Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Sandy McCroskey]

Sorry to be silent for so long,

Please, don't worry about that.

but I've been so inspired by the integrity and objectivity of this little group,

And I am inspired by your forthrightness and honesty.

that I decided to create a new presentation for you.

Ruh-roh!

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.

Bob, I answered your silly questions over at aaj (finally)—even though you have stated that if I answered the questions "honestly" I would prove that there was a conspiracy. Ha ha. I will paste my answer in here:

You act like nobody has seen the Zapruder film before.
I don't think you can determine, from that low-res clip, the precise instant when Nellie "first" looked at Jack (her head is hidden for much of the clip; she might be looking at him at 257, but you can't see her eyes...) or even "first" turned toward her husband; the last question seems downright inane (everyone is "reacting" to something then, even Jack); and I don't think you can prove anything from her statement, period, as I've stated repeatedly.

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.

Hardly.

 

[swright777]

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

FYI Rules for comma usage.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

FYI Rules for comma usage.

As I've experienced over at alt.assassination.jfk, Bob will not take instruction on the matter. He has not even stopped putting a single comma between the subject and the verb. For my troubles, I have been dubbed the site Grammar Nazi. Which is fine by me. I like the sleek black uniform (Hugo Boss).

 

[ComfySlippers]

As I've experienced over at alt.assassination.jfk, Bob will not take instruction on the matter. He has not even stopped putting a single comma between the subject and the verb. For my troubles, I have been dubbed the site Grammar Nazi. Which is fine by me. I like the sleek black uniform (Hugo Boss).

To be fair it would take quite a while to edit twenty years worth of pre scripted replies.

 

[HSienzant]

And I am inspired by your forthrightness and honesty.

And reasoning skills. And your ability to make a ham sandwich from a rock and a pile of weeds.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Yeah, I get the impression Robert expects only a certain kind of reply, and when we veer off-course from what he expected, he has no way to handle that and thus, we get a lot of ignored posts (for instance, Robert just posted a new link but didn't bother to respond to any of the points made above that about his earlier claims). But if the evidence truly pointed to a conspiracy, Robert should be able to field all questions from all skeptics from all angles. The fact that he's forced into just rote repeating of his initial claims exposes his lack of evidence for the conspiracy he imagines. Robert says he wants to debate the evidence, but of late, he's staying as far away from the evidence as possible (for instance, he keeps referencing Ellsworth's three-decade recollection of hearsay instead of discussing Kellerman's testimony or John Connally's testimony or Clint Hill's testimony, after I pointed out how they all fit a two-shot, one impact on the head scenario).

 

[HSienzant]

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 [no] longer have an open mind?

You said you did.

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

Hank

Robert said:

Evasion is admission of defeat...

 

[JayUtah]

Robert just posted a new link but didn't bother to respond to any of the points made above that about his earlier claims.

It's a reset. He got cornered on polygraphs and rifles, so he has to post the Zapruder clip yet again (only just enough altered that the mods won't ding him for spam) and reboot the Nellie question-begging. And if everyone doesn't follow him through that violent swerve, then they're "evading."

But if the evidence truly pointed to a conspiracy, Robert should be able to field all questions from all skeptics from all angles.

The elephant in the room for all the JFK conspiracy theorists -- and all the others in other genres -- is that with almost no exceptions, we all have access to the same body of evidence. So when someone says, "No, I'm different because I have evidence to back up my claims," the evidence in that statement is the same evidence everyone has access to. The different conclusion arises not because the proponent has different evidence than everyone else, but because he interprets it differently than others.

I'll just incorporate by reference what I wrote a week or so ago about consilience. It's the right way to think about concepts like "where the evidence points." Not one conspiracy theorist understands what real science means by that, and so all conspiracy theories are based on obsession over marginalia and anticonsilient interpretation.

And of course, simply making stuff up. Not making up evidence per se, just the expectations that some evidence is expected to meet. "These people were on the most important case of their career; they wouldn't have made any mistakes or recall it differently." "That person didn't react like he should have, which means the official story is wrong."

