Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[catsmate]

The 6.5mm caliber rifle is said to be very popular in the Nordic countries, taking bear and moose.
Should be readily available to an earnest researcher.

Nitpick, that's the 6.5x55mm Mauser round not the Italian 6.5x52mm Carcano one. Though the two are reasonably comparable the Mauser round is somewhat more powerful with a greater powder charge.

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.

Irrelevant. You have failed to show that powder residue would leave an odour.

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.

What is this supposed to mean?

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.

Go for it. Until you perform such a test, or cause it to be performed, your baseless speculation can be dismissed.

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.

As I pointed out this is simply irrelevant; you have no reason to assume any such residue would remain and you refuse to actually obtain any data.
I assume such refusal is because you believe it would invalidate your speculation.

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.

Pointless and repetitive speculation.

No, you are wrong.

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.

No. You are the one making specific claims about a specific scenario. You refuse to support this with evidence and so your speculations are without value.

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, as you've admitted, no actual basis for your opinion and hence it can be dismissed as worthless.

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

Go for it.

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

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

You're still attempting to shift responsibility.
You made the claim, you get to support it.

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

Probably because people here have more experience with firearms than you.

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

Why? The assassination of Kennedy has been investigated. Oswald shot him.

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

Again...............

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

People who've actually fired rifles.

 

[manifesto]

.
Fixating on the one thing that will invalidate ALL the other evidence.

What? I'm not fixating on this nor do I think this being proved should invalidate ALL the other evidence. Maybe you have a vivid imagination, but I doubt this is the proper forum.

Typical of a Conspiracy Twinkie.

Where do I talk of a conspiracy? Be precise, don't be shy.

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.

As you know, this is all highly contested. Until final proof can be presented, one have to resort to circumstantial evidence for or against a tentative conclusion. Personally, I'm not there yet.

Are you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Then you should provide evidence for your assertion.

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

Go ahead.

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).

Attempt to reverse the burden of proof. You lose.

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.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know what a "firearm" is or have you ever seen one?

 

[turingtest]

What? I'm not fixating on this nor do I think this being proved should invalidate ALL the other evidence. Maybe you have a vivid imagination, but I doubt this is the proper forum.


Where do I talk of a conspiracy? Be precise, don't be shy.



As you know, this is all highly contested. Until final proof can be presented, one have to resort to circumstantial evidence for or against a tentative conclusion. Personally, I'm not there yet.

Are you?

What, to you, would constitute final (and, presumably, incontestable) proof?

 

[manifesto]

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?

I did got the impression that some of my so called critics where of the opinion that the gunpowder in question didn't necessary generate odour when exploding. I hope we can leave this behind, before continue the discussion of the actual significance of the same odour?

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

One step at a time. If proven beyond silly that the odour should be significant minutes after the alleged shooting, the next logical step would be to sort out why this wasn't reported. Nowhere.

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.

I'm arguing from my own and others personal experience, and propose this should be properly investigated.

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

I have no proof. That is why I propose a proper investigation, sorting things out.

No. You make the statement, you support it with evidence or I will not be convinced.

To be clear. You want me to present the evidence I propose a proper investigation should look after?

You do NOT tell me I am wrong to be unconvinced by your evidence.

I have no evidence. I have reason.

You do NOT tell me I should go looking for your evidence.

Where do I tell you that?

You DO support your own claim or the burden of proof is the wrong way around.

See above.

I think what you meant to say was:

----

So yours is the affirmative claim that needs to substantiated.

----

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.

----

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

----

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

No. I believe it's the Dallas PD's responsibility to investigate this very real possibility.

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.

This is a good idea.

"Only" is not accurate. "Only argument Manifesto wants to acknowledge" is more accurate...

Is there another argument? Where?

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.

Not overpowered. Clearly detectable. Big difference. I'm a bit sceptical, if you don't mind.

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.

I'll have a look att other cases, yes. Good idea, thank you.

 

[manifesto]

What, to you, would constitute final (and, presumably, incontestable) proof?

Proof of what?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A few questions:
How many minutes after the shooting did people enter the 6th floor?
How big is the room?
How far from the window to the entrance of the room?
How full of boxes was the room?

 

[JayUtah]

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

This proposition is unproven, and your entire cases rests upon it. Your unwillingness to prove this important premise to your argument dooms this argument.

4. It's common knowledge that exploding bullets generates a smell of gunpowder...

No, you're begging the question.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. I believe it's the Dallas PD's responsibility to investigate this very real possibility.

Possibility of what?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm arguing from my own and others personal experience...

Everyone else's personal experience, including my own, differs from yours. You're offering an opinion and trying to pass it off as proof by begging the question.

...and propose this should be properly investigated.

So investigate it properly. Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[JayUtah]

No. I believe it's the Dallas PD's responsibility to investigate this very real possibility.

It isn't. There is no active law enforcement case in the murder of Kennedy. And in fact you are the one accusing law enforcement of a shoddy or improper investigation. A substantiation of your charges against them requires you to prove the inadequacy of the investigation by demonstrating the effect you claim they should have studied -- namely the persistence of gunpowder smell in a room for some 30 minutes. Asking them to prove the case against themselves is silly.

Let's be blunt.

You are accusing the investigators of the Kennedy assassination of doing an improper job because they failed to do a test that you, in your infinite wisdom and experience, say would have been critically probative. You and you alone bear the burden to prove the premises that attend your accusation. If the condition you speculation about is indeed probative, it's your responsibility to show it to be.

No one else.

