But that's what you choose to post to argue a case for conspiracy. Because you have no evidence of conspiracy.

Let's talk about my case for conspiracy. One of my arguments is that SA Roy Kellerman exhibited visible, textbook startle reactions. Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?

Now you're just trying to change the subject away from Ellsworth after getting your head handed to you on that subject.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/head-platter-12421371.jpg

I've already got some of my reservations about your theory and how you utilize Kellerman's testimony on the record. Why don't you deal with those (Hint: if you use the advanced search function available in this forum, and search for any posts with the word "Kellerman" and the poster "HSienzant", you will find them).

Start by trying to rebut the points I already made about your claims of Kellerman's testimony -- you know, the ones you totally ignored or tried to rebut with straw man arguments when I made them initially.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Here's what I said.

Why are you switching to something else that you said? This is the statement at issue:

"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.

You demanded that I cite the panel, saying what I said, not what I claimed that they said.

I see you are now apparently agreeing with that statement, that these are your claims only and don't come from the polygraph panel's conclusions

Great God!! It finally sunk in. Yes, here is a clue for you. When I say something like, "John Doe said...", then I am referring to what John Doe said. Otherwise, it's what I said.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

Now it's your turn to answer a question, which you've been evading. I repeat:

Let's talk about my case for conspiracy. One of my arguments is that SA Roy Kellerman exhibited visible, textbook startle reactions. Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Great God!! It finally sunk in. Yes, here is a clue for you. When I say something like, "John Doe said...", then I am referring to what John Doe said. Otherwise, it's what I said.

So we can expect an apology and retraction for attempting to credit this theory:

Because he showed blatant signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald and being part of the conspiracy.

thusly:

It wasn't "minds" I was reading. It was the conclusions from the HSCA panel of polygraph experts. You should consider doing the same.

If you did not read the former in the latter and can not cite them.

 

[JayUtah]

LOL. The fringe are so quick to illustrate the points made about them.

I think Dunning and Kruger would probably have something to say about this situation. What I see from Harris is a sort of cargo-cult approach to science, expertise, and scholarship. That is, his presentation doesn't show a clear understanding of what evidence supports what conclusion, how evidence supports a conclusion, and the role of expertise and expert testimony in scholarship. This leads to astoundingly inept leaps of logic such as (paraphrased), "Even the experts I cite didn't even see what I see in the evidence." In a bizarro-world reversal, having merely cited some experts somehow grants a license to misappropriate their authority for any interpretation Harris himself devises.

 

[HSienzant]

Why are you demanding that I cite the polygraph panel, saying something that only I said? I have made my case...

It is a waste of time to continue expressing your personal, subjective opinion about the value of this man's statements.

Translation: If I cite contemporaneous memorandum and sworn testimony and patiently go through it, showing conflicts in Ellsworth's recollection, that's a waste of my time expressing my personal, subjective opinion, needs no rebuttal, and can be dismissed pretty much out of hand.

If Robert cites his personal, subjective opinion (of the polygraph panel's conclusions, of Ellsworth's three-decade later recollection of hearsay, of motions of people in the presidential limo, of the import of the eyewitnesses testimony about the sequence of shots, of where shots came from in the Dal-Tex building and who was responsible, ad infinitum), that's not his personal, subjective opinion that needs no rebuttal, but are claims that need to be taken seriously.

Please correct me if any of this is wrong, Robert.

I'm seeing more of that double-standard, Robert.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Homework assignment: Compare and contrast Robert's treatment of the lone mention of Ellsworth in one contemporaneous document with Robert's treatment of the lone mention of a rifle being found on another floor in the three-decade-later recollection of Ellsworth.

It is a waste of time to continue expressing your personal, subjective opinion about the value of this man's statements. I have stated my case, knowing that you would attack him, just as you attack any witness who disagrees with you.

I'm guessing that Robert won't be doing his homework this evening. Or anytime soon.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Why are you switching to something else that you said? This is the statement at issue:

"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.

You demanded that I cite the panel, saying what I said, not what I claimed that they said.

Because you claimed they were your source for that claim:

It wasn't "minds" I was reading. It was the conclusions from the HSCA panel of polygraph experts...

Then when I asked you to quote that:

Please cite where they said that...

You developed amnesia or something, asking:

Who is this "they" that you claim I need to cite?

When we went through it again from the top, now you admit it's only your opinion. Not anything you read in the HSCA's polygraph panel's conclusions.

Great God!! It finally sunk in. Yes, here is a clue for you. When I say something like, "John Doe said...", then I am referring to what John Doe said. Otherwise, it's what I said. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

You didn't have to explain it to me. I know the difference. We spent all this time trying to get you to admit the HSCA polygraph panel wasn't responsible for this claim of yours, as you originally claimed.

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.

You know Ruby expected to fail this polygraph -- how? ... I was unaware you were able to read minds.

It wasn't "minds" I was reading. It was the conclusions from the HSCA panel of polygraph experts.

So your admission that this is only your opinion, takes away your entire original argument. Now it's just your own personal, subjective opinion and any conclusion of the HSCA's polygraph panel. Now, tell us (as I originally asked before), how did you read Ruby's mind and know what he was thinking?

Hank

 

[Belz...]

I think Dunning and Kruger would probably have something to say about this situation. What I see from Harris is a sort of cargo-cult approach to science, expertise, and scholarship. That is, his presentation doesn't show a clear understanding of what evidence supports what conclusion, how evidence supports a conclusion, and the role of expertise and expert testimony in scholarship.

Right. It feels that it supports his conclusion.

 

[HSienzant]

Removed duplicate posting.

 

[HSienzant]

Now it's your turn to answer a question, which you've been evading. I repeat:

Let's talk about my case for conspiracy. One of my arguments is that SA Roy Kellerman exhibited visible, textbook startle reactions. Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?

Asked and answered.

I've already got some of my reservations about your theory and how you utilize Kellerman's testimony on the record. Why don't you deal with those (Hint: if you use the advanced search function available in this forum, and search for any posts with the word "Kellerman" and the poster "HSienzant", you will find them).

Start by trying to rebut the points I already made about your claims of Kellerman's testimony -- you know, the ones you totally ignored or tried to rebut with straw man arguments when I made them initially.

Hank

Also, I reminded you recently that there were about 40 issues I had raised that you never responded to. You asked me to repost and you would respond. We're still waiting for those. It wouldn't have anything to do with how well you did on the Ellsworth issues, would it?

There's about 40 points of mine you need to address first, by Robert's Rules of Order^tm

Present your questions that you think I'm evading, one at a time, and I will do my best to provide answers.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Craig's claim of a second rifle in the LA PRESS story of 1968 stems from a film made by a spectator, which showed a cop on the roof of the Depository with a shotgun which conspiracy theorists claimed was a rifle. Craig apparently incorporated that into his 1968 version of events (and note he denies seeing a different rifle in 1968. A few years later, his version of events has changed again).

Thanks, Hank. I realized just the other day that I've always misread the LA Free Press interview excerpt in the article on the McAdams site, by misattributing the comment about a Mauser on the roof to the interviewer rather than the interviewee. Fortunately, it made no difference to the main point, which was that in 1968 Craig wasn't saying the rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mauser. It seems he must have been conflating that story about the cop on the roof with the early misidentification of the MC as a Mauser.