Very few conspiracy theorists want to face the fact that the evidence is not what is different between the convention story and some conspiracy theory, but rather the interpretation of the evidence. Varying interpretation requires that the proponent's knowledge, experience, and reasoning capacity become very much part of the equation. That's what interpretations are made of. And Harris thinks that because he has defined those as ad hominem arguments in his mind, they ought to be beyond examination.

Even in the most charitable situation where we remove Oswald from consideration for the sake of the argument, no consilience arises for any other candidate.

Robert says he wants to debate the evidence, but of late, he's staying as far away from the evidence as possible...

Ultimately the evidence is not Harris' friend because a consilient look at it keeps coming up with the same answer, and it's not the answer Harris wants. Therefore he has to keep drawing attention to the exhibits in his arguments, which in his mind is exclusively "the evidence," in order to distract attention away from the real problems with his arguments: his inability to reason and his unwillingness to separate personal opinion from fact.

 

[turingtest]

It's a reset. He got cornered on polygraphs and rifles, so he has to post the Zapruder clip yet again (only just enough altered that the mods won't ding him for spam) and reboot the Nellie question-begging. And if everyone doesn't follow him through that violent swerve, then they're "evading."



The elephant in the room for all the JFK conspiracy theorists -- and all the others in other genres -- is that with almost no exceptions, we all have access to the same body of evidence. So when someone says, "No, I'm different because I have evidence to back up my claims," the evidence in that statement is the same evidence everyone has access to. The different conclusion arises not because the proponent has different evidence than everyone else, but because he interprets it differently than others.
I'll just incorporate by reference what I wrote a week or so ago about consilience. It's the right way to think about concepts like "where the evidence points." Not one conspiracy theorist understands what real science means by that, and so all conspiracy theories are based on obsession over marginalia and anticonsilient interpretation.

And of course, simply making stuff up. Not making up evidence per se, just the expectations that some evidence is expected to meet. "These people were on the most important case of their career; they wouldn't have made any mistakes or recall it differently." "That person didn't react like he should have, which means the official story is wrong."

Very few conspiracy theorists want to face the fact that the evidence is not what is different between the convention story and some conspiracy theory, but rather the interpretation of the evidence. Varying interpretation requires that the proponent's knowledge, experience, and reasoning capacity become very much part of the equation. That's what interpretations are made of. And Harris thinks that because he has defined those as ad hominem arguments in his mind, they ought to be beyond examination.

Even in the most charitable situation where we remove Oswald from consideration for the sake of the argument, no consilience arises for any other candidate.



Ultimately the evidence is not Harris' friend because a consilient look at it keeps coming up with the same answer, and it's not the answer Harris wants. Therefore he has to keep drawing attention to the exhibits in his arguments, which in his mind is exclusively "the evidence," in order to distract attention away from the real problems with his arguments: his inability to reason and his unwillingness to separate personal opinion from fact.

And Robert's one central evidence for his conclusion of "conspiracy!"- the one thing that his every other assertion eventually revolves around- is that bit of Z-film we've seen ad nauseam, where he can't seem to separate the actions of the folks in the car from his interpretations of them as necessarily "reactions." "Necessarily" is the key here; after twenty years of insisting on this, it's evidently no longer possible for Robert to see that needing what you have to be proof is not the same thing as having what you need as proof.

 

[BazBear]

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

I've learned a lot from the great posts from both of you guys (and of course, others). It just goes to show that the arguments that CT proponents like Robert fling at the wall actually can serve a purpose.

 

[Willy Ekerslike]

I've learned a lot from the great posts from both of you guys (and of course, others). It just goes to show that the arguments that CT proponents like Robert fling at the wall actually can serve a purpose.

Yes, definitely, that's the whole point of this forum, to educate. I dabbled with conspiracy theories when I was 20, 21, (I'm A LOT older than that now!) but I grew out of it. Some never do but this place is excellent for very in-depth detailing of rebuttals.
I have never seen comma usage like Roberts since the 1960s and find it eerily appropriate for the hackneyed old-fashioned methods he uses, carefully pausing indistinct old 8mm and seeing things there.

