Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Robert Harris]

I don't know, this lurker has been mighty underwhelmed with the theater.

Also, I believe I read on Robert's YT page (or perhaps somewhere else) that he actually owns or did own a MC. I wonder if he has ever tried to fire it as fast as possible-just as a testable experiment.

Yes, I have. Like everyone else, I never came close to firing that rapidly. That doesn't mean much though, since I am hopelessly inept with firearms.

What is infinitely more significant is that none of the FBI or HSCA experts could fire that rapidly and accurately - no exceptions. In fact, all of the FBI people except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds - twice as much time as shots at 285 and 313 would require.

And why would he have been trying to set speed shooting records, firing at a target that was crawling along at 8 MPH? This was the only perfect shot of the day, fired from almost the length of a football field (if it came from the SN). Oswald or whoever, obviously took the time to aim carefully.

 

[HSienzant]

No it isn't . There is nothing there that even attempts to answers me. Here is the question:

Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?


My question only requires a single syllable response.

Is your answer "yes" or "no"?

And if yes, then please be specific about which annotations you believe are incorrect.

#3650. You have your answer. You owe me about 40 that you said you would answer. We're waiting, Robert.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10768864#post10768864

Hank

 

[BazBear]

Yes, I have. Like everyone else, I never came close to firing that rapidly. That doesn't mean much though, since I am hopelessly inept with firearms.

What is infinitely more significant is that none of the FBI or HSCA experts could fire that rapidly and accurately - no exceptions. In fact, all of the FBI people except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds - twice as much time as shots at 285 and 313 would require.

And why would he have been trying to set speed shooting records, firing at a target that was crawling along at 8 MPH? This was the only perfect shot of the day, fired from almost the length of a football field (if it came from the SN). Oswald or whoever, obviously took the time to aim carefully.

285. Just sayin'.

ETA- If you can't get three shots off from your Carcano in ~8 seconds, you should take it to a gunsmith.

 

[HSienzant]

That is untrue. Besides the fact that a federal agent was told by other officers during the search, that Oswald's rifle was found on a different floor, no one has been able to prove that it was found on the 6th.

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.

When will you be turning yours in, Robert?

Hank

PS: Maybe I'm getting old, but the fringe reset used to take months before they would try to resurrect a dead argument. It seems like Robert hasn't even waited for the corpse of his argument to get cold, let alone buried and forgotten, before he's attempting to wheel it out again.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10768693#post10768693

At least have a decent mourning period, Robert.

 

[HSienzant]

Harris reserved the privilege not too long ago to read and respond only to the posts he felt deserved his attention, due to what he insinuated was an overwhelming demand from the forum.

Even in the most well-ordered debate, a certain number of requests such as, "Please repeat your answer," or "Please link to where you answered my question," or "Please refer me to where you said something," are necessary and thus tolerated. However, beyond a certain frequency they cease to be innocent requests. And especially when directed repeatedly at the person who is providing the most feedback directly related to Harris' content (and hence to whom the most care and attention is expected to be paid), it starts to resemble a technique for maintaining the illusion of engagement in the debate without actually allowing it to proceed.

I'm pretty sure Robert passed that point about a week ago, when he started to claim he didn't know what I was talking about and started asking for clarifications (like "who is they?"). I like pointing out the weaknesses in the conspiracy theorist arguments and watching them squirm. And then finding even more weaknesses and chase them around the room beating them over the head with them.

I really shouldn't take this much pleasure in it, but I can't help it. It's just too much fun.

Hank

PS: Robert, you still owe me the documentation for the first claim I challenged you on, that Jim Braden had anything to do with the assassination, and the evidence thereof. I've got a truckload of those to unload on you. You've been evading some of these for weeks now.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, have you considered how much easier it would be to just post a single syllable response than to write all these long winded pretenses

Have you considered how much time you're wasting by trying to tell me how to do my job write my posts instead of responding to the points that are awaiting your response?

Here's an interesting one you basically hand-waved away:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10768693#post10768693

Do try to rebut this, Robert. Just telling me I'm arguing with Ellsworth isn't a rebuttal, when I'm clearly arguing with your misuse of his 30-year-later recollections of hearsay.

You did say you would answer all outstanding questions.

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

Since then, I've re-posted three, and you avoided them all. Are you evading them still?

