• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Harris said:
Don't you think you've worn that excuse out:-)

The reason you won't answer that question is that if you tell the truth, you will be supporting me. If you claim otherwise, you will be challenged to describe that nonexistent refutation.

That's a nasty corner to be in, eh Jay?

Do you think my arguments for a shot at 285-288 have been refuted?
Click to expand...

Do not put words in my mouth, and do not mistake me for someone who is playing your game.
 
JayUtah said:
Do not put words in my mouth, and do not mistake me for someone who is playing your game.
Click to expand...

I think you need some help in understanding what a "corroboration" is, Jay.

A corroboration does not necessarily require words. For example, a photo or scientific analysis can corroborate.

But in a debate environment, so does evasion. If someone is challenged to support their theory or denial, and they evade that challenge, they are providing tacit corroboration. That is especially true, when someone posts a deliberate lie, falsely claiming for example, that they have seen evidence which disproves the shot at 285.

To put it another way, you can corroborate me much more thoroughly, by what you don't say than what you do.

There is no excuse for evasion. You only undermine your own theory, when you do that.
 
Robert Harris said:
I think you need some help in understanding what a "corroboration" is, Jay.

A corroboration does not necessarily require words. For example, a photo or scientific analysis can corroborate.

But in a debate environment, so does evasion. If someone is challenged to support their theory or denial, and they evade that challenge, they are providing tacit corroboration. That is especially true, when someone posts a deliberate lie, falsely claiming for example, that they have seen evidence which disproves the shot at 285.

To put it another way, you can corroborate me much more thoroughly, by what you don't say than what you do.

There is no excuse for evasion. You only undermine your own theory, when you do that.
Click to expand...

What part of "I have drawn my conclusion regarding your findings" can't you understand?
 
JayUtah said:
Not all conspirators have to be shooters. In your theory, the mafia don was a conspirator but not a shooter. I can't believe I have to explain that to you. If you had read the thread, you'd have seen several recurrent conspiracy theories, not all of which involve Oswald as a shooter, and not all of which involve multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous argument.

"More than a single assassin." Does not necessarily mean multiple shooters. "MORE" can be one assassin and the guy who hired him.

Reading comprehension is important, Jay.
 
JayUtah said:
What part of "I have drawn my conclusion regarding your findings" can't you understand?
Click to expand...

LOL!! You drew your conclusion long before I got here.

But why are evading the point? You claimed that when I said you corroborated me, I was putting words in your mouth. Of course, you were flatly wrong, just like you usually are. Please reread my clarification, so that you won't make that mistake again:

I think you need some help in understanding what a "corroboration" is, Jay.

A corroboration does not necessarily require words. For example, a photo or scientific analysis can corroborate.

But in a debate environment, so does evasion. If someone is challenged to support their theory or denial, and they evade that challenge, they are providing tacit corroboration. That is especially true, when someone posts a deliberate lie, falsely claiming for example, that they have seen evidence which disproves the shot at 285.

To put it another way, you can corroborate me much more thoroughly, by what you don't say than what you do.

There is no excuse for evasion. You only undermine your own theory, when you do that.

 
Last edited:
Let's please reign in some of the personalization. One can argue without being argumentative. This thread is also not the place for arguments about what may or may not constitute proper debate. Not replying to a point is not the same as corroborating it.

I believe I can safely guarantee that if this thread goes on moderated status, no one will be pleased with the outcome.

Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
JayUtah said:
"Assassin" does not mean what you say it means.
Click to expand...

What a strange comment, considering that I never actually defined the term:-)

You seem to think I was describing "more snipers". If that's what I had meant, that's what I would have said.

But "more than a single assassin" can be about all kinds of conspirators, including those who did not take part in the attack.

You're wrong again, my friend. But congratulations on once again, drawing the discussion away from the facts and evidence.

It's a great murder mystery, and if your theory is half as strong as you seem to think it is, you should be able to kick my butt from here to Dallas, solely on the facts and evidence.

Can you do that, Jay:D
 
zooterkin said:
You have it backwards, you need to provide evidence for the shot in the first place. Do you have any evidence for a second shooter?
Click to expand...

I have proof that there was at least one other shooter. And I do not have it backward. He stated,

He claims he can determine from the Zapruder film, based on attributed "startle" movements, that the passengers must have been reacting to a shot when other evidence tells us there was no shot.

Of course there is no other evidence, proving that there was no shot then and he could not produce it after being repeatedly challenged. He just made that up.

As for the evidence which proves that Oswald could not have acted alone, it is based on the fact that shots were fired which were much too close together for both to have both come from the alleged murder weapon, and that shots were fired at the end, which were much louder and more startling than earlier shots, only one of which was even audible to most witnesses.

This brief article goes into considerable detail, presenting the relevant facts and evidence:

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

And so do these presentations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno
 
Robert Harris said:
I have proof that there was at least one other shooter. And I do not have it backward. He stated,

He claims he can determine from the Zapruder film, based on attributed "startle" movements, that the passengers must have been reacting to a shot when other evidence tells us there was no shot.

Of course there is no other evidence, proving that there was no shot then and he could not produce it after being repeatedly challenged. He just made that up.
Click to expand...

Nope. You just refused to consider it.
 
zooterkin said:
Sorry if I'm seeming dense, what is that proof?
Click to expand...

Why did you delete my links to the proof and then ask where the proof is? At least read the article, so that you have a clue about what you are attacking.

As for the evidence which proves that Oswald could not have acted alone, it is based on the fact that shots were fired which were much too close together for both to have both come from the alleged murder weapon, and that shots were fired at the end, which were much louder and more startling than earlier shots, only one of which was even audible to most witnesses.

This brief article goes into considerable detail, presenting the relevant facts and evidence:

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

And so do these presentations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7Lz25Xyno
 
I think I can help you guys out on the last question. Dr. Alvarez charted the four "angular accelerations" that he associated with loud, startling noises.

alvarezchart.jpg


He posited a first shot at 177, a second at about 250 and third, which he suggested might be a siren, at 285 and a fourth at 313.

Of course we see dramatic reactions following 285 and 313, beginning at 290 and 318, associated with each of those "noises".

But we see no such thing following 177 and 250 and in fact, pretty much everyone these days, including Posner and Bugliosi, reject shots in those frames. There is a reason for that.

Neither of the first two shots startled anyone, including Abraham Zapruder. So Alvarez was forced to go with false positives.

Oswald's rifle was proven to generate 130 decibel sound at street level. That's 16 times louder than 90db, which is the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur, as well as hearing loss with extended exposure.

So, it is not surprising that the people closest to the President were startled by the unsuppressed, high powered rifle shots at the end of the attack.

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

But the absence of such loud shots prior to 285, proves that a much different kind of rifle was used to first those shots than the ones at the end. So, unless Oswald was firing two very different weapons, there is no way he could have fired all of those shots.
 
Last edited:
...

Robert Harris said:
But the absence of such loud shots prior to 285, proves that a much different kind of rifle was used to first those shots than the ones at the end. So, unless Oswald was firing two very different weapons, there is no way he could have fired all of those shots.
Click to expand...

Or the absnce of such loud shots simply means the absence of shots and the movements interpreted as "startle reactions" were something else.

Begging the question with graphs is still begging the question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom