Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[JayUtah]

No, I suggest that IF some of you find the take interesting, it would be easy to perform a studie in the US due to that country's very 'liberal' gun laws.

Yes, shifting the burden of proof. Your original claim regarding how to test your begged question made no reference to any nation or its "very 'liberal' gun laws." Nor did your first object to being laden with the burden of proof, which was that you lacked time and resources. Only when you were pressed to satisfy your burden of proof did you launch into a fairytale representation of what you believed U.S. firearms laws to allow, and to suggest on that (irrelevant) basis that it was your critics' duty to test your claims.

Where did I change my story? Be precise.

Where you went from saying it would be easy to "double blind" to a new claim that you did not have time to do so, and lacked the resources.

My claim is that this haven't been looked in to. Are you disputing that?

Your claim is that it would be easy to look into. Now your claim is that you cannot look into it because it is too difficult for you to do so.

Nationalistic? Are you for real?

Very much so. You claimed Sweden is a "civilized" nation and tied that characterization to your perception of how firearms are regulated differently among countries. That argument can only have been intended as a veiled insult. Refrain from it in the future.

Now either satisfy your burden of proof or withdraw the claim.

 

[JayUtah]

There's also common knowledge that, lets say, burning petroleum generates some kind of odor, more or less significant in strength/amount. If you dispute that, you're the one who has to provide evidence to the contrary.

Apples and oranges. You are still simply begging the question that gunpowder should have been smelled for a long time in the depository. You have provided no evidence for this, and you decline to conduct the test you say would prove it.

Your claim is rejected on those grounds.

 

[Tomtomkent]

1. As there is, to my knowledge, no odorless exploded gunpowder I'd welcome referenced facts that contradicts that knowledge, paired with referenced facts that the alleged bullets belong to this category.

2. If the alleged bullets doesn't indeed belong to this hypothetical category, one has to conclude that the same bullets releases odor when exploded.

I'm sorry, but why exactly are you discussing if the bullets had an odour or not before you have shown the odour is at all relevant?

3. The only way to conclude "with a moral certainty" that the odor wasn't strong enough to detect by a normal human olfactory system, is to perform a relevant experiment.

This is somewhat different from proving if it would be expected to appear in the official record at any point.

4. The importance of investigating this stems from the fact that no testimony of smell of gunpowder from the alleged crime scene minutes after the alleged shooting has been reported.

Again. Show us why there should be. Show us that this is a common factor expected to be described in other cases suspiciously missing here. Your word it should be here is not enough. It is an assumption.

5. If this proposed investigation concludes with high significance that there should have been a highly significant odor from or around the alleged snipers nest one have to ask why this finding wasn't reported.

So what? You are proposing the investigation. It is your burden of proof.

No, you are wrong.

No.
You make the statement, you support it with evidence or I will not be convinced.
You do NOT tell me I am wrong to be unconvinced by your evidence.
You do NOT tell me I should go looking for your evidence.
You DO support your own claim or the burden of proof is the wrong way around.

1. There's common knowledge that exploding gunpowder generates some kind of odor, more or less significant in strength/amount. If you dispute that, you're the one who has to provide evidence to the contrary.

I think what you meant to say was:

There's common knowledge that exploding gunpowder generates some kind of odour. By deeming this odour will be significant, identifiable and unavoidable for a considerable time I (Maneifesto) am the one who must supply evidence of this.

2. Is the odor significant enough to detect in this particular case? I say it probably is. You say it's probably not.

So yours is the affirmative claim that needs to substantiated.

3. The only way to be certain is to conduct a proper investigation.

Your burden of proof, your investigation. Until you do so, the null remains that there may or may not have been an odour, as there is no information one way or the other.

4. I propose such an investigation, but can not do it my self.

So you have stated others should do it....

5 You accuse me for reversal of burden of proof. Fail.

If you were not trying to reverse the burden of proof, you would not have written this post.

1. I can't convince anybody that there should be a smell without a proper investigation.

We know. And you still miss a major point: If there should have been a smell is different from if the smell should have been considered important in the investigation. You can do that right now, at your computer, by researching cases investigated by the same agencies and showing that in the majority a smell of gunpowder is listed as significant to evidence by a majority of witnesses and investigators.

2. I'm trying to convince you that a proper investigation should be performed.

Then perform it! By all means.

3. You accuse me of reversal of the burden of proof.

Yeah. Funny that. When somebody keeps trying to make a point then telling others to shoulder the burden of evidence, they are by definition reversing the burden. Nobody is obliged to accept.

No, the only argument against is ... "it doesn't smell that much ...". Says who?

"Only" is not accurate. "Only argument Manifesto wants to acknowledge" is more accurate...
The null. Nobody else here, including those with experience shooting, have been overpowered by the smell, in confined ranges. All you have is your own experience. Clearly you need to support your claim to overcome a null.

But again, this is a small issue. Proving if there was a smell or not is the smallest and least significant part of your claim. Shoulder your burden, do the ground work and you will find more people willing to consider your discussion to be a valid argument.

 

[abaddon]

1. As there is, to my knowledge, no odorless exploded gunpowder I'd welcome referenced facts that contradicts that knowledge, paired with referenced facts that the alleged bullets belong to this category.

You have people in this very thread who have done so and have stated right out front that you are wrong. You have furthermore stated that you are unwilling/unable to perform such a test, yet dismiss those in this thread who have. What is one to conclude from this behaviour?

2. If the alleged bullets doesn't indeed belong to this hypothetical category, one has to conclude that the same bullets releases odor when exploded.

No. The vast majority of such odour (note spelling) was outside the building.

3. The only way to conclude "with a moral certainty" that the odor wasn't strong enough to detect by a normal human olfactory system, is to perform a relevant experiment.

An experiment you refuse to perform. What does that tell us? The spelling is still "odour" BTW.

4. The importance of investigating this stems from the fact that no testimony of smell of gunpowder from the alleged crime scene minutes after the alleged shooting has been reported.

Should we investigate the influence of unicorns upon the assassination? After all, there was no indication of the presence of unicorns and no witnesses mentioned them. Surely this needs investigation?

5. If this proposed investigation concludes with high significance that there should have been a highly significant odor from or around the alleged snipers nest one have to ask why this finding wasn't reported.

Wait. If the investigation you imagine into things you imagine reaches conclusions you imagine then what?

No, you are wrong.

Look in a mirror.

1. There's common knowledge that exploding gunpowder generates some kind of odor, more or less significant in strength/amount. If you dispute that, you're the one who has to provide evidence to the contrary.

Oh. Backing away now from your earlier claim of first hand knowledge and resorting to the claim that it is "common knowledge". No way. Your claim, your burden of proof.

2. Is the odor significant enough to detect in this particular case? I say it probably is. You say it's probably not.

You have already admitted above that you have no expertise on this matter. Too late to back out now.

3. The only way to be certain is to conduct a proper investigation.

Feel free. But we know you won't. You won't because you know what the results will be. The same as every such private investigation to date. LHO shot JFK. End of.

4. I propose such an investigation, but can not do it my self.

I propose an investigation into the reality of leprechauns. I cannot afford it myself. See how easy that is?

5 You accuse me for reversal of burden of proof. Fail.

Nope. You are exactly reversing the burden of proof.

1. I can't convince anybody that there should be a smell without a proper investigation.

But you won't investigate. You want others to vicariously do it at their expense, not yours and when the inevitable result of no conspiracy at all arrives, you can sit at your keyboard and claim that the conspiracy extends to tests others performed on your behalf.

2. I'm trying to convince you that a proper investigation should be performed.

Another one? Your definition of "proper" is simply one which agrees with your opinion.

3. You accuse me of reversal of the burden of proof.

Yes. See above

No, the only argument against is ... "it doesn't smell that much ...". Says who?

Say those participants in this thread who have discharged weapons. You started by stating you had done so, but you backed off that claim fairly quickly when confronted by those who really had. Why?

There's also common knowledge that, lets say, burning petroleum generates some kind of odor, more or less significant in strength/amount. If you dispute that, you're the one who has to provide evidence to the contrary.

Right?

Please explain the relation between burning petroleum and the JFK assassination?

 

[I Ratant]

No. If there is a possibility that there could be detectable smell of gunpowder on the 6th floor of the TSBD in and around the alleged snipers nest minutes after the shooting, this should be properly investigated.

I'm almost certain that this possibility is at hand based om experience in the military. If someone states that this is impossible, i expect scientific references.

Should I investigate it? No. Proper US authorities should do so, but while waiting for that to happen, I'd welcome someone with the means and curiosity to do a semi formal study for the benefit of this forum if nothing else. Who knows, this in turn could inspire proper authorities to look in to it.

.
Fixating on the one thing that will invalidate ALL the other evidence. Typical of a Conspiracy Twinkie. ALL the other evidence does not hang on the possible lack of the odor of gunsmoke at the location from which the shots were fired, by the rifle found there, with the empty shell casings fired by that rifle. And these tangible pieces of evidence were linked to LHO, to the exclusion of all others.
And you're gonna go with the sniff test.