 

[Mudcat]

4. It's common knowledge that exploding bullets generates a smell of gunpowder.

It's more common knowledge that bullets do not typically explode.

Proof of what?

That Oswald acted alone in assassinating the president with a rifle.

 

[turingtest]

Proof of what?

You tell me. You're the one who referenced it as some condition that, by its absence, leaves us only a mere "resort to circumstantial evidence" from which to draw conclusions:

As you know, this is all highly contested. Until final proof can be presented, one have to resort to circumstantial evidence for or against a tentative conclusion.

You seem to be saying that simply contesting the circumstantial evidence (piecemeal, rather than, as would be proper, as a consilient whole) that I Ratant referred to is somehow enough to make it less valid than some "final proof" that needs to be presented before any firm conclusions can be drawn. Do you understand what "circumstantial evidence" actually means? Or "consilience"?

 

[carlitos]

I have no evidence. I have reason.

Stundied. Nicely done.

 

[I Ratant]

...
What is this supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by manifesto
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.

What is this supposed to mean?

.
It means a CTwinkie with NO experience with firearms is waxing eloquent on a subject he is clueless about.
"bullets releases odor when exploded"... it is to laugh!

 

[JayUtah]

...NO experience with firearms is waxing eloquent on a subject he is clueless about.

Agreed.

Since the poster is apparently Swedish and therefore likely writing in English as a second language, I'm inclined to chalk this up to a language barrier. In English, "bullet" is the projectile, not including the casing or charge. If you want to talk about what parts are "exploding," a more correct term would be "cartridge."

However that doesn't erase the sharply contrasted dichotomy in his claims. When he wishes us to accept his premise without an argument, he represents himself as having extensive experience with firearms. Yet when we naturally expect him to be able to test his theory, he says he has no access to firearms due to his country's excessively civilized gun laws.

I guess you probably interpret this the same way I do: that the "extensive experience" earlier claim was a bluff. As I said earlier, growing up in the "lawless" state of Kansas, I went frequently to the ROTC rifle range, which was in the fully enclosed basement of the ROTC building on the college campus. If there was any lingering smell of gunpowder, it was dwarfed by the lingering smell of mildew. I've owned and fired dozens of firearms in my lifetime, of all types. I don't presently own any, have no need to own any, and live in a place (even the "lawless" American West) where discharging firearms within the city limits is forbidden. But I don't recall the smell of gunpowder as especially strong, especially pervasive, or especially persistent.

 

[JayUtah]

As you know, this is all highly contested. Until final proof can be presented, one have to resort to circumstantial evidence for or against a tentative conclusion.

This first begs the question that the prevailing theory is "highly contested" because of some fault in the evidence -- i.e., that the evidence is naturally or suspiciously inconclusive. It fails to consider the possibility that the contention arises from the motivation of the proponents to profit or gain attention from the contention. Not all contention is per se valid. Even barring a pecuniary motive, there is simply just paranoia and contrarianism.

Turingtest has already raised the issue of circumstantial evidence, which -- contrary to TV cop shows -- is not a euphemism for flimsy evidence. And he has already raised the issue of consilience, which is the salient factor in any real-world investigation. I need not treat the former and I need only elaborate slightly on the latter.

The strongest body of evidence by far points to Oswald as the lone assassin. No body of evidence for any other suspect even remotely achieves the same level of credibility and coherence. For all their decades of sleuthing, JFK conspiracy theorists have come no closer to solving the crime by naming another suspect and showing a consilience of evidence more in favor of him than of Oswald.

This, I suspect, is why some JFK conspiracists have explicitly denied any such burden of proof. They don't have to find a more apt culprit, they say. They only have to show that a case against Oswald contains reasonable doubt. From that they infer that some other person or people were somehow involved, even if they can't say how or show evidence of how.

So quite a lot of JFK conspiracy argumentation takes the form of an imaginary criminal defense of Oswald, showing that the case against him was botched for some reason or another, that other important leads weren't considered, etc. Having "exonerated" Oswald by allegedly eroding the case against him to below some arbitrary standard of proof (which is always merely supposed and never actually adjudicated), they erroneously think they have proven the existence of a conspiracy.

ETA: The illusion of having a bulky body of evidence against Oswald is created by aggregating all the supposedly exculpatory evidence into a single lump, regardless of whether that evidence points to any single alternate conclusion, or indeed is even reasonably free of contradiction. This is why we end up with different hypotheses for where the fatal shot actually came from, and where the shooter(s) were -- in the car, in front of the car, on the grassy knoll, in the sewers, etc. If the conspiracists want us to accept the body of exculpatory evidence as a whole, probative if only in its sheer volume, then we must demand it be reasonably coherent. In fact it is far from it.

 

[Mudcat]

In English, "bullet" is the projectile, not including the casing or charge. If you want to talk about what parts are "exploding," a more correct term would be "cartridge."

I admittedly know nothing about firearms, but aren't the projectile portion of bullets 'slugs'?

 

[thedopefishlives]

I admittedly know nothing about firearms, but aren't the projectile portion of bullets 'slugs'?

No, Jay is correct (as usual). The word "bullet" is commonly used to refer to the projectile in a rifle or pistol cartridge. "Slug" is more generic and could apply to any particle propelled from a firearm; in the vernacular of firearms terminology, you most often hear it in connection with a single solid projectile fired from a shotgun shell (as opposed to multiple pieces of "shot" contained in shot shells that produce the spread pattern typical of a shotgun).

 

[Mudcat]

Thank you for the correction, dope fish. Just goes to show how little I know about firearms, beyond the general physics involved... Which is probably more than what manifesto knows about them.