 

[Axxman300]

...since I am hopelessly inept with firearms.

This has been clear from the beginning when you claim silenced rifles were used, and subsonic munitions struck the POTUS.

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 yet so many others can fire the MC as fast or faster with equal or greater accuracy. The weapon was faster enough to be used my the Italian Alpini Biathlon team. It's amazing what Adrenalin can do.

Also, a quick search of gun-nut sites reveals that the Carcano sounded like a firecracker, so go figure.

The thing all JFK CTists forget is that LHO only had to do it once, and he was 2 for 3, which based on his USMC average was par.

And why would he have been trying to set speed shooting records, firing at a target that was crawling along at 8 MPH?

I'm going to speculate here, but it is plausible that LHO, once he knew he was going to shoot the President, spent time looking out that window looking at traffic below to practice lining up his shots. He would have assumed the limo would be moving faster that it did.

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.

The second shot struck home. The final shot, in my view, was the lucky one.

The Carcano was a decent gun. Oswald had plenty of range time with it, and spent hours dry-firing it and cycling the bolt.

 

[turingtest]

Yes, definitely, that's the whole point of this forum, to educate. I dabbled with conspiracy theories when I was 20, 21, (I'm A LOT older than that now!) but I grew out of it. Some never do but this place is excellent for very in-depth detailing of rebuttals.
I have never seen comma usage like Roberts since the 1960s and find it eerily appropriate for the hackneyed old-fashioned methods he uses, carefully pausing indistinct old 8mm and seeing things there.

I remember, reading a biography about Mary Lincoln, and she was, pretty indiscriminate in her use of, commas in her letters. Those letters were extensively, quoted from; very stop, and go stuff.

 

[Hans]

I remember, reading a biography about Mary Lincoln, and she was, pretty indiscriminate in her use of, commas in her letters. Those letters were extensively, quoted from; very stop, and go stuff.

I read a lot of 19th century material and have learned to write 'in that style' and you can find page long sentences separated by two scores of commas. Some of them really liked commas instead of periods.

My MS Word grammar corrector usually gives up on material from the 1830's.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The elephant in the room for all the JFK conspiracy theorists -- and all the others in other genres -- is that with almost no exceptions, we all have access to the same body of evidence. So when someone says, "No, I'm different because I have evidence to back up my claims," the evidence in that statement is the same evidence everyone has access to. The different conclusion arises not because the proponent has different evidence than everyone else, but because he interprets it differently than others.

So Robert claiming to be unique is, in fact, the very same thing every-other-CTists does. Ironic.

his inability to reason and his unwillingness to separate personal opinion from fact.

That explains why he so often sees discussion about his "evdence" as personal attacks on "Robert Harris".

 

[cmikes]

So Robert claiming to be unique is, in fact, the very same thing every-other-CTists does. Ironic.

Yes, the proverbial "herd of individualists".

 

[HSienzant]

Luis Alvarez (and Charles Wyckoff, described as an expert photo analyst) each say three shots were fired in their judgment in this portion of the CBS special on the assassination from the 1960's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpougi_0JWM

Robert has a different opinion, but he is not qualified to render his judgment here.

Although I'm certain he'll treat us to it anyway, and tell us exactly how he knows Alvarez and Wyckoff are wrong.

Hank

 

[Belz...]

The elephant in the room for all the JFK conspiracy theorists -- and all the others in other genres -- is that with almost no exceptions, we all have access to the same body of evidence. So when someone says, "No, I'm different because I have evidence to back up my claims," the evidence in that statement is the same evidence everyone has access to. The different conclusion arises not because the proponent has different evidence than everyone else, but because he interprets it differently than others.

An excellent point, Jay.

 

[JayUtah]

Although I'm certain he'll treat us to it anyway, and tell us exactly how he knows Alvarez and Wyckoff are wrong.

And if he wants to treat his own cited experts that way, that's his business. The hypocritical part comes when other people disagree with Alverez' anaylsis. As with his treatment of other witnesses, that's when Harris gets all indignant over his critics disagreeing with the findings of a world-class, Nobel Prize winning physicist. How dare they!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Double post deleted.