Here they are again:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10765496#post10765496

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10765452#post10765452

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10765694#post10765694

 

[JayUtah]

We need a ROFLMAO smiley in this place, for the mind boggling hypocrisy of someone lecturing about how to answer questions, who evades every question, almost without exception.

You mistake me for someone who is playing your game. I have drawn my conclusions, as I've said several times. Why you think someone who has done that is still obliged to engage you in any way is beyond comprehension.

 

[HSienzant]

Pray tell, what further evidence would you require to prove the MC was found on the sixth floor? We have film, photos, contemporary witness accounts... everything, in fact, that is normally required to establish any fact.

What more should we show Robert Harris to convince him?

Robert, can you answer the question? You say you are unconvinced by the testimony and the first day film and photographic evidence (from the police and reporters). And you are choosing to believe a three-decade-later recollection of a hearsay account that is contradicted by the documented evidence from the contemporaneous accounts.

If no evidence can convince you, do you know longer have an open mind?

You said you did.

But I am open minded.

I think now would be a good time to evince that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

We need to take issues one-at-a-time. But my conclusions are the product of the evidence.

Really? In what countries are thirty-year-later recollections of a hearsay account considered evidence?

Seriously - you consider your conclusions here a product of the evidence? What evidence? Please enumerate it all for us.

It can't be Ellsworth's account -- that's about as far from evidence as you can get.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Besides the fact that a federal agent was told by other officers during the search, that Oswald's rifle was found on a different floor, no one has been able to prove that it was found on the 6th.

Let's enumerate the issues with this ONE sentence of Robert's.

1. It's not a fact, and never will be. Ellsworth never told this story under oath. He never prepared a contemporaneous memo with this claim. He only made the claim three decades after the assassination, and there's no corroboration for his recollection of his hearsay account. Big Foot has more evidence than this supposed 'fact'.

2. Even if he had documented the claim on the first day, and swore to it under oath, it would still not be a provable fact because it would only be hearsay he is repeating. Hearsay (essentially the repetition of a rumor) is pretty much meaningless in establishing a case, except under certain quite specific exceptions (like excited utterances), none of which apply here.

3. The fact that Ellsworth was a federal agent is meaningless. He could be a janitor and you would still believe the account (and in fact, I believe you've argued that the CE399 bullet recovered in Parkland by a janitor is not the original bullet, based on a recollection of the janitor almost three years after the assassination). So let's dispense with that silliness that his position in the government somehow makes him a more accurate witness.

4. Memory is fallible. It happens to all of us, whether we're college professors like Jim Fetzer, high school dropouts like myself, janitors or federal agents (I understand a pretty well-respected President even suffered from this pretty severely - and he was certainly a federal agent). You've even demonstrated an inability to recall the specific subject matter under discussion in numerous posts, so you cannot argue this is beyond your ken. There's no reason to assume Ellsworth's recall is exceptionally good (and in fact, almost perfect) three decades after the fact. But that is the assumption you are making.

5. You question all the stories by the police that confirm the rifle was found on the sixth floor, but you credit the hearsay recollection of Ellsworth from three decades after the fact that he claims originated with some - yes, that's right - police officers. It appears you believe the police only when your like their accounts.

6. All the contemporaneous evidence (including all the testimony and memoranda for the record by those who thought they saw a Mauser) put the one rifle they saw on the sixth floor. No one puts it elsewhere. There is even a DPD memo that mentions Ellsworth was on the sixth floor at the time of the photography of the rifle. The films and photos taken inside and outside the building show one rifle only - Oswald's. There's no evidence of a second rifle on a lower floor anywhere in the record. Nor is there any record of a second rifle being removed from the building. It is established beyond any sliver of a shadow of a doubt that Oswald's rifle was recovered on the sixth floor. You can close your eyes, stamp your feet, and sing "La La La, I can't hear you" as much as you want, but it doesn't change what the evidence establishes.

7. Given all the evidence indicating the one rifle seen that day was recovered on the sixth floor, your asking for proof it was found on that floor is akin to you questioning the established scenario. In fact, the burden of proof, it can be argued, falls on you to prove Oswald's rifle was found elsewhere. So far you've got a recollection of a hearsay account from three-decades after the the fact. And nothing else. You lose.

8. It appears there is no rhyme or reason to what you accept and what you reject, except one simple rule: If it points to a conspiracy, it's accepted. If it points away from a conspiracy, it's rejected. So a recollection of hearsay three-decades after the fact? Keep it! Films and photos from the first day by the Dallas Crime Lab as well as numerous individual reporters, as well as sworn testimony and memoranda for the record by numerous individuals? Rejected!