 

[abaddon]

.
Fixating on the one thing that will invalidate ALL the other evidence. Typical of a Conspiracy Twinkie. ALL the other evidence does not hang on the possible lack of the odor of gunsmoke at the location from which the shots were fired, by the rifle found there, with the empty shell casings fired by that rifle. And these tangible pieces of evidence were linked to LHO, to the exclusion of all others.
And you're gonna go with the sniff test.

Yep. Sniff trumps all other evidence.

It is the same as the moronic claim that 3 shots is impossible in 8 seconds.

6 mannlicher carcano shots in 5.1 seconds

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yep. Sniff trumps all other evidence.

It is the same as the moronic claim that 3 shots is impossible in 8 seconds.

6 mannlicher carcano shots in 5.1 seconds

Or that the rifle was inaccurate.
Or that the FBI failed to recreate the shots with sharpshooters.
Or any other myth.

It is an illusion that is understood. Hear something wrong, but from enough sources and your perception will alter.

 

[abaddon]

Or that the rifle was inaccurate.

Have not heard that claim before. Which wingnut came up with that?

 

[beachnut]

Sweden is a civilised country with severe restrictions regarding guns and ammunition. To perform a test like this would be very expensive, time consuming and controversial, even if permission was granted. I suggest you do it on a coffee break in the US, shouldn't cost you more than the ammo and a round of beer

Lucky JFK was not a rape case.

Why such a trivial point which means nothing? With only Oswald shooting JFK, all us uncivilized Americans know the person next to us failed to shoot.
Guess you have no clue what a weapon sounds like, or smells like, with all that civilised stuff going on. Who shot JFK in your plot of smell? Wait til fetzer gets here, if he can find the thread.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Have not heard that claim before. Which wingnut came up with that?

I have no idea which idiot came up with it, but I have had several CTers declare it to me, with the same confidence that the photos of Oswald were faked, etc.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Have not heard that claim before. Which wingnut came up with that?

I haven't heard it phrased quite like that. The common formulation is that the rifle is cheaply made and unreliable, and could not have produced the observed results. The fact that this particular model was used for years as the Italian army rifle, and that it continued to be used as a competitive marksman rifle in some circles, easily puts the lie to both of these phrasings of the claim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There's also common knowledge that, lets say, burning petroleum generates some kind of odor, more or less significant in strength/amount. If you dispute that, you're the one who has to provide evidence to the contrary.

Right?

Now show the correlation between burning petroleum products and burning modern smokeless gunpowder.

Then explain why it's important when you've said that all testimony about smells should be suspect.

You still lose. Can you see any way to salvage your arguments?

 

[I Ratant]

...

6 mannlicher carcano shots in 5.1 seconds

.
Good link. There's several verifications of shooting the Carcano in the required time.
Dr. Lattimer's is the worst, though. There would be no need to dismount the rifle to operate the bolt.
Speaking of which, I noted in some of the comments on the videos the usual nonsense about the clip.
There are photographs of the clip protruding from the rifle as it was being carried out of TSBD. Page 550 in Trask's "Pictures of the Pain" (another must-have book for the enthusiast).
And some photos from mine and Howard Donahue's Carcanos, showing why the scope is mounted to the left.
I was able to obtain the same type of scope from the same manufacturer when I was putting my Carcano together, and it too, just as the scope on Oswald's rifle, fell apart internally after a few shots as the FBI noticed when they fired the rifle. The scope was intended for a low recoil .22 rifle, not something like the Carcano.

 

[abaddon]

I haven't heard it phrased quite like that. The common formulation is that the rifle is cheaply made and unreliable, and could not have produced the observed results. The fact that this particular model was used for years as the Italian army rifle, and that it continued to be used as a competitive marksman rifle in some circles, easily puts the lie to both of these phrasings of the claim.

I know it was the IT army rifle up to NATO standardisation. I know it was introduced in 1891 and remained in service up to 1981, some 90 years.

If there were a fundamental flaw in the design, one would think someone might have noticed over that span of years in service.

 

[manifesto]

Yes, shifting the burden of proof. Your original claim regarding how to test your begged question made no reference to any nation or its "very 'liberal' gun laws."Nor did your first object to being laden with the burden of proof, which was that you lacked time and resources.

1. I stated that it would be "easy to test". 'Easy' is a word with relative meaning, therefore I tried to clarify why, where and how it could be so.

2. I stated that it, from my own lengthy experience, should be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the alleged shooting.

3. Since I can not refer to my own experience as proof, I suggested that the responsible investigators did a comprehensive studie to sort it out.