Sorry, your arguments here sound like a parody of a conspiracy theorist -- something that Saturday Night Live might do.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

BUMP FOR ROBERT:

Link reposted.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10742269#post10742269

Bob apparently ignored all this (just too inconvenient to his claims, I suppose).

If you have read the article I linked, then you know that John Connally testified that he clearly heard the first shot, which was undoubtedly, the one at 150-160. But he only "felt" the second. Since the witnesses, including all of the surviving limo passengers also reported hearing no more than one early shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that this one was fired from a suppressed rifle of some kind.

It certainly didn't come from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.

Which one didn't? The one Connally said he didn't hear? What was Connally's excuse for not recalling the sound of that bullet being fired?

Oh yeah, that's right -- he said he had been shot, and his circuitry was more concerned with the pain shooting through his body than the auditory impulses his ears were picking up:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.
== UNQUOTE ==

There's nothing in there that implies a weapon other than Oswald's was used, or that a suppressed weapon with a silencer of any sort was used.

Hank

And then there's this:

Evasion is admission of defeat...

 

[HSienzant]

I'm guessing Robert meant it when he said he wouldn't debate anyone who didn't agree to his terms for the debate.

Thus far, he's not truly debating anyone. He just makes some pronouncements, ignores all the rebuttal arguments, and makes some more pronouncements. Every so often, he repeats the pronouncements.

Hank

 

[Poison Oak]

I'm guessing Robert meant it when he said he wouldn't debate anyone who didn't agree to his terms for the debate.

Thus far, he's not truly debating anyone. He just makes some pronouncements, ignores all the rebuttal arguments, and makes some more pronouncements. Every so often, he repeats the pronouncements.

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

Sorry to be silent for so long, but I've been so inspired by the integrity and objectivity of this little group, that I decided to create a new presentation for you. In the meantime, I know how much you've all struggled, to help Sandy answer my questions about Mrs. Connally, but obviously, still remain in the throes of uncertainty, since not even one of you have been willing to answer.

Of course, the key question is, when did she react to the shot that she believed, wounded her husband. This brief Zapruder segment makes it pretty clear, when she reacted by turning back to him and pulled him back to her.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/nellie285.gif

 

[Tomtomkent]

In the meantime, I know how much you've all struggled, to help Sandy answer my questions about Mrs. Connally, but obviously, still remain in the throes of uncertainty, since not even one of you have been willing to answer.

As this is not the reason stated, by what means of divination have you come to this conclusion?

 

[JayUtah]

...I decided to create a new presentation for you.

...says the guy who admitted elsewhere he was trying different ways to sneak his clips past the moderators here in defiance of their explicit warnings not to.

 

[JayUtah]

Thus far, he's not truly debating anyone. He just makes some pronouncements, ignores all the rebuttal arguments, and makes some more pronouncements. Every so often, he repeats the pronouncements.

He's been performing this same one-man show for 20 years. Why would he alter the script now just for you or me? I know I'm not that special. What he doesn't realize is painfully apparent is that you're giving him the debate he says he wants, but not the debate he demonstrates he wants.

I for one enjoy reading practically everything you write on the subject of JFK. It's always well documented and well reasoned.

 

[HSienzant]

He's been performing this same one-man show for 20 years. Why would he alter the script now just for you or me? I know I'm not that special. What he doesn't realize is painfully apparent is that you're giving him the debate he says he wants, but not the debate he demonstrates he wants.

I for one enjoy reading practically everything you write on the subject of JFK. It's always well documented and well reasoned.

Thank you Jay. Believe me, I feel I'm learning WAY MORE from you than you could ever learn from me.


Hank

 

[Belz...]

Sorry to be silent for so long, but I've been so inspired by the integrity and objectivity of this little group, that I decided to create a new presentation for you.

What you should have decided is to abandon your nonsense theory.

In the meantime, I know how much you've all struggled, to help Sandy answer my questions about Mrs. Connally

No one needs help with your questions, Bob.

 

[JayUtah]

No one needs help with your questions, Bob.

Well, he has to maintain the illusion that he's taking on all his critics head-on and besting them at every turn. That's what the script says should be happening. And apparently since all his critics keep flubbing their lines, he has to start the scene over again.