4. Nowhere did I shift the burden of proof.

Only when you were pressed to satisfy your burden of proof did you launch into a fairytale representation of what you believed U.S. firearms laws to allow, and to suggest on that (irrelevant) basis that it was your critics' duty to test your claims.

1. I have no burden of proof since I haven't stated something as being proved.

2. To state, from a swedish perspective, that US firearms laws is very 'liberal' is not a fairytale, it's pretty much to the point.

3. No, I did not suggest that it was my critic's duty to test my claims. I suggested that for those interested and with the means to do so, it would be (relatively) easy to do so.

Where you went from saying it would be easy to "double blind" to a new claim that you did not have time to do so, and lacked the resources.

It would be easy, yes, especially for an investigating agency. It's not quantum mechanics.

Your claim is that it would be easy to look into. Now your claim is that you cannot look into it because it is too difficult for you to do so.

As noted above, I didn't state it would be easy for me to look in to.

Very much so. You claimed Sweden is a "civilized" nation and tied that characterization to your perception of how firearms are regulated differently among countries. That argument can only have been intended as a veiled insult. Refrain from it in the future.

1. Yes I am of the opinion that US firearms laws is uncivilised and that US is an utterly uncivilised country. So do most of my family and friends living there.

2. To make comparison between countries is not to be "nationalistic". Nationalism is an ideology for which I have no sympathy.

3. I didn't say that you are uncivilised, I said (veiled or not) that US is uncivilised. If you are insulted, I'm sorry.

4. I will not refrain from giving my opinion even if it's barely remotely relevant for my argument, sorry.

Now either satisfy your burden of proof or withdraw the claim.

What claim?

 

[RoboTimbo]

3. No, I did not suggest that it was my critic's duty to test my claims. I suggested that for those interested and with the means to do so, it would be (relatively) easy to do so.

Already done. You've heard from at least a few firearms users who say you don't know what you're talking about.

Burden of proof is still yours. Do with it what you will. Otherwise, the matter is settled.

You're welcome.

 

[JayUtah]

Nowhere did I shift the burden of proof.

Yeah, you did.

I have no burden of proof since I haven't stated something as being proved.

That's not what "burden of proof" means. You have made a claim that is unproven -- i.e., that the smell of gunpowder should have lingered in the air for a long enough time in the depository for it to have been a legitimate interest to the investigation. If you want it accepted that gunpowder behaves that way, as a premise to your argument regarding the investigation, then you bear the burden to prove gunpowder behaves that way.

No, I did not suggest that it was my critic's duty to test my claims.

When a claim is made, a burden of proof is created. You said you had no intention of testing it since you lacked the time and resources. You quite clearly suggested that the uncivilized Americans with their many guns should be the ones to test it.

You're dragging out a very simple obligation. You claimed gunpowder behaves a certain way. You refuse to prove it. Your argument fails then and there.

Yes I am of the opinion that US firearms laws is uncivilised and that US is an utterly uncivilised country. So do most of my family and friends living there.

<snip>

I didn't say that you are uncivilised, I said (veiled or not) that US is uncivilised.

Splitting hairs.

I will not refrain from giving my opinion even if it's barely remotely relevant for my argument, sorry.

Then you forfeit any claim to civility. Unapologetically giving one's irrelevant, boastful opinion at the expense of one's critics is blatantly, smugly uncivil.

 

[JohnG]

2. I stated that it, from my own lengthy experience, should be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the alleged shooting.

Did any portion of your lengthy experience with firearms involve you firing your weapon out an open window whilst inside a room roughly the size of the warehouse on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository? And if so can you please be more specific as to how many minutes you believe the smell should have been noticeable enough for someone to comment on?

 

[manifesto]

Apples and oranges. You are still simply begging the question that gunpowder should have been smelled for a long time in the depository. You have provided no evidence for this, and you decline to conduct the test you say would prove it.

Your claim is rejected on those grounds.

1. I propose that the smell of gunpowder should be present in the alleged snipers nest minutes after the shooting.

2. I propose that the proper authorities perform a proper studie to rule that out.

3. I propose that those of you who denies the possibility of "1" find it out for your self while waiting for "2" to happen (if you have the curiosity and the means).

4. It's common knowledge that exploding bullets generates a smell of gunpowder, as it is common knowledge that burning petroleum generates a smell of burning petroleum. Therefore it is in both cases the denier of this same common knowledge who has the burden of proof.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So still ignoring that there is no evidence that the smell of gunsmoke was not present, what do we learn if it is proven the room would have smelt?

There is no evidence yet of the smell being deemed of note by investigators.

There is no evidence to suggest if there was a smell or not, so what use is the claim